Talk:List of astronomy journals

RfC on journal list names

There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the List of astronomy journals article are sourced (unless they already have an article that is sourced) so that the claims are verifiable. As a courtesy to editors who may have added redlinked unsourced claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, many of the existing redlinked claims have been tagged ^{{{citation needed}}} to allow some time for sources to be added. N2e (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In the comments, there has been some discussion as to whether unsourced redlinked journals need a source to stay in Wikipedia. I have reverted another editor's removal of requests for citations. So let's discuss it here.

Actually, Wikipedia policy does call for any substantive claims in all articles—including "List of..." articles—to be verifiably sourced per WP:V, this is a core wiki-policy. So please do not remove the ^{{{citation needed}}} tag unless you have added a source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A week after the previous deletion, an editor has removed the requests for citations once again. I have reverted, per Wikipedia verifiability policy. Per WP:BRD, let's discuss it here. N2e (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at WT:JOURNALS were consensus established that these tags were both unnecessary and unwanted. Now stop edit warring against consensus. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}

Thanks for joining the discussion Headbomb! I'll just make two comments here:

1. I have looked at the WT:JOURNALS page, and I do not discern a consensus for the position you advocate.
2. Even if the WT:JOURNALS group were to come to a different view that some number, or an unlimited number of unsourced claims could exist on that page, that would not override WP:V, a core policy of Wikipedia.

Thus, I believe the unsourced claims should be sourced, or the {{citation needed}} tags should be left on the assertions to invite other editors to add citations. N2e (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

List are not repositories of external links. By your logic, we should source that Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society or Acta Astronomica 1) exist, 2) are astronomy journals, and 3) are notable. After all, it's theoretically possibly that Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society or Acta Astronomica are joke publications, only named to like like they are astronomy journals, or that they refer to books, or movies. WP:COMMONSENSE is also a core policy.

All the journals listed here, or in any of these lists exist, you can check for yourself in your favourite journal database, in WorldCat, or by simple Google searches. If the journal doesn't exist, remove it. Otherwise it is implicit that in order to verify that Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society or Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica exist and are astronomy journals, all one needs to do is pick up a copy of either, or search google for them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Should the main journals be highlighted in an intro?

One peculiarity of astronomy is that a small handful of journals contain a very large fraction of the research. Unlike other fields, these top journals have relatively high article acceptance rates. A non-exhaustive list is the AAS Journals, MNRAS, and A&A. If a source can be found establishing notability, would adding this information be inline with Wikipedia standards for lists? OtterAM (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Additions

I propose a page on the Journal of High Energy Astrophysics be added. I am adding references here to aid anyone creating the page:

Elsevier single-blind peer-reviewed journal

website: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-high-energy-astrophysics

Self-claimed impact factor 2.282. Not sure how to verify or source this.

--198.128.211.179 (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)