Talk:Education in Chemistry
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Fgnievinski in topic Mobile App
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Publication Frequency
edit- Well, if you look at the list of issues more cloesly, you'll see that its publication is not even, not averaged throughout the year. Especially in recent 3 years they kinda have some spring-summer break and get back to publication in like August. You can check again, but this is what I remember. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, never mind; gees I must've been hallucinating... you're right. SzMithrandir (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're concerned about publication frequency, the list of issues is here: http://www.rsc.org/eic/e-magazine 135.196.89.95 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's exactly what I'm referring to; I must've wrongly gazed at it the other day. SzMithrandir (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Mobile App
editWhy is it "trivial" that the magazine is available via a mobile app? I would have thought that was fairly uncommon for a publication produced by a learned society and also of interest to our readers. I've restored the original edit. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- It really is not that unusual at all. The Scientist has an app. Far as I know, Scientific American and many other magazines have apps, too. Even academic journals such as Nature have one (see here). None of their WP articles mention these apps, so I don't think we should do this here, either. Of course, publishers love to mention this kind of thing, to attract more readers. --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Another one from a lesser well-known journal. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I must admit I was unaware that these other journals are available via mobile apps. Perhaps it's because it doesn't get mentioned in their Wikipedia articles <grin/>? Anyway, are you sure that these articles shouldn't have a Format section that explains that they are available in paper format, or pdf, or readable through a web-browser or app as appropriate? It still seems like a relevant piece of information to me - on a par with frequency of publication, for example. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Allmost all academic journals have some online presence and most of those have html and PDF versions online. Many have mobile apps and that will only increase, of course. Frequency of publication varies between journals, from more than once a week to annual or even less, so that is important info. That a journal has a website is not something we write in articles (but of course we give a link), because having a website is so out of the ordinary nowadays that it isn't worth mentioning. Remember that there are many things that are verifiable, but not all of that needs to be included in an encyclopedic article. I have seen people construct tables of the number of pages of each individual issue ever published of some journal or magazine, all perfectly verified and sourced. But encyclopedic? Of course not. The same reasoning goes here. Frequency is an interesting piece of information, so is a journal's URL. Saying that they have a website or a mobile app is not. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you miss the point. I'm aware that almost every entity has a website, but not all publications make their content available online, either freely or through a paywall. The mobile app is newer and almost certainly a less common conduit for content. I would think that having a website is indeed to be expected, yet we deem it important enough to have a parameter in {{Infobox magazine}} and its siblings that presents the address of the website to the reader. Most editors would agree that indexes to a journal's content is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article, but that isn't the same issue. I simply disagree with your opinion that the channels for distribution of a journal or magazine is a fact not worthy of inclusion in our encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see a mobile appas a significant addition to the channels through which a journal/magazine/newspaper is published (and given that no WP articles that I am aware of mention apps as "channels for distribution", I think many editors would agree with me). I repeat that this is info that publishers love to add to the information they provide on their journals. It's promotional, not encyclopedic. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's ok to disagree. I do see mobile apps as a significant extra distribution channel, whether or not other articles mention them, so I believe many editors will agree with me. Perhaps we need an RfC to find out? I can see that publishers would be happy to have any information about their publications mentioned on Wikipedia, but we don't use that as a reason not to give the url of their website (which must drive traffic there to some extent). I have no connection with the Royal Society of Chemistry (other than I ran an event last year to train some of their members in editing Wikipedia) and I'm nobody's shill, being now happily retired, yet I wouldn't hesitate to expand articles like this one with what I feel is relevant and useful info. It's a mistake to read bad faith into edits from new contributors just because they have some association with a topic. I'd much prefer to induct them gently into the ethos of Wikipedia and make use of their expertise. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Randykitty. It is trivial and just clutters up the article. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with RexxS. The deficiencies in our articles The Scientist and Nature (journal), which need to be fixed, do not justify the deliberate creation of a deficiency in this article. Whether or not 22 is immaterial; our readers benefit from having such information made available, and it is a point of fact which should be recorded by us, for posterity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment While it's a trivial fact likely to become irrelevant in the future, I see no harm in briefly mentioning such a fact in the body of the article. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)