Talk:List of mathematics journals

1628:(unindent) I find myself a bit in between Steve and Carl. I have no problem with accepting the Aussies as a reliable source, it's a serious learned society after all. However, I do think tha the ratings don't belong here. I could live with remarks being inserted in the journal articles ("the journal was rated XYZ by the Australian Mathematical Society"), but think that it is too much too insert it here. The reasons are as follows. To start, I don't think the importance of this list should be overrated. I don't mean this denigrating, but Australia is not that big a country (in terms of population, obviously :-) and as far as I know not s mathematical superpower. For the moment, theirs is the only national list that I am aware of, but with the bean counters taking over science more and more, this kind of lists may proliferate and other countries may start their own (hardly anybody is going to say "hey, the Aussies did a good job, we'll just adopt their list", 19th-century national sentiments -if not national governments- will make sure of that). Are we then going to include all these national lists? In other words, what is the overall importance of this list outside of the direct Australian context? Further, this list is excessively long. Because the Australians (very sensibly, in my opinion) didn't make their list too fine-grained, the number of A+ journals is quite large. There is no way to make a sensible selection from among the A+ journals, like it can be done with the IF, which is a numerical value, allowing us to list the top 5 (or 10, anything more is, again, exaggerated, I think). I think I mentioned it before: in the Humanities (and perhaps also the Social Sciences - no time to check that right now) the European Science foundation has made a similar list to the Australian one for math journals. So has the French AERES (for those able to read French, see 808:). As it is, this list is a just a spam magnet: there are no clear inclusion criteria. Normally, I don't think anything is wrong with a redlink: it shows us which articles still need to be created and redirecting them, if eventually they'll have an article, is not a good idea (1/ you don't see anymore which articles need creating and 2/ once an article has been created it is not always that easy to find all those redirects, which now redirect to the wrong target). In the current case, I think the redlinks are a bad idea. I don't think we should include any journal that ever existed (again, that violates NOTADIRECTORY). Determining in a list which journals are notable is very tough. Much simpler then to only list those articles for which we are reasonably certain that they are notable: i.e. those that are bluelinked. The redlinks could be copied to a page in project space (WPJournals or WP Mathematics) so that we know which articles need creation. To come back to all the external links in the article, they are not only a violation of NOTADIRECTORY, but also of 1120:

would then become a lot of work. Each addition by an IP or new (possibly SPA) editor would have to be checked for coverage by MR or ZMATH. I would rather that that energy were spent on creating articles on the missing journals and complete the list gradually. Listing the redlinks on the talk and restricting the list article itself to bluelinks would be a pragmatic solution and accomplish all we need, I feel. (It would also solve the EL problem, because an EL to a journal's homepage should definitely be part of any journal article and so would not be necessary here any more - per WP:EL). Also, maintaining just this one list might not be too much of a problem, but there is quite a number of lists of journals and maintaining them all would be an absolute pain, if not completely impossible. Limiting these lists to bluelinks makes the task very easy and rapid. --

707:

which is devoid of any information pertaining to these topics, does not make sense. It would most likely confuse the general reader. Furthermore, the red-linked articles are used for maintenance within the various WikiProjects and Knowledge itself. Lists are generated which are for the specific purpose of listing topics that need coverage within the WikiProjects and Knowledge. These are under "Topics needed" sections and pages. In addition, creating redirects for a cosmetic color change from red to blue appears to be trivial. Finally, creating such redirects to a page devoid of any relevant information regarding these topics appears to be very much off topic. There may be guidelines and policies regarding this matter. ----

3503:, the EIC of a notable academic journal is notable, so that justifies the wikilinks to editors (even though we have actually not often articles on them; I myself never add wikilinks or editors for this reason, but I am probably wrong doing that). As for the commas, I don't think a comma is needed between ] and ], whereas the one between the words "journal" and "published" is optional. However, rules on commas are a bit complicated in English, so I may be wrong here. Regarding the external links, I used to remove links to the journal's home page from the EL section. However, at some point DGG told me that these had to be there (sorry, I forgot the reason...), so since them I add them if they are not there... -- 1417:

that other societies do rank a certain way, or don't rank a certain way is not relevant to this issue. This kind of stuff might be appropriate for an article on AustMS, but probably not appropriate in this article. As far as I can tell it amounts to synthesis. Sources are needed which are explicitly in agreement with some sort of ultimate authority atatus. And I use "ultimate authority" as an example - hopefully you see what I am saying. In any case, this is something that you unilaterly decided to add to the article, based on your opinion. Reliabls sources are needed to back up your assertions. It is not up to me to back up your assertions. ----

2331:, which is a failed proposal for a guideline (and therefore just an "essay"), you'll see that about half of the discussants thought it was too selective and did not let enough journals through, whereas the other half thought it was too lenient and let too many non-notable journals through. Having said this, in the past few AfDs for journals, all (I think) that satisfied NJournals were kept and a few were also kept despite not reaching that bar. I think that any editor taking a math journal indexed in ZMATH and MR to AfD would have a hard time getting it deleted. -- 2933:. If you get too irritable after being reverted, then BRD is not the right editing method for you and you should in the future propose all big changes on the talk page first. Some of the journals you removed are probably not notable. Some of them are definitely notable and should have an article. This needs a proper solution, not a quick surrender by CBM to make you keep your face. You can only lose it by being unreasonable, not by being reverted or taking part in an open-ended discussion about something you had previously made up your mind about. 1901:. I came across a number of other such cases. If it were only one or two cases then it would be no problem. But if we are talking about 25, 50, or 100 articles where corrections such as this need to be made, then it becomes a burden. The third reason I am proposing that CBM stop at this point is, because there may be other errors that need to be fixed. If it were only ten journals articles, then I am sure other editors can get to it. But again if we are talking of 25, 50, or 100 then it becomes a burden - it places stress on the available editors. 334: 324: 303: 3055:

verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.' The list here consists of many redlinks accompanied by external links to homepages. Converting those into references would counter the argument that we should not have in-text ELs, but all they do is confirm that the journal exists, not that it is notable, which is required for establishing that "it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future". --

1185:, which (although not an accepted guideline) is what I tend to go by. I'll support a re-creation of that article based on this new information. Very few journals pas GNG, which is why several editors at the WPJournals project support WP:NJournals. So I think they deserve a stand alone article and can be bluelinked. I'm not sure about the procedure to "undelete" JoLaA (although it only has been redirected, but that was the conclusion of the AfD), but DGG could advise us about that. -- 1376:

European lists? And perhaps the Swiss have a list, too? And Liechtenstein. And so on. I have no problem with the article on the list itself. Nor with linking this article to that one in the see also section (although that already starts becoming tenuous). But splitting out part of the list (as far as I know, the Australians did no publish different lists per field, but only a complete list of all journals, from theology to mathematics), I think that goes too far. --

240: 222: 3600:. I sorted those and double checked the redlinks to make sure that they correspond to a journal that does have an impact factor. I removed redlinks to journals that had no impact factor, particularly those that are in the "C" ratings of the Australian Math Society (that combination says "not notable" to me). There were one or two unclear cases that I left and will figure out when I am creating stubs. I updated this page with the pruned list today. 2151:). Steve is correct, though, that NJournals is only and essay (not a guideline) and that listing in databases does not satisfy GNG. So creating these stubs might lead to challenges. In addition, Steve is absolutely correct about first checking facts before creating these stubs. Nobody knows how many stubs we have out there that contain incorrect info and have never been checked yet. No need to add to that backlog...-- 2610:". I have misgivings about this. Personally, I have never viewed this project as one that needs to be automated. But that is beside the point. There is an element of creativity involved with creating these articles from scratch (any article). No one said anything about using a bot to create articles when this discussion started. It appears that I have been led to this point (I can't speak for others). 2603:

its standards, just like any other project. That is why I am saying, the most effective course of action is for User:CBM to work on the project for awhile before proceeding - so that he may understand the ropes. An alternative is to create articles by hand for a period of time, until he feels comfortable with what he is doing. If there is urgency regarding this matter, then I don't understand it.

191: 738:

have no way of distinguishing whether it needs to be written, or it should not be written. With most browsers , a redirect link shows up differently from a link to an article, so people seeing them on a list will realize/ (at least people used to Knowledge will, and for those who are simply readers and don't catch the difference, the redirect will go to whatever information there is.

2841:. I am planning to continue making these articles over time, but obviously it will take some time to finish them all. You're welcome to help if you want to, but I can do it by myself over time. Eventually I'll post a note asking if other people at the math project are interested in helping. I have a tool that can format the page if you type in all the appropriate information, at 2352:

notability test. Before I do anything not by hand, I am planning to get a lot more feedback, both from the journals project and the math project. But I have been creating a few articles completely by hand to see how to format things, to see what information I can gather, etc... I plan to create articles for the red links in the "top-ranked" section in the next few days.

