Talk:Sage Publishing

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Academic 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.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Profit/non-profit?

[Question] Is SAGE a for- or non-profit company?? Thanks! [unsigned]

Answer: SAGE is a for-profit company. The four websites the original editor provided cover this clearly.

no sources

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

PS also removing "no sources" tag. Four websites is plenty to cover what is said. Alastair Haines 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Primary sources aren't valid. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Primary sources are valid in certain circumstances, but secondary sources are also needed. Therefore we have a special tag to deal with it. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per discussion and cited guideline. I note also that a quick look at entries found through a Google Books search shows that the sage is often written in lowercase in reliable sources, when cited to, and in News stories, it is predominantly referred to in lowercase.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sage Publications → SAGE Publications – SAGE is universally referred to as SAGE (which stands for Sarah and George, not wikt:sage). No one ever calls it Sage. This should also affect the category Category:Sage academic journals → Category:SAGE academic journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per MOS:TM and WP:NCCAPS. In my experience as an academic librarian, "No one ever calls it Sage" just isn't true. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per MOS:TM#General_rules. —Eustress ^talk 06:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. There is unanimous consensus that the proposed move better fits the sources and relevant guidelines. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sage Publications → SAGE Publications – It's an acronym (formed of letters from the co-founders' first names, Sarah and George); this is not a "SONY"-type case of overcapitalization by trying to mimic a logo. The actual legal designation of the company is SAGE Publications, Inc. The previous (2013) RM's rationales are faulty by 2016 standards, if they were even valid in 2013, which is iffy.

Both MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS do want acronyms capitalized; putting them in sentence (or camel) case is an exception, and we only do it when independent sources almost uniformly favor that treatment, as in sentence case examples like Anzac and Nabisco, and (especially in modern trademarks) camelcase ones like GlaxoSmithKline; WP (like most other publishers, and virtually all academic publishers) otherwise defaults to all-caps, as in NORAD and GEICO.
The WP:OFFICIALNAME is clearly SAGE, not Sage; see sagepubs.com which is 100% consistent on this from what I can tell, browsing around. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, we can take their word for it what their name is, since it isn't controversial, and it agrees with present standard English usage.
I proved that about treatment of proper-name acronyms generally, in a quite comprehensive sourcing run yesterday at Talk:Acronym#All-caps versus sentence-case styles.
As for WP:COMMONNAME, it is indeterminate. Different searches produce different results for their product lines; using Google Scholar (regular Google produces too many false positive), a search on "sage journals" produces plenty of "SAGE" [1], while one on their book publishing colophon, "sage publishing" produces a lot of "Sage" [2]. But COMMONNAME doesn't apply to style anyway, only to what the name is (SAGE, however styled, vs. "ZAGE" or "SABE" or "Chickenbutt").
Even if one tried to incorrectly apply a WP:CRITERIA analysis to style (note that WP:AT policy and the various WP:NC* naming convention guidelines defer to WP:MOS and its subpages on style matters in at least a dozen places), we'd still end up at "SAGE": It is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE (matches all their actual publications), and more WP:PRECISE (distinguishes them from other publishers named "Sage" (especially Sage Group and Sage SA). [cont'd. in addl. post, with WP:NATURAL, WP:CONSISTENT, WP:DIFFCAPS, etc.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rationale cont'd.:

The name is more WP:NATURAL because the natural tendency in English is to all-cap the acronyms of proper nouns (some British journalism notwithstanding; WP:NOT#NEWS and is not written in news style), with only limited conventional exceptions, most of them trademarks). We even upper-case common noun acronyms (PET scan, etc.), unless and until they become assimilated into English as everyday words (laser, radar).
"SAGE" will also be more WP:CONSISTENT, with our treatment of other company-name acronyms; we do not sentence case them except where doing so when the real world does this with nearly complete consistency (Amtrak, Patelco, etc.)
The final criterion is WP:CONCISE, and it is not affected either way by "SAGE" vs. "Sage".
WP:NCCAPS, cited for some reason in the previous RM, is not implicated in any way; it does not address acronyms, initialisms, trademarks, or other abbreviations (and the external style guides it mentioned as worth checking, when in doubt, use all-caps for acronyms, aside from established conventional exceptions; this isn't one).
Next, everything else with the acronym "SAGE" is already disambiguated or at its expanded name , so WP:DIFFCAPS is satisfied.
Forcing the name to be sentence case verges on original research (the "Sage" version is attested, but there is no reliable secondary source for the novel analysis that their name is really "Sage").
It also is an extraneous PoV problem, of "language activism" against the normal capitalization of acronyms, even against the established, legal proper names of organizations.

PS: The California Secretary of State corporation lookup database returns all company names in all-caps, i.e. "SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.", so it of no use here. Whois records give both "SAGE" and "Sage" spellings, so also useless.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Support since I don't find any reliable sources using the sentence-case form. If a few did, I think with it, as we did at Lego Group. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Support as per OP's extensive detailed rationale. fgnievinski (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support. The publisher is very consistent with using "SAGE", including within normal-case paragraphs. +mt 03:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Membership Review

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it's not clear what membership is that section about. After a while I realized that it's about SAGE's OASPA membership, but I think that I should be explicitly stated. Thanks!

147.162.95.205 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Roberto BelottiReply

Requested move 3 September 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

SAGE Publications → SAGE Publishing – From their website, "SAGE Publishing" is the predominant name used in news release titles from 2016. Sometime in 2016 the logo on their website changed from "SAGE" to "SAGE Publishing". Furthermore, the legal/copyright page only uses "SAGE Publishing". The former "SAGE Publications" is only used for a few minor aspects of the web design (HTML titles, footer). Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a news release on this name change or branding preference, so it isn't clear when/how this change occurred. +mt 03:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Keep here. Short of strong evidence than the company renamed itself, rather than just rebranded itself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Support. Seems recent reporting picks up the change - https://www.researchinformation.info/news/sage-publishing-acquires-talis-group, http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-08/20/c_137405172.htm Hyperbolick (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Pion (publisher)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pion (publisher). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Pion (publisher) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Critisism

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I missing the critisism section (academic practicies as in case of Elsevier). For example there The mention about Who's Afraid of Peer Review: "The Sage publication that accepted my bogus paper is the Journal of International Medical Research. Without asking for any changes to the paper’s scientifi c content, the journal sent an acceptance letter and an invoice for $3100." https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.342.6154.60 --Karlaz1 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Should be