Talk:List of botany journals

	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.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal List of botany journals is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Journals starting with "The" have had this omitted. Additions without links - I only had details of these names as abbreviations, so am not 100% certain I have the correct orthography - MPF 14:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I think that phytopathology journals should be merged here, as they are botany journals and don't really deserve a page of their own. I would then work to improve this article by splitting into into sections and putting the list into a table that included a link to the journals homepage and the date it was first published. Million_Moments (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Merge completed. Million_Moments (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I now propose that since agronomy is the study of plants for their use as crops these be merged into this article. Million_Moments (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tables

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As can be seen the table for phytopathology articles is now up, though I am still adding the odd journal to it. I want to do this with the other journals, for instance a table for journals on plant genetics. This could lead to some crossover e.g. Crop Protection would end up in both plant pathology journals and agriculture journals. Think this is ok? Million_Moments (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

RfC on journal list names

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

unjustified reversions

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since 21 June a number of edits by User:Ettelt and an IP user 111.68.99.250 have been reverted. These appear to have been made in good faith and contained legitimate information as far as I can see. The reason for reversion appears to have been that the journal names were not covered by WP articles, and the reasons given were either WP:WTAF or spam. I don't regard either reason as justified. The redlisted items in the article are not spam. There is no obligation whatsoever on contributors to write an article on the journal they are contributing to the list. To repeat, the prior existence of an WP:article is not a required criterion for inclusion of a journal name in this list. I would therefore respectfully request the editor concerned to undo your reversions. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article needs cleanup, not addition of more non-notable cruft. If they're not notable, journals should not be in this list either. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

removal of "redlinks"

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I STRONGLY object to the removal of all the redlinks in this article per WP:REDLINK. Either a journal in this list is notable, in which case it should eventually get an article (and thus be redlinked), or a journal is not notable, in which case it has no place in this list and should be removed. --Randykitty (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

oppose. There may be some non-notable items in this list but the presence or absence of an article in WP is not an acceptable criterion for notability. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Read again, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that if a subject is notable, we should link to it, whether it already has an article or not (i.e., if it has not an article yet, it should be redlinked). If a subject is not notable, and therefore would never qualify for an article, it should not be in a list either (unless we want such a list to remain a spam magnet). --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I guess I am less sensitive to the spam issue than you are (in fact I am not sure exactly what you mean by spam in this context) but I agree that notable journals qualify for their own article. The difficulty is to define notable, and indiscriminate red-linking of all article names and publishers does not help with that. I suggest that the first step is to define criteria for inclusion of a journal and then which journals currently in the list definitely have no place here. A (?the) gold standard of notability would be inclusion in the Science Citation Index, but botanists also publish in other journals that are not yet included (or may never be) and this list should be tolerant of that, in my view. Some of these contain articles that are used to source statements in WP articles, so the cut-off point is clearly problematical. Might I suggest we treat this article as a work in progress, discuss its content and format with others involved in WikiProject Plants and enlist their help in peer-reviewing journals for their notability and in filling in any notable gaps. I see your point about the links to the journal pages, but I also see the other side of the coin, that there is value in having that information. Let's seek consensus on these points. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Let's not re-invent the wheel/ Please see WP:NJournals and WP:JWG. As for spam, see predatory open access publishing. We have many academic journal list articles and I have to continuously remove spamlinks to predatory journals. This list is an exception, I never found the courage to spend a couple of hours cleaning this one up. Almost all other list articles only include "blue-linked" journals, making it much easier to keep unwanted spam out. It's not only spam, many new journals pop up almost weekly and many of those disappear without a trace sooner or later (and as their websites often disappear, too, they really disappear to the point that there existence is hardly verifiable any more. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of botany journals. 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) 16:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on List of botany journals. 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) 02:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Today's cleanup

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed all unlinked journals. If an article is notable, it should have an article and then it can be included here. I have also removed the inappropriate external links. Links to a journal's homepage belong in the "external links" section and in the infobox of the article on that journal, not here. Many links were non-functional anyway and quite a few were links to webarchive. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic