Talk:Humor (journal)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article life

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page is my next step in making order with humor research, started as explained in Talk:humor research#Article history. Laudak (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Untitled

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Seconds after creation the page was {{prod}}ded under ridiculous pretext "probably not notable". The prodder did not bother to explain their logic (oir, rather, whim). But I will not pay with the same courtesy and instead explain why it is notable:

It is published by a serious academic publisher.
It publishes articles by serious academic researchers.
The journal had undergone an independent review (cited in the article).
The journal was multi-redlinked in wikipedia.

While I appreciate the noble goal to keep garbage out of wikipedia, I would strongly recommend the prodders to actually make some minimal investigation. Laudak (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could do with another reference or two separate from the journal itself, though it's pretty hard to find sources for important academic people, journals etc. Richard001 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

From the above reasons, only the review helps to establish notability. Much more important is the impact factor, leaving no doubt about notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Humor (journal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic