Talk:List of theology journals

To whom it may concern

There are about 10,000 peer reviewed journals that need articles at Wiki, some of these are theological journals. Journals are important for encycopedic verification, due to the peer review process involved in publishing articles. Although some journals are obscure, they are still considered notable. Collections of journals exist at tertiary institutions, most journals have web-sites, and they are significant to the encyclopedic process. For more information see Wikipedia:List of missing journals. Alastair Haines 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags

• I have tagged this list for cleanup and "unencyclopedic". The reason for this is that the list given is claimed to be restricted to be "Some of the better known journals", but seems to be a collection of whatever struck the fancy of any passing editor. "Better known" should be defined a bit clearer and the list should then be restricted to those journals that belong to that category. As it stands, it is way too long, there is no need here to be exhaustive. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The selection criteria need to be worked out, and that's a cleanup issue.

Regarding length, I also agree.

It would be nice to restrict the list to "the top 100 theological journals", but I doubt any meaningful way of establishing or maintaining that could be found.

Alternatively, perhaps something like the Australian Research Council system of evaluation would allow responsible restriction to a smaller list.

My concern would be that we don't be too restrictive, since Christian journals outnumber others by a substantial factor.

There are excellent Jewish and archaeological journals that really need to stay in the list.

Another approach might look for the "top 10" journals in each of several theologically related disciplines: the list article could be a list of small lists, easily navigated from the Contents table.

What would you like to see here in the long run Wim? Nothing at all is a serious option, but recent Wikipedia experience is suggesting to me that it would be helpful for people to be aware that there is a serious research side to theology. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Alastair, actually, I don't think "nothing at all" is an option, a list of journals in this field is helpful and notable, I think. However, an exhaustive list would probably violate WP:NOTADIRECTORY and would indeed be less helpful. The other options you mentioned on my talk page are all possible, but personally, I would prefer one where the list would be subdivided according to disciplines and then for each discipline the top 10 (or for smaller fields, perhaps the top 5) journals would be listed. That way, the diversity of the field which you mentioned above would be preserved. If an y of the remaining journals would be redlink, that would be helpful too in determining which journal articles still need to be created with higher priority. As for which criteria to use to determine the top journals, this is rather far from my own field, so I have no real opinion about that. As long as there are some objective criteria that are understandable to other WP editors, I think that would be fine (so that the list will not be challenged and so that any "spammy" additions can be removed with a good justification). Hope this helps! --Crusio (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wim, I think we're thinking along the same lines, then.

I started the page because I thought we needed something, but I've never really been sure where to go with it.

Categories exist to gather all existing theology and other journals, so this page doesn't need to do that.

A list of required journals might not be so urgent, if they are really required, they will be created anyway!

A quick overview of the sorts of fields considered to lie within, or intersect with theology, and 5 to 10 of the best known journals in those fields seems like a good approach. Perhaps we shouldn't be too strict, until it starts gaining some kind of shape, or until some kind of disagreement crops up. Trying to be strict early on might just provoke disagreement in this case, whereas in others it often helps avoid it.

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the objection seems to be the term "Some of the better known journals" was used. I've edited this to simply state "some journals". I also updated and placed a theological journal I saw was not on the list along with a link to it. So if this was the only objection then this article is now Encyclopedic.Catholicwriter (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Red vs. blue entries

Question: What is the difference between the red entries and the blue entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.34.109 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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} 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)