Talk:History of Education Quarterly

In JCR for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000

@Headbomb: JCR shows that the journal is in JCR for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I don't see why this journal needs its own page when there is next to nothing written about it. It is known in conjunction with the Society that publishes it and is adequately described on that page (with sources I, myself, added). This journal article is bound to be an unhelpful permastub as is. This is to say that whether or not it squeaks by WP:NJOURNALS there is no benefit in not merging the two. czar 16:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You could say this of all stubs. Stubs exists so they can be expanded. This one, for instance, could be expanded by adding the list of editors in chief it had since 1949. Maybe it's worth mentioning that the journal was covered in JCR till 2000, but no longer is. Plenty of venues exist for expansion, and even if it couldn't be expanded much more than it currently is, the encyclopedia is better off with a dedicated entry on this journal than a two line passage in History of Education Society.

As for WP:NJOURNALS, it's not squeaking by, it passes it with flying colors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of venues exist for expansion—all from primary sources. It's essentially writing a history of the journal because no one else has done so. The two line passage represents what secondary sources have said about the journal. If anything, we could use help getting more of those sources, rather than spinning this out to be a magnet for self-promotional garbage collection. czar 17:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

All of the current content is encyclopedic, and verifiable through reliable sources. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

... I know. Apart from the stats in the infobox, I wrote it. What I'm asking is why this can't be covered in the Society article. I reviewed the available sources and the two are cut from the same cloth. The only real secondary source on either, the encyclopedia entry, is about the Society and not the Journal. Why would you be opposed to merging? czar 17:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You can see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals for examples of other academic journals. Note, in particular, that "Many academic journals (collectively referred to as "journals" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without being the subject of secondary sources." per Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). According to the criteria in that page, this journal solidly meets the criteria: "For the purpose of Criterion 1, having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1." (yes, it's a low, low impact factor and in old JCR, but once notable always notable). Further "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases in its field(s)." I apologize if it offended you for me to move information from the society article into this one; that wasn't strictly speaking necessary for this article, as the basic bibliographic information is enough (in my eyes and in the judgement of the Academic journals wikiproject) is to justify the existence of the article.

It may be immaterial to you, but the reason I replaced the redirect with an article in the first place is that I was writing The Emergence of the American University, which references a special issue of the History of Education Quarterly; linking that to the society page seemed to me quite confusing and in the end. I can understand that those who don't write/read WP articles about journals might find this perplexing at first, but I'd suggest you take further discussion to one of the Talk areas associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the academic journal notability guidelines, but everything on Wikipedia is subordinate to common sense. Many journal titles redirect to their parent organizations. I see no secondary source justification to keep this content separate from (say, a section in) the Society article, apart from bludgeoning that the journal meets the barest minimum of NJOURNALS. In order to write a good article, though, we need actual sources, and everything that covers this journal will be in conjunction with the Society. I don't think anything above has convincingly argued otherwise. On your other note, I actually put together a bibliography for Veysey's book—I'll merge the contents in czar 06:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Abstracting & indexing

Ulrich's seems to list numerous other abstracting & indexing venues (at least judging by the print ISSN listing I looked at the other day). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)