1632:. Perhaps there are others. Are we going to list all of those ratings in the respective journal lists? I think that would be overrating the importance of these lists. Listing the highest IF journals makes sense: this is a ranking that is (albeit sometimes grudgingly) accepted almost everywhere. Listing a national ranking, however, does not make sense in my eyes. IMHO... -- 1536:"To show that it is not original research, all material in Knowledge articles must be attributable to a reliable published source"... "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question 3606:. It takes time to make good stubs, but I expect to be done by the end of the month. So, soon, all the redlinks here will be blue. Of course, if the goal is to get rid of the redlinks Right Away then I can just create microstubs for them. But it seems like it would be better to take the time to create better stubs even if it takes a little time. — Carl 2726:. One different thing about that journal is that they do not have a lead editor (they do have a coordinating editor, but that's quite different - for example his name is not at the top of the masthead, it's just alphabetical with all the other editors on the cover). This journal also is on JStor, so I added that link to the infobox. 2463:

journals, and editing a few stubs. Once I have a "pattern" for a new stub article that most people are happy with, it shouldn't be too difficult to go through and fill in the appropriate information into that "pattern" for various journals. Of course I am only thinking of the journals that are actually worth creating an article for.

1796:

such rankings are being widely used, and documenting their existence at wiki does not imply an endorsement by wiki. If some credible sources in the literature express concern about the objectivity of the Australian ranking (as compared, say, with the ISI Thompson one), then we could legitimately raise the issue of deleting it.

3133:

should be in this list. This is because the lists such as Chemistry journal articles, and Scientific journal articles are limited in some fashion. Apparently the Chemistry journal articles are the top 10, or 20 in notability. This list should probably have a goal of the most notable, or something along those lines.

3529:

I have sen that you edited the sentence that starts "Founded in". I could change that sentence if you prefer a different phrasing. I was just trying to avoid starting so many sentences with "the journal" and "it". In some cases, I edit that sentence to include other information anyway, if the journal

3310:

Looks good to me. Just one detail, I noticed with two of the last stubs the addition of a non-existing cat. Either the cat should not be added, or it should be created (but only if that particular publisher brings out more than one journal). Good job, I like your tool. Perhaps once this list is done,

3132:

After the arguments presented by Crusio, I agree that the red-links should be moved to the talk page, or a WikiProject Mathematics sub page until they become an article. I really don't understand the resistance to doing this. Even when this whole list becomes articles, I doubt that all these articles

3103:

a creation guide list. But you're right, if the articles get created, then all should be fine, as long as non-notable ones get removed from the list. You're also right that it would be nice to annotate these lists. As they are now, any journal list is just that, a large list of journal names. In some

3069:

WP:LSC also lists "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." as a possible selection criterion for a list. In any case, I am going to create the articles, and then remove the external links, which should achieve exactly what you want: to remove the external links from this page. This is

2596:

I hear what is being said about the status of Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH as selective indexing services. However, there are other factors that determine whether or not a journal is acceptable for inclusion - not just these two indexing services. The point is these are most likely only

2258:

It would be out of character for CBM to feel offended, or at least to show it. But I am furious now, because I now feel guilty for Steve Quinn's display of senseless assumptions of bad faith or incompetence. It appears that I caused this nonsense by posting on the Journal Project talk page. I thought

1463:

With all due respect - you don't seem to understand the point. The point is that reliable sources are needed which state that the Australian Mathematical Society rankings are commonly accepted throughout the mathematics community - perhaps even internationally. Then, I am guessing this assertion will

3799:

say that: "rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, ..."? There could be a section on this list pg for the math ed journals, then the redlinks could/should be moved to a project page where

3708:

I managed to create a few, but (as is too often the case) not as many as I hoped. I went ahead and removed the red links from the main list; the previous version of the page can be used to get a list of journal articles that could be created. I'll just add to this list over time as more articles are

3054:

says, for example: '"Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace' and 'Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Knowledge. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is

3022:

The fact that the links are in the body is a red herring; they could all be moved to footnotes, and that particular issue would go away. It's just a question of form, which means that it's not really an issue of inclusion. This is not a "navigational list", it's just a list of mathematics journals.

2928:

This is not an indiscriminate list, it is not a spam magnet, and if it were, the Maths project would be more than capable of dealing with it. You addressed what you think are problems by removing a large amount of sourced, relevant material. You have an idea of what the scope of this list should be.

2165:

Headbomb, I would not have reacted in this way if, instead of asking one of those admins and bot operators who quietly keep the encyclopedia running to spend an apprenticeship period at a minor project, Steve Quinn had decided to work as an editor on WikiProject Mathematics for a period of time, and

1888:

I propose that CBM please stop creating stubs and redirects, at this point. I have several reasons. First, notability will have to be determined for each stub created because I am not sure that being listed in only two indexing databases is a sufficient rationale for creating more than 100 stubs. A

1061:

Concerning redlinks: I feel that redlinks are clearer than redirects to pages that for a general reader may not be immediately connected to the article (like the publishers). Concerning the proposal to reformat all external links as references, that's cute, but doesn't remove the underlying problem:

872:

To stand behind a list of non-notable journal articles, and attempt to pass this off as acceptable, represents (in part) a lack of concern for the goals and values of Knowledge. I apologize for being asleep at the wheel. Several editors have pointed out that non-notable journal titles do not belong

751:

There a topics where we stringently insist that nothing should be entered on a list unless it's notable , either having an article or clearly worth it. I don't know whether that should apply here. I can argue both ways. (In some cases, such as lists of notable alumni, I think it makes very good

451:

I undid a large removal of red linked items. The scope of the article seems very well defined, and just being a red link is not a problem on its own. If there are concerns that certain journals don't really exist, that's a different thing, but it seems like the removal was based on the argument that

2687:

and I removed the tag from that article. I think this also is a good stub. Thanks for working on these. So, yes, you are getting the hang of it. Truthfully, I suppose that was part of my concern. I'll be glad to give feedback as I go along - but it seems that you are creating acceptable stubs right

2602:

Moreover, once again, User:CBM admits to confusion about understanding acceptable inclusion criteria (i.e. notability). There is nothing wrong with that when working in unfamiliar territory. I had to feel my way around for awhile until I figured out how to do this. WikiProject Academic Journals has

2275:

A pack of wolves! Absolutely! They're capable of fearsome feats of furry fervor committed against innocent outsiders who post civil messages like "Is this a *&#F$ %ing joke???" with edit summaries like "WTF". Right. Glad we got that straightened out. Now can we get back to work on the issues at

2219:

Steve's request is perfectly reasonable. We're talking of the systematic creation of a large number of articles. We already have plenty of journal articles in dire need of cleanup, we don't want to add another 200 (or whatever the number is) of them to that list when they could be written adequatly

1909:

in the movies, while attempting to write over 100 stubs, may not be the most effective approach. I wish I could give a prescribed method, but I can't. I suppose that have I learned by conferring with other editors, and accepting feedback when it came my way. I have imitated other editors in how to

1826:

Based on the discussion above, it seems like journals that are indexed by Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH might meet the notability requirement to create a stub. That was good news to me, I was unaware. If it's true, we could just create pages for the journals here that are indexed, and

1416:

Crusio voiced the same view as myself pertaining to the AustMS rankings. I assumed it was clear that these rankings are as subjective as any other society. For this section to remain, it would be necessary to show that the AustMS is some kind of ultimate authority on math-journal articles,. Showing

3762:

I don't think it's a good idea. Journals concerned about mathematics education are journals of education/pedagogy a lot more than they are journal of mathematics. I think the lists stands fine on its own, although the sea of red is something that needs to be acted upon as some point. Maybe CBM and

3521:

Yes, WP:PROF is why I have been wikilinking these names. We need redlinks to tell which articles (or redirects) are missing. Usually, by the time someone gets to be editor in chief, they will also meet other aspects of WP:PROF, as well. But whoever goes to create the biography has to check to make

3288:

On reason I am very intentionally making only a few per day (beyond the time it takes) is that I want to give others a chance to look at the stubs and suggest changes. It's easier to fix the pattern now than it is to manually fix a hundred articles after they are all made. If the goal was just to

3007:

it says "Not-yet-sorted items may be included on the list's talk page while their categorization is determined", which rather covers what I have suggested for the redlinks in the current list. I don't normally engage in this detailed kind of wikilawyering, but as Hans Adler seemed to think that my

2988:

Hans Adler has remarked on his talk page that I am incorrect in asserting that this page violates WP:EL. However, the very first line of that guideline states "they should not normally be used in the body of an article." This list is replete with them, all through the body of the article. A little

2516:

I saw you had mentioned a math-journal-stub template. I am fine with that, but I didn't want to create it too quickly to avoid stepping on any toes. Should it populate both the science journal stubs category and the math stubs category? I think the stub sorting people are touchy about creating new

2351:

I have intentionally not made any large-scale creations to give us all time to discuss things. I have created a few stubs for journals listed in the "top-ranked" section of this list. I picked these to create because they are among the most prestigious journals in the field, and certainly pass any

1777:

Those two are, literally, already cited in the article. The "impact factor" lists you pointed out in your previous post use the same criterion as the Thomson one. Thomson are also the people who run Journal Citation Reports. It does look like we could add the SCOPUS ratings as well, although it's

1650:

I don't see why it would be a problem to include other well-sourced rating in other lists of journals, but that seems besides the point for this list. Similarly, the fact that other things might be created in the future doesn't change the fact that right now this is the only professionally-created

1516:

There is a section in this article entitled "Australian Mathematical Society ranking" This means that "Australian Mathematical Society ranking" is now part of this article. It is part of the article's topic and is no longer just a source. This also means that if it is challenged (which it is) then

795:

I very strongly feel that in this kind of list articles all redlinks should be deleted and all external links should be removed. I can see that some people would find it useful to have a directory of all existing journals in a given field, with weblinks to their homepages, but this is exactly what

3126:

First, I compliment CBM on his new software that creates stubs. I have tried it, and like it very much. I think it is already useful for Academic Journal articles in general, and I look forward to using this more often. Also, CBM, you seem to be successfully creating excellent stubs. Now for some

2810:

That stub seems fine to me. The ELs, however, ARE inappropriate. See WP:EL and what that says about linkfarms. I still think that the best way to go here would be to remove all ELs (they belong in the respective articles) and all redlinks (they can be saved elsewhere for reference, either here on

2355:

There are, as Hans Adler says, two main indexes for math articles: Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH. I cannot speak for other people, but I consider a journal to be professional when it is indexed in these. When people solicit papers for conference proceedings, they often advertise the

2146:

Although it would have been vastly preferable if Hans had voiced his comment in the spirit of the above civil and collegial discussion, I agree that indexing in these two foremost math databases would establish notability, as they are both selective and the foremost databases in the domain (hence

1795:

Australian mathematical society is clearly a reliable source that does not need to be backed by other sources to be included here. The entire subject of such journal rankings is controversial, and many people think they should be banished altogether. Perhaps they have a point. In the meantime,

1710:

The ERA ranking are derived directly from the AustMS ones. The Oklahoma state ones are just impact factor. The Pittsburgh ones are "Citation Indices". The final three are just Scopus. None of these is especially similar to the AustMS rating; above it was claimed that lots of mathematics societies

1469:

These are facts which may seem apparent to you, but it is not apparent to the general reader, and it is not apparent to other Knowledge editors whose focus is other than mathematics. The best method may be to take into consideration the fact that these articles are aimed at a general audience, as

1203:

If it were possible to create these as blue links, then I wouldn't mind moving the remaining red links to the talk page. I could create stub articles relatively quickly for the journals that are indexed, if that's actually permitted. I was under the impression that the standards were particularly

903:

It is perfectly reasonable to have a list in project space or on talk pages of scientific journals that do not have a wikipedia article, but may or may not be notable enough to have an article. That is what project space is for, to help wikipedia expand. It is however clear that redlinks on these

747:

available open-access journals in the catalog, whether or not the library would subscribe to them if it cost money--most libraries do not do so, on the principle that it sends unsophisticated students the wrong message about their usefulness; a few do, on the principle that at least it gives some

737:

It is standard practice to redirect journals that are not quite notable to the publisher page. Similarly with journals that are going to be notable, but for which the articles have not yet been written. True, the advantage or red-links is that people see the article needs to be written--but they

3201:

they can be removed. However, as I said, I don't agree with the idea of gutting the list before the articles have been created. Lists are also subject to WP:V - if there were no links, someone would complain that the list is unsourced. There are links, so the complaint is that there are too many

1375:

Here, too, I also think of the implications of this for other lists articles. If we put this info in this list, somebody else will come and put it in a humanities journals list. Difficult to argue against if you do it here. But if you include the Aussie list, then why keep out the French and the

1119:

Journals listed in either one of those would indeed clearly be notable and, in principle, I would not have a problem including them in this list (on the contrary, eventually they should have an article and be on this list, absolutely). However, a practical point then is that maintaining the list

1070:

mathematics journals will just continue to make list like this spam-magnets. Most of us know the obscure publishers that pop up all over the web and are starting open-access journals, hoping to make a fast buck. They often seed WP with external links to their journals. I think this is clearly an

706:

Based on the above discussion I have misgivings about creating redirects for the red-linked articles back to this page. Redirects are not for arbitrarily linking acceptable topics, or non-notable topics, to any arbitrary point on Knowledge. Also, especially, redirecting topics back to this page,

1304:

The information is likely to be of interest to a reader, who will probably ask what the top-tier journals in mathematics are. In this case, we are fortunate that we can actually find a source to give an answer. If the material was not in a source, we couldn't just make up a ranking based on our

1180:

is indeed included in those indexes was unfortunately not brought up in that AfD. I would not have taken it to AfD had I known that or withdrawn the nom if that had been brought up during the AfD (note that the nom specifically says "apparently not indexed anywhere"). Inclusion in these indexes

3547:

Yes, I prefer the word "established" for journals. I guess it's a somewhat subtle point, but I think that "founded" is more appropriate for an organization than for a journal. Not being a native-English speaker, I may be wrong about this, but to my "language sense" it just sounds better... :-)

3146:

Another issue is - "it is not Knowledge's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". Knowledge is not "Mere collections of external links". These guidelines appear to be applicable to this particular list. This is what I started to say in this

2649:

should have already dealt with the long list of redlinks here. I happened to have the page on my watchlist but I had never really looked at it. So I'll own up to it and fix the problem now that Crusio has pointed it out. I'm not forcing anyone else to help, and you're welcome not to. I'm very

2431:

I also like the third alternative less, even if there is useful info at the end of that link: if a journal is not notable, I don't think it should be included on the list anyway and if it is notable, a redlink will show us which articles still need creating. I still am worried about a list of

2071:

has made a ranking, as has been done by a European organisation, too (ERIH). There may be others. Including all these rankings in the different journal lists would be cumbersome and of doubtful value. Its is different with the top 10 IFs, because like it or not, the IF is a generally accepted

1437:

Clearly the Australian Mathematical Society is a reliable source for information about mathematics. No other examples of such ratings have been presented; it's a relatively unique opportunity to have a source that does provide such a ranking. For the purposes of Knowledge, this is a perfectly

991:

If there is a problem, then it is not in what this list contains but in the fact that it is currently a disguised web directory. This can easily be remedied by reformatting the "(web)" links as inline references that prove existence of a journal and adding a one-sentence description for each.

2657:

into a pretty good stub, and I appreciate their help. Do you have any concrete suggestions for material that should be included in that article but isn't? That's the sort of feedback that would be useful, rather than vague assertions about notability. I'm not in a hurry, but I am moving at a

2462:

If the compromise is that we need to create articles on those journals to include them, I'm willing to put in the effort necessary to make that happen. I'm not in a hurry, but I'd like to be able to make some progress by the end of the month. What I have started doing is gathering data about

1357:

I don't know of any other national mathematical society who has a similar quality assessment of mathematics journals. Of course there might be, and if the article had too many that would be a different matter. But as it stands there is only one I know of. The rankings have nothing to do with

2993:

Knowledge's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". WP:NOT#LINK (also called WP:LINKFARM) says that WP is not "Mere collections of external links" (item #1). All these guidelines seem to be applicable to this particular list. As for lists

2359:

Just to summarize, here is the situation I ran into on this page: I saw that a lot of journals were removed from this list, many of which I know to be quality journals, because they were red linked. I am trying to resolve that situation. There are several options that would be OK with me:

2901:

Hans, don't be silly, of course I know there is no deadline. However, that's no reason to let this thing sit around for months. I spent quite some time cleaning up this list and was reverted for, what I feel are, insufficient reasons. The current page many things and exactly what

1390:

Can you link to one of the putative other rankings of mathematics journals? The Australian Mathematics Society only ranked mathematics journals, I am not referencing the national compendium that the AustMS sent their list to. You can double check where the references lead. — Carl

976:

I generally think there are two many unencyclopedic lists on Knowledge, but the idea that lists may only contain entries notable enough to have an article is extremist and not founded in policy. Notability of all entries is usually required in certain specific situations such as:

3814:

On second thought, I agree with Headbomb. Perhaps there is a list of education journals that this could go to. Once the redlinks would be removed, preciously few are left for a stand alone list. I'm guessing that most redlinks are non-notable journals, but I may be wrong there.

2432:

redlinks becoming a spammagnet... The second option is by far the best, of course (creating needed content), but a huge undertaking. And remember that we're talking only about this particular list here, but there's a whole load of these lists within the WP Journals project... --

3070:

not a "creation guide" list, it is just a list of mathematics journals. Again, we could just unlink the articles, it's just a matter of form that they are linked. But they will be created soon, anyway, now that it's more clear that they pass the notability requirements. — Carl

2998:

says that they "serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Knowledge", I don't see how redlinks contribute to that goal and it also strongly suggest (even if not explicitly stated) that lists should only contain items that can be wikilinked (i.e., are notable). Under

1256:

I think the main issue here was that I knew all along that many of these were quality journals (e.g. indexed) but I wasn't aware of this notability guideline. Other people were aware of the notability guideline but didn't realize that many of the journals are indexed. — Carl

2906:. As Carl says, lists are permitted to have redlinks. However, in the case of indiscriminate lists like this one, they degenerate into linkfarms and spammagnets. Deadline or not, that is not a situation that we should tolerate indefinitely. (Especially not if the problems 3104:

of the more general list, there are subdivisions according to fields, in others that is selective ("top 5 journals in a field") and often rather arbitrary, I have to say. I know that lists are an additional navigation aid to categories, but I'm not a big fan of them... --

1464:

have to be vetted for notability standards on Knowledge - it all depends. Another way of saying this is - no, I am sorry, it is not clear that the Australian Mathematical Society is a reliable source. Reliable sources are needed to show that this is a reliable source.

1492:

Anyone reading a list of mathematics journals is likely to ask which ones are the best rated. As far as I know the AustMS rating are the only ratings of that sort that have been created - they are an on-topic, reliable source for the question "which journals are the

3217:

Also, I strongly disagree with the idea that even after the articles are created, they would not be listed there. This is, by definition, a list of mathematics journals -- not a list of just 25 mathematics journals. I just noticed this part of your post. Surely,

541:

I don't like that idea. The list contains barely any information about these journals, so the redirect serves little purpose, and many will think "ah the link is blue, so i don't need to create it" upon seing a bluelink in an article. I'd rather have the redlinks.

2202:

It wasn't just one stupid sentence. It was two full paragraphs of attacks and insults, with very little if any foundation. Anyone posting in that way is fair game for a response that jumps on their own display of ignorance. Can we please all be constructive now?

2772:

The discussion here seems to have died down and nothing much is happening any more (except that redlinks keep being added, together with inappropriate external links). However, the problems that I originally addresses by removing redlinks/external links remain.

2098:"being listed in only two indexing databases" – Is this a *&#F$ %ing joke??? These are the only two indexing databases that any mathematician ever uses, unless some university administration forces them to use another one for purely administrative purposes. 660:. So basically non-notable journals should redirect to the publisher, unless it's one of the big ones (John Wiley, Springer, Blackwell, ...). I'm not a big fan of systematically creating redirects though, since that cuts the main mechanism for article creation. 3732:

I am suggesting that the mathematics education journal list be merged into this one, because it has only 6 good links which are repeated in this list. The sea of redlinks should be on the WikiProject's "articles requested page", not a mainspace list article.

1252:

If this turns out to be the way we go, I'll just need a few days to work through the list creating articles for journals that are listed there and are in the math indexes. After that, we can delete the red links and we shouldn't need to move them to the talk

769:

Notability is the other issue. It appears that notability for this list of journals (and potential articles) has not been determined. From this list, I have linked two journals published by Springer, with impact factor, and listing in acceptable databases:

2792:

that I can use as a pattern for creating other journal stubs - do you agree with that? I also don't want to drag out the fixing process any more than necessary, but I do want to make sure people can comment before I start creating lots of stubs. — Carl

1330:

I don't think that these rankings are relevant to Knowledge. I am guessing other societies, or organizations also rank journals according to their standards. I don't see this as part of the criteria for determing a journal's notability on Knowledge per

4038:. The same goes probably for the list of journals ranked by hugely outdated impact factors... And the "Red Jasper" list (I can't even easily figure out who/what Red Jasper is; Google points to journal-ranking.com but that doesn't mention Jasper...) -- 928:

Silly that I didn't see the obvious: yes, I agree, the talk page of these list articles should be the place to have the redlinks, that way, any editor visiting the talk can immediately see if any have turned blue and should be moved to the main list.

826:

I have not always thought so, but I now think that Crusio is correct. All redlinks should be moved elsewhere, to either the talk page or a project page. The external links should be removed as they are quickly reached by going to the journal article.

2851:

if the topics are verifiable, and the links here are actually references that the journals exist. Lists are permitted to have redlinks. I still object to the idea of gutting the list simply because the articles on it haven't been created yet. — Carl

1604:- secondary sources are needed that says this is a reliable source. Also, the website of the Australian Mathematical Society is being used to cite the Australian Mathematical Society - which appears to contradict guidelines and policies. Please read 1071:

example of what WP is not and that we should not facilitate this practice by making lists that are completely non-discriminating. As regards the latter, I don't regard limiting the list only to journals about mathematics to be "discriminating". --

3525:

I don't think a comma belongs in "peer-reviewed mathematics journal"; I view "mathematics journal" as a compound noun and "peer-reviewed" as an adjective, so putting a comma between them is like putting a comma between "well-respected" and "vice

1830:

The main reason I am cautious about this is that there are a lot of journals that are redlinks here that are actually indexed. For example, here is data on just some of the journals here, which I was able to verify from Mathscinet with a script:

3008:

arguments were just some kind of personal preference and that I am being unconstructive, as I "seem to be pretending, vaguelt pointing in that direction, that these documents support your position". I hope the foregoing clarifies my position. --

1834:. The ISSN and frequency info there are taken from MathSciNet - and all of those journals are indexed cover-to-cover. So we are talking about creating a couple hundred articles, probably, by the time we go through all the red links here. — Carl 2729:

If there is any more information that I should have included in the JSL article, please let me know (or edit the article, and I'll see it). I think that these stubs are getting much better thanks to the help from several other editors. — Carl

3325:

I kept those two categories because I knew the publishers each have multiple journals. I have been removing the red categories when I think that there will only be one. I created the two categories just now that were left as redlinks. — Carl

1904:

Therefore I propose the User:CBM work as an editor on WikiProject Academic Journals for a period of time, and perhaps confer with the other active editors there, before proceeding. These journals are not going anywhere. Going it alone like

1231:

then I agree that it belongs on the main-space page list. Then it may be best to move the others to the article talk page. But, I don't see the purpose of listing these on the article's talk page. They don't meet the inclusion standards of

3178:

each discipline has a small number of journals listed. The example that these lists demonstrate is that they exist according to guidelines. This list does not appear to do so per guidelines stated above. Yes, problems still remain. ----

3222:

we are fully justified in putting them in a list. The problem at the moment is with redlink, which I feel are OK as well, but others would prefer to see the articles created. You could help by creating some articles yourself... — Carl

3193:

If you'd like to discuss the AustMS rankings, could you do it in the section "AustMS journal rankings" above? I gave my explanation there about why I don't think there are any issues. If you remove it, I will restore it, I'm sorry to

2458:

is "notable" to have an independent article. Either way that journal and others like it are perfectly qualified to be on a list of mathematics journals, and our article would be incomplete if we leave journals like them off the list.

499:

One role that lists can have is to serve as a place for topics that would not be notable on their own – like cartoon characters and minor journals. For example, there are currently two articles besides this list that have redlinks to

1484:

No, we don't need sources to say that our sources as OK. "Notability" is a question about the article itself, not about individual sources within the article. The Australian Mathematics Society, a national mathematics society, is

2969:

The longer term solution is to create the articles on the journals that should have them, now that the wiki policy seems to permit it. I think that working on that will cause the other issues to go away as a side effect. — Carl

2954:

The solution to people adding inappropriate external links (i.e. spam) is to remove specific instances when you find them, not to arbitrarily remove all external links some of which are needed to create the redlinked articles.

153: 742:

What I am not sure about is whether to have redlinks or listings for journals that are absolutely not notable in the least. I can see the merits either way (there's a similar argument in university libraries, whether to enter

1654:

The reader can decide if she thinks Australia is not an important enough country. 83 entries is not very long. What would help is to annotate the lists to include more information about each journal, like the field. — Carl

1142:

is reviewd cover-to-cover in both MathSciNet and Zentrallblatt – meaning every article they publish gets a review in both indexing services. But the journal had an AFD in December that did not keep the article. Similarly,

1005:

I thought that was somewhat silly – it makes everyone perform an extra click to the footnote before clicking on the journal web page. However, I will implement it for just one section, so people can talk about it. — Carl

455:

I also removed the "cleanup" tag - the article seems very clean. I suppose we could move every one of the external links into its own footnote; I see each one as a reference that the journal actually exists, etc. — Carl

3457:

I do have some suggestions for your article helper, or in other words -creating the stubs. First, the chief editors are not always notable, or have an article on Knowledge. I reccomend not providing wiki links for this

2834: 2688:

now. And I guess that is your goal at the moment, and I don't have a problem with that. If you see something pertaining to my editing that you like feel free to ask about it, or just imitate it. And moving on... ----

1236:, and are most likely not destined to become articles on Knowledge. That means these are being given some weight, and this seems to be an unconventional way to give non-notable journals some notice on Knowledge. ---- 1085:

On the other hand, limiting the list to only journals that have a WP article is far too discriminating. Do you have some intermediate level? I would support limiting it to journals that are indexed by at least one of

2597:

a first indicator of notability - which is great compared to other types of information that is no indicator of notability. I am not knocking the services, I am only saying I don't see these as the whole enchilada.

3151:

in one single list. And that is what I see is one of the main goals here. Maybe I am wrong that this is one of the goals, and please correct me if it is not. A better goal would be the 20 or 25 most notable math

3709:

created. Originally I was concerned that the list would end up too gutted with all the red links removed, but enough have been created (and the lists of "important" journals added) that is seems OK now. — Carl

688:

The thing I don't understand is why we would want to keep links to non-notable journals red to encourage article creation, when we know that the journal isn't notable and an article shouldn't be created? — Carl

1496:

I also think that, if the concern is that this list is too much like a directory, the only way to handle that is to add some material like these ratings. That additional material adds value to the list. — Carl

3202:

links. The best solution, I think, is to remember that (1) nothing has to be perfect right away and (2) we should be able to create articles for most of these journals, which will make everyone happy. — Carl

873:

on Knowledge. Even DGG pointed this out. As Crusio pointed out this list contradicts guidelines or policies. It also contradicts established conventions. Not only is there no clear inclusion criteria, as per

1889:

smaller issue is things like incorrect links for the home pages of these journals. I noticed this before the stubs were started, when only web sites were being verified. Now as a stub, a current example is "

1762:

Regarding citation indices - these are a viable method of determining the standing of a journal. Impact factor is another method. It seems to me that the standing of the journal is the defining factor.----

2613:

Finally, I feel the User:CBM is trying to rush us through this process (of vetting this list), in order to satisfy some time frame. For me this going to take the time it takes, however long that is. ----

885:, as they rationalized restoring appropriately removed red links. Even in a project space those that are non-notable have no value on Knowledge. Hence, these could not have value in a project space. ---- 3473:

it is reccomended that only the sponsoring societies have an external link, because there is already link to the homepage in the infobox. Don't get me wrong - this article helper is a great tool! It is

947:

What if we simple removed the links and italicized the names instead? It seems like you are conflating several issues: whether to include items in a list, and whether to have red links for them. — Carl

2067:

I agree with Steve and Headbomb. A special stub template is a good idea, too. As for the Australian list, for humanities and social sciences I know that the French national research evaluation agency

507:

I propose making all the red links on this article link to this page. For the ones that are notable to have their own articles, someone can always replace the redirect with an article later. — Carl

571: 1029:

There are two issues: which items to include, and which items to link. The discussion above is conflating them, although I started it as a proposal about how to handle the color of the links.

3311:

we can have another look at it and tweak it to be more general, so that it can also be used for other journals and be added as a standard feature to the guide for writing journal articles. --

390: 1151:. I could make those into blue-linked stubs today, but I don't know that they would remain. But they should be listed on this list even if they don't deserve a standalone article. — Carl 636:

Sigh, I knew the Springer counterexample was gonna come up. In that case no, as Springer is a megapublisher, and there's no relevant information on the journal you're redirecting there.

3003:

it is said that "Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries", something it won't do if it consists of a huge collection of redlinks to start with. Under

147: 3409: 2290:

Let's. I think the first thing to talk about is the question of notability. I feel like I'm getting mixed messages about which journals should have an independent article. — Carl

3470: 1992: 1857: 283: 1910:

structure Academic Journal articles, but the writing is my own. All that is needed is investing some time in the project to see how it goes. Well, I hope this makes sense. ----

812:. An EL to a journal's homepage is appropriate in the article on the journal itself, but not in an undiscriminate list like here (neither in a discriminative list, in fact). -- 44: 3562:

Although it is a small detail, I prefer the word "established" as well. Also, I had not thought of "peer reviewed" as an adjective before. Interesting. I suppose it is. ----

1312:

Since the goal of Knowledge is to provide reliably sourced information that is of interest to our readers, and I believe this material meets those goals, I added it. — Carl

2470:. I took into account Steve Quinn's preference to that particular web page as the "homepage" for the journal. Are there other improvements that could be made there? — Carl 1358:

determining notability per NJournals, but they are likely to be of interest to a reader, which is what makes them relevant to Knowledge. I don't see any NPOV issue. — Carl

2788:

Yes (not that the external links are inappropriate - we need them for WP:V). I will work on creating several journal this morning. I think that we have a good template in

504:. Rather than creating a stub for every journal, we can make that redlink come here, where people can get the journal's web page and a little description of the journal. 1695: 3870:. Mathematics Education is a rich, independent discipline from Mathematics proper, and the two communities have different norms and standards for academic publications. 984:

When a list is sufficiently contentious so that editors fight for inclusion/exclusion of specific entries, based on whether they are sufficiently important for the list.

2226:

when it comes to content creation. There's no need to be offended on CBM's behalf, I'm sure he's quite capable of being offended for himself if he feels a need for it.

1728:

It also helps if you realize that a page with a ~ right after the first / is generally a personal web page, not "official" any more than my Knowledge user page. — Carl

3485:

does like to wiki-link the head editors. And he might have other preferences as well, which contradict my feedback. I am not the sole authority on these matters. ----

1934:

should be copied. This makes it far easier for others to fill in what is missing (OCLC, history, frequency, etc...). Second is rectifying the homepage link (|website=

2396:

I would strike out your third alternative. There is nothing to be gained by turning a red-link blue only to find no useful information at the other end of the link.

4034:

I never thought it was worth including anyway... Many countries/societies will have their rankings and listing them all in the respective journal lists is probably

2679:. Also, I am glad that Headbomb and Crusio have been assisting you - these are both very good editors to learn from. Although, I haven't really said anything about 3289:

create all the articles today, with minimal information, I could do that easily. I'm trying to make reasonable stubs instead, which takes more planning and time.

4081: 3961: 3957: 3943: 1711:

would have similar ratings, which as far as I can tell is false. It does seem like we could add some excerpt from the SCOPUS ratings to the list as well. — Carl

657: 1576:

A section title does not require separate notability. The topic of this article is simply "list of mathematics journals". Moreover, the material in the article

4076: 1039:

Personally, I think it makes more sense to either leave the links red, or turn them blue by redirecting the articles somewhere. But the point here is that the

3430: 2034: 256: 3642:

Carl, Headbomb is saying that he is removing links that are not going to make the cut. A month is an acceptable amount of time for the other journals. ----

3281:

As you can see from my contribs today, it takes about 10 minutes right now for me to look up all the necessary information for these. I am also tweaking my

3139:

One issue in particular, is the section entitled "Australian Mathematical Society ranking". It has already been pointed out that this appears to contradict

1147:

is reviewed cover-to-cover in both indexes, but it does not have an article, and I am not sure that it would pass the GNG as a standalone article. Same for

3285:

as I go. It seems to be working pretty well at the moment, and so I wrote instructions at the bottom to sketch the process needed to make these articles.

619:

So you're saying it would be standard practice to redirect all the Springer journals here to the Springer page? They don't seem to be listed there. — Carl

1308:

The info here is a relatively short excerpt of their overall rankings (83 of 1200 journals). I believe it is short enough to alleviate copyright concerns.

4091: 3163: 2327:(unindent) There's no easy solution to the mixed messages: there is no good consensus on notability for journals. If you have a look at the talk page of 1094:. Those are the primary journal indices used by mathematicians, and between them the coverage of quality mathematical journals is quite complete. — Carl 380: 79: 3800:

requested articles are listed. Albeit, there are a lot of redlinked lists out there, but according to the WP editing guideline, it's not recommended. --

3159:. I will leave the links - but the list on this whole page needs to be pruned, and most of them moved to the talk page, or a Wiki-Math Project sub page. 3167: 1297:

expressed some concern on my talk page about the Australian Mathematical Society ratings that I added this morning. Here are my thoughts about them:

4086: 3381: 1853: 247: 227: 2356:

fact that their proceedings will get indexed in these indexes, because authors do not want to publish papers that will not be indexed in them.

3877: 3725: 356: 2033:

would be more effective than having to place two or more stub templates in each article. BTW, if anyone is interested, I just copy edited the

988:

This list is not contentious at all, and the number of mathematics journals is sufficiently small so that we can easily give a complete list.

3929: 3261: 85: 3833:

There is not a list of education journals, but maybe the math ed journals should be redirected to (and incorporated into) a section of the

3359: 1339:- by giving preference to one organization's rating over another, without consensus. It may even be construed as being in contradiction to 168: 135: 3271: 2628:

I'm not confused as much as I seem, I'm just polite. You're right that the journals project has standards: they seem to have settled on

3155:

In any case, I am going to remove the section heading "Australian Mathematical Society ranking" along with the brief description, per

3939:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

347: 308: 1583:

Are you actually arguing that the Australian Mathematical Society is not a reliable source about journals in mathematics? — Carl

477:

use is some actual annotation on the list. I added a few annotations as a demo of the sort of info that could be included. — Carl

3848: 3385: 877:, there is no inclusion criteria at all (neither clear nor otherwise). Hence, this contradicts a core policy of Knowledge, i.e. 3434: 99: 30: 3880:. That's a reasonable number. Someone looking for an education journal to submit an article will find this page very useful. 1935: 1899: 1301:

The source is the Australian Mathematical Society, which is on its face a reliable source about mathematical topics like this.

129: 3773: 3668: 3267: 3257: 3253: 2578: 2555: 2498: 2236: 2128: 2005: 1870: 670: 641: 601: 552: 428: 104: 20: 2929:

CBM has a different idea of what the scope should be. This must be discussed. You were bold and you have been reverted. See

3136:

It appears to me that the issues which have been noticed and communicated by Crusio are almost ignored or simply put aside.

1438:

reliable source, and there's no reason not to use it. There is no synthesis in simply reporting what a source says. — Carl

3597: 3355: 3275: 2830: 2789: 2719: 2654: 2637: 2548: 2521: 2467: 2455: 1139: 1032:

Another option, for those who don't like redlinks, would be to remove the links. I made a demonstration in section "T" of

501: 74: 2451:

I don't mind spending my own time working on this particular list. Other lists will have to be handled by other people.

125: 4004: 3913: 2527:

In general, more feedback is better, because that's the only way for me to tell what people actually care about. — Carl

2220:

in the first place. CBM's status as an admin/bot op makes him more special than the rest of us by an ammount of exactly

202: 24: 847:

There are indeed clear inclusion criteria, described in the lede: currently publishing journals in mathematics. — Carl

748:

information, & the library is not to judge.) But certainly in any borderline case a redirect is appropriate.

3171: 2844:. I am improving that tool based on feedback, and I want to go slowly to make sure that I do things as well as I can. 2750:

This looks fine to me. It is a good stub. I also notice that you filled in the infobox. I think that is helpful. ----

649: 65: 1525:

a reliable source about mathematics. Reliable sources are needed which actually state this fact or something similar.

1924:

A complete halt may not be warranted, just a temporary half so a few rectification can happen. First is that all of

175: 3147:

response. How about, we stop dragging our feet. Also Knowledge is not a directory - it is not necessary to include

2562: 2027: 1949: 1144: 3143:. Each society most likely has its own standards for inclusion in its list. So, again this issue is being ignored. 2723: 2182:

Ah, right. "I think he said something stupid so I am allowed to yell obscenities a him". Great argument, Hans! --

1969: 644:, and there's a strong connection between the publisher and the journal in that case. Likewise for journals like 3960:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1680: 1204:

high for creating an article on a journal, which is why I didn't participate in the AFD when it came up. — Carl

2632:, and the articles I have created easily pass that. You are the only person here who seems to be claiming that 1928: 3995: 3921: 2838: 1891: 1852:

Sounds fine to me. There might be a few exceptions, a.k.a. journals that are notable for reasons outside of

805: 526: 109: 1692: 3930:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150612143042/http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2010/archive/era_journal_list.htm

3917: 2811:

this talk page or in projectspace). This way its going to be a long time before this list looks decent. --

591:

Well, that one is redirected to its publisher, which is usually standard practice / the best thing to do.

415: 408: 141: 1148: 1036:. I also switch the external links to references there, in case people want to see what that looks like. 3979:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3967: 3834: 3647: 3567: 3490: 3442: 3351: 3184: 2755: 2693: 2619: 2058: 2042: 1986: 1915: 1768: 1617: 1543: 1475: 1422: 1348: 1241: 890: 787: 712: 208: 3920:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 333: 3023:

Eventually, I hope that it will be annotated to include the field of each journals, at least. — Carl

2606:

Also I don't agree with using automation to create 100 or 200 stubs or articles. User:CBM has stated "

1991:. Once we have cleared these up, CBM will probably be able to create a "perfect stub", as detailed by 4043: 3844: 3805: 3738: 3347: 2937: 2934: 2893: 2890: 2263: 2260: 2207: 2204: 2170: 2167: 2102: 2099: 1978: 1087: 996: 993: 533: 530: 3292:

If there are any concrete suggestions for the wording of the stubs, please let me know soon. — Carl

3481:

Also, I would like other editors to comment on my feedback. This is because, for instance, I think

3466: 2960: 2676: 2629: 2401: 2367:

Create articles for the journals that meet the notability requirements, so that the links turn blue

2328: 2148: 1332: 1233: 1228: 1182: 161: 55: 3933: 1676:

There are other organizations that rank math journals. Here is one from Oklahoma State University

355:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

255:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3769: 3664: 2886: 2574: 2524:

after me, and I can look at what he did to see what information to try to include in future ones.

2520:

You're right that my goal is to find a "perfect stub" that I can use as a pattern. Crusio edited

2494: 2370:

Redirect the red links to some master article, as is done with lists of cartoon characters (e.g.

2232: 2124: 2001: 1959: 1866: 1755: 1063: 809: 772: 666: 597: 548: 424: 339: 70: 3964:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2371: 981:

When an exhaustive list is not feasible and editors do not agree on another inclusion criterion.

323: 302: 3980: 2166:

perhaps confer with the other active editors there, before making inappropriate comments here.

3796: 2488:

I made a comment relevant to this in the previous section. Are you looking for more feedback?

1135: 1091: 51: 3885: 3820: 3781: 3753: 3676: 3643: 3629: 3563: 3553: 3508: 3486: 3438: 3316: 3180: 3109: 3060: 3013: 2915: 2874: 2816: 2778: 2751: 2689: 2615: 2586: 2506: 2437: 2336: 2281: 2244: 2187: 2156: 2136: 2085: 2054: 2038: 2013: 1911: 1878: 1801: 1764: 1637: 1629: 1613: 1539: 1531: 1471: 1418: 1381: 1344: 1336: 1237: 1190: 1125: 1076: 934: 886: 817: 783: 708: 678: 609: 560: 436: 252: 3987: 1936:

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622779/description#description

4061: 4057: 4047: 4039: 4035: 4028: 4024: 4009: 3889: 3852: 3840: 3824: 3809: 3801: 3786: 3757: 3742: 3734: 3698: 3681: 3651: 3633: 3618: 3571: 3557: 3542: 3512: 3494: 3446: 3424: 3400: 3374: 3338: 3320: 3304: 3235: 3188: 3113: 3082: 3064: 3035: 3017: 3004: 3000: 2995: 2982: 2964: 2940: 2919: 2896: 2878: 2864: 2820: 2805: 2782: 2759: 2742: 2697: 2670: 2623: 2591: 2539: 2511: 2482: 2441: 2426: 2405: 2390: 2340: 2302: 2285: 2266: 2249: 2210: 2191: 2173: 2160: 2141: 2115: 2105: 2089: 2062: 2046: 2018: 1919: 1883: 1846: 1805: 1790: 1772: 1740: 1723: 1667: 1641: 1621: 1595: 1580:

verifiable, to the Australian Mathematical Society, and the explicit source is provided.

1547: 1509: 1479: 1450: 1426: 1403: 1385: 1370: 1352: 1324: 1269: 1245: 1216: 1194: 1163: 1129: 1106: 1080: 1055: 1018: 999: 960: 938: 919: 912: 894: 859: 842: 835: 821: 763: 716: 701: 683: 631: 614: 586: 570:

The question is whether most of these could stand as an independent article. For example,

565: 536: 519: 489: 468: 441: 1701: 1939: 1896: 782:. I am guessing that notability will have to be determined on a case by case basis. --- 414:

There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at

239: 221: 3946:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3777: 3672: 3500: 3156: 3140: 2956: 2582: 2502: 2397: 2240: 2132: 2009: 1874: 1683: 1340: 674: 605: 556: 432: 3986:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2885:

Crusio, I am getting the impression that you are extremely nervous about the imminent

1677: 1227:

I think the above is an acceptable compromise. In other words, if a journal satisfies

4070: 3765: 3716: 3693: 3660: 3613: 3537: 3482: 3462: 3419: 3405: 3395: 3369: 3333: 3299: 3230: 3209: 3077: 3051: 3030: 2990: 2977: 2930: 2903: 2859: 2800: 2737: 2665: 2633: 2570: 2534: 2490: 2477: 2421: 2385: 2297: 2228: 2120: 2111: 1997: 1862: 1841: 1785: 1735: 1718: 1698: 1662: 1590: 1504: 1445: 1398: 1365: 1319: 1264: 1211: 1158: 1101: 1050: 1013: 955: 878: 874: 854: 801: 759: 696: 662: 626: 593: 581: 544: 514: 484: 463: 420: 778: 2077: 1605: 1601: 1778:

worth making sure we get the ones that cover general mathematics journals. — Carl

1752: 3953: 3881: 3816: 3749: 3625: 3549: 3504: 3312: 3105: 3056: 3009: 2911: 2870: 2812: 2774: 2433: 2332: 2277: 2183: 2152: 2081: 2073: 1797: 1633: 1609: 1377: 1294: 1186: 1121: 1072: 930: 813: 352: 4019:

Should this section be deleted as it is out of date and no longer supported? --

2683:, I see that it is most likely a perfect stub. I responded on the talk page of 4053: 4020: 3952:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2829:

I am happy to work on creating the articles over time. This morning I created

2222: 1906: 905: 828: 329: 2364:

Just leave the red links as they are, so people can create articles over time

3282: 2842: 1686: 3596:

I made a list of all journals that were either linked from this page or in

2259:

of that project as a comparatively civilised one, not as a pack of wolves.

1689: 2643:

I'm not trying to rush anyone else through anything. I'll take the blame:

3712: 3689: 3609: 3533: 3415: 3391: 3365: 3329: 3295: 3226: 3205: 3073: 3026: 2973: 2855: 2796: 2733: 2661: 2640:

might fail the notability guidelines. So do you think that, or don't you?

2530: 2473: 2417: 2381: 2293: 1837: 1781: 1731: 1714: 1658: 1586: 1500: 1441: 1394: 1361: 1315: 1260: 1207: 1154: 1097: 1046: 1009: 951: 882: 850: 754: 692: 622: 577: 510: 480: 459: 2675:

Thank you. Yes, you are correct the standards seem to have settled on

2037:, including an infobox and an abstracting and indexing section. ---- 2454:

My point of view is that I don't really care whether a journal like

2053:

Of course I still have to add references - it was a quick job. ----

2835:

Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg

2068: 3604:

I am still working on creating the articles for the redlinks here

1572:

break: is the Australian Mathematical Society a reliable source?

3934:

http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2010/archive/era_journal_list.htm

3469:, published by Whatever publisher. For external links - in the 3099:

of the entries will be wikilinked, of course. As it is now, it

3763:

other maths editors can make use of his journal-creation too.

3478:

for other journal disciplines - not just mathematics journals.

2072:

measure. I'm not saying that the Australian ratings cannot be

184: 15: 572:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Journal of Logic and Analysis

1134:

I doesn't seem to be true that every journal they index is

3924:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1517:

reliable sources are needed to back up the assertion that

525:

Sounds reasonable to me. I left a pointer to this page at

2378:

I don't really have any preference between these. — Carl

1043:

of the list is not related to the color of links. — Carl

452:

the list shouldn't have red links. I disagree with that.

2414:

the useful information at the end of the link... — Carl

1832: 1033: 2847:

In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with redlinks

1856:, but it's a good first step. You might want to check 160: 1993:

Knowledge:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide

1940:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00018708

1858:

Knowledge:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide

3162:

If anyone wants to see examples of pruned lists see

351:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 251:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3956:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1651:

journal ranking for mathematics that I am aware of.

773:

Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica, English Series

4052:I deleted it on January 2. Nobody has objected. -- 3624:Carl, a month seems perfectly acceptable to me. -- 1822:New proposal: create articles for indexed journals 2650:capable of doing a professional job on wikipedia. 1895:". The current link in the infobox is this url, 2080:, I just don't think they are that important. -- 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2653:Crusio and Headbomb have already helped polish 1860:if you are planning on creating a lot of them. 3942:This message was posted before February 2018. 658:Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 3410:Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France 1975:). The talk pages should also be tagged with 174: 8: 3431:Journal of the European Mathematical Society 2035:Journal of the American Mathematical Society 1898:, when actually the home page is this url, 881:. Apparently I misread the first comment of 284:WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide 646:Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 3912:I have just modified one external link on 3164:List of scientific journals in probability 297: 216: 190: 188: 3168:List of scientific journals in statistics 1751:Here is another one from Thomson Reuters 1679:, ERA of the Australian Research Council 1335:. Also, it may be a case of undue weight 3382:Chinese Annals of Mathematics - Series B 3346:So far today (2011-1-28) I have created 3197:As the for external links, I think that 1700:SJR & SCOPUS "Discrete mathematics" 1470:well as the mathematics community. ---- 288:for tips on how to improve this article. 4015:Australian Mathematical Society ranking 3837:article, since there are only 6 links? 3748:Sounds like an excellent idea to me. -- 3530:has a more interesting history. — Carl 299: 265:Knowledge:WikiProject Academic Journals 218: 3878:List of mathematics education journals 3726:List of mathematics education journals 2608:...before he does anything not by hand 2466:I made another article by hand today, 268:Template:WikiProject Academic Journals 4082:WikiProject Academic Journal articles 3795:Then why does the first paragraph of 3262:Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 3127:other, perhaps less pleasant stuff... 3095:Yep, LSC says that, and in that case 1938:) vs the online access links (|link1= 1682:, explanation of their rating system 495:Proposal: redirect the red links here 7: 4077:List-Class Academic Journal articles 3499:Here's a few comments: According to 3461:Second, I reccomend a comma between 3360:SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 3001:Knowledge:Lists#Lists and categories 1489:a reliable source about mathematics. 752:sense to exclude the non-notble). 345:This article is within the scope of 245:This article is within the scope of 3272:Homology, Homotopy and Applications 3199:once the articles have been created 1827:then remove the few that are left. 1697:, SJR & SCOPUS (different one) 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3522:sure and then document everything. 2869:That's a very nice tool, kudos! -- 1519:The Australian Mathematics Society 14: 4092:Mid-priority mathematics articles 3916:. Please take a moment to review 3248:Final tweaks to pattern for stubs 1854:WP:Notability (academic journals) 1630:fr:AERES#Le classement des revues 365:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics 3386:Differential Equations (journal) 2410:Of course the point would be to 368:Template:WikiProject Mathematics 332: 322: 301: 238: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 4087:List-Class mathematics articles 3435:Journal of Mathematical Biology 2904:Knowledge is not supposed to be 1945:We might also want to create a 385:This article has been rated as 3876:. I count seven good links at 3853:17:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3825:17:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3810:16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3787:16:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3758:15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3743:14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 3268:Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics 3258:Turkish Journal of Mathematics 3254:Archive for Mathematical Logic 2556:Category:Physics journal stubs 642:Association for Symbolic Logic 1: 4010:08:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC) 3598:Category:Mathematics journals 3356:Operations Research (journal) 3276:Israel Journal of Mathematics 2831:Acta Applicandae Mathematicae 2790:Topology and its Applications 2720:Topology and its Applications 2681:Topology and its Applications 2655:Topology and its Applications 2638:Topology and its Applications 2522:Topology and its Applications 2468:Topology and its Applications 2456:Topology and its Applications 1942:+ |link1-name=Online access). 1178:Journal of Logic and Analysis 1145:Topology and its applications 1140:Journal of Logic and Analysis 638:Journal of Logic and Analysis 502:Topology and its Applications 359:and see a list of open tasks. 259:and see a list of open tasks. 248:WikiProject Academic Journals 42:Put new text under old text. 3914:List of mathematics journals 3699:02:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 3682:02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 3652:02:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 3634:15:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 3619:15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 3572:06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 3558:13:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 3543:12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 3513:06:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 3495:04:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 3447:04:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 3425:17:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 3401:16:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 3375:15:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 3339:15:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 3321:15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 3305:15:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 3236:01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 3189:00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 3114:13:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 3083:12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 3065:09:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 3036:12:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 3018:05:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 3005:Knowledge:Lists#Organization 2983:20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2965:20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2941:19:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2920:17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2910:addressed to start with). -- 2897:17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2879:17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2865:17:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2821:16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2806:12:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2783:12:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2760:16:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 2743:15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 2698:02:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 2671:01:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 2624:00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 2592:21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2540:20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2512:20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2483:16:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2442:16:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2427:12:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2406:12:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2391:12:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2341:15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2303:15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2286:14:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2267:12:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2250:11:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2211:12:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2192:11:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2174:11:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2161:09:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2142:08:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2106:08:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2090:07:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2063:07:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2047:07:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 2019:05:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 1920:05:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 1884:22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1847:21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1806:08:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 1791:02:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1773:02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1741:02:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1724:01:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 1668:12:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1642:09:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1622:05:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1596:04:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1548:04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1510:04:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1480:04:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1451:04:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1427:04:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1404:01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1386:20:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 1371:12:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 1353:04:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC) 1325:16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1270:16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1246:16:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1217:15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1195:15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1164:14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1130:13:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1107:13:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1081:13:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1056:12:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1019:11:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 1000:10:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 961:12:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 939:09:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 920:08:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 895:07:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 860:12:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 843:06:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 822:04:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 764:02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 717:23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 702:23:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 684:22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 632:22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 615:21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 587:21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 566:21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 537:21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 520:21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 490:21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 469:20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 25:List of mathematics journals 4062:01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC) 4048:12:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 4029:11:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 3890:16:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 3214:01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC 3176:List of scientific journals 3172:List of scientific journals 2989:bit lower it says: " it is 904:lists should be deleted. -- 650:London Mathematical Society 442:01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 4108: 3973:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3909:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2996:Knowledge:Lists#Navigation 1688:, University of Wisconsin 1685:, University of Pittsburg 779:Acta Mathematica Hungarica 416:Talk:Lists of journals#RFC 2724:Journal of Symbolic Logic 409:RfC on journal list names 384: 317: 279: 271:Academic Journal articles 233: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2658:deliberate pace. — Carl 2558:. Anyway I'll go create 391:project's priority scale 3905:External links modified 2839:Acta Mathematica Sinica 1955:, rather than use two ( 1892:Advances in Mathematics 1608:, and then please read 1290:AustMS journal rankings 1066:down. Having a list of 348:WikiProject Mathematics 3433:and I about to create 804:and more specifically 796:Knowledge is supposed 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 3835:mathematics education 3352:Numerische Mathematik 3220:if the articles exist 2276:hand here, please? -- 1754:. Here is Red Jasper 1025:Demo without redlinks 100:Neutral point of view 3954:regular verification 3348:Advances in Geometry 3252:Yesterday I created 2554:, it populates only 2549:physics-journal-stub 2023:Yes, I agree that a 1694:, SJR & SCOPUS 1088:Mathematical Reviews 640:is published by the 473:One thing this list 447:Removal of red links 371:mathematics articles 105:No original research 3944:After February 2018 3686:No worries. — Carl 3592:Clean up 2011-02-01 3467:mathematics journal 3429:And I have created 2722:article, I created 1149:Journal of K-Theory 3998:InternetArchiveBot 3949:InternetArchiveBot 3149:every math article 1062:you just move the 340:Mathematics portal 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3974: 3720: 3697: 3617: 3541: 3423: 3399: 3373: 3337: 3303: 3234: 3213: 3081: 3034: 2981: 2863: 2804: 2741: 2669: 2563:math-journal-stub 2538: 2481: 2425: 2389: 2301: 2028:math-journal-stub 1950:math-journal-stub 1845: 1789: 1739: 1722: 1666: 1594: 1530:This pertains to 1508: 1449: 1402: 1369: 1323: 1305:personal opinion. 1268: 1215: 1162: 1105: 1092:Zentralblatt MATH 1054: 1017: 959: 858: 700: 630: 585: 518: 488: 467: 405: 404: 401: 400: 397: 396: 296: 295: 292: 291: 262:Academic Journals 253:Academic Journals 228:Academic Journals 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 4099: 4008: 3999: 3972: 3971: 3950: 3855: 3785: 3710: 3687: 3680: 3607: 3531: 3413: 3389: 3363: 3327: 3293: 3266:Today I created 3224: 3203: 3071: 3024: 2971: 2853: 2794: 2731: 2714:Another try: JSL 2659: 2590: 2567: 2561: 2553: 2547: 2528: 2517:stub categories. 2510: 2471: 2415: 2379: 2291: 2248: 2140: 2032: 2026: 2017: 1990: 1982: 1974: 1970:sci-journal-stub 1968: 1964: 1958: 1954: 1948: 1933: 1927: 1882: 1835: 1779: 1729: 1712: 1656: 1584: 1498: 1439: 1392: 1359: 1313: 1258: 1205: 1152: 1095: 1044: 1007: 949: 917: 910: 848: 840: 833: 806:WP:NOTADIRECTORY 690: 682: 620: 613: 575: 564: 508: 478: 457: 440: 373: 372: 369: 366: 363: 342: 337: 336: 326: 319: 318: 313: 305: 298: 273: 272: 269: 266: 263: 242: 235: 234: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 4107: 4106: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4067: 4066: 4017: 4002: 3997: 3965: 3958:have permission 3948: 3922:this simple FaQ 3907: 3874:Against a merge 3838: 3764: 3730: 3659: 3594: 3250: 2770: 2768:Problems remain 2718:Looking at the 2716: 2569: 2565: 2559: 2551: 2545: 2489: 2372:List of Pokémon 2349: 2227: 2119: 2078:reliable source 2030: 2024: 1996: 1984: 1976: 1972: 1966: 1962: 1956: 1952: 1946: 1931: 1929:infobox journal 1925: 1861: 1824: 1574: 1292: 1138:. For example, 1027: 913: 906: 836: 829: 661: 592: 543: 497: 449: 419: 412: 370: 367: 364: 361: 360: 338: 331: 311: 270: 267: 264: 261: 260: 201:on Knowledge's 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 4105: 4103: 4095: 4094: 4089: 4084: 4079: 4069: 4068: 4065: 4064: 4050: 4016: 4013: 3992: 3991: 3984: 3937: 3936: 3928:Added archive 3906: 3903: 3901: 3898: 3895: 3893: 3892: 3871: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3828: 3827: 3790: 3789: 3760: 3729: 3728:into this list 3722: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3655: 3654: 3637: 3636: 3593: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3527: 3523: 3516: 3515: 3479: 3459: 3450: 3449: 3403: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3283:journal helper 3249: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3215: 3195: 3160: 3153: 3144: 3137: 3134: 3129: 3128: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2923: 2922: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2845: 2824: 2823: 2769: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2715: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2651: 2641: 2611: 2604: 2599: 2598: 2525: 2518: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2376: 2375: 2368: 2365: 2348: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2270: 2269: 2253: 2252: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2195: 2194: 2177: 2176: 2163: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2050: 2049: 1943: 1902: 1823: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1759: 1758: 1744: 1743: 1726: 1705: 1704: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1652: 1645: 1644: 1625: 1624: 1573: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1527: 1526: 1494: 1490: 1482: 1466: 1465: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1430: 1429: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1254: 1249: 1248: 1220: 1219: 1198: 1197: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1021: 986: 985: 982: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 942: 941: 923: 922: 898: 897: 865: 864: 863: 862: 824: 792: 791: 740: 739: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 496: 493: 448: 445: 411: 406: 403: 402: 399: 398: 395: 394: 383: 377: 376: 374: 357:the discussion 344: 343: 327: 315: 314: 306: 294: 293: 290: 289: 277: 276: 274: 257:the discussion 243: 231: 230: 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4104: 4093: 4090: 4088: 4085: 4083: 4080: 4078: 4075: 4074: 4072: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4014: 4012: 4011: 4006: 4001: 4000: 3989: 3985: 3982: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3969: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3945: 3940: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3910: 3904: 3902: 3899: 3896: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3864: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3836: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3798: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3788: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3761: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3727: 3723: 3721: 3718: 3714: 3700: 3695: 3691: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3657: 3656: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3615: 3611: 3605: 3601: 3599: 3591: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3539: 3535: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3483:User:Headbomb 3480: 3477: 3476:ready for use 3472: 3471:Writing Guide 3468: 3464: 3463:peer reviewed 3460: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3421: 3417: 3411: 3407: 3404: 3402: 3397: 3393: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3371: 3367: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3340: 3335: 3331: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3301: 3297: 3290: 3286: 3284: 3279: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3247: 3237: 3232: 3228: 3221: 3216: 3211: 3207: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3145: 3142: 3138: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3125: 3124: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3084: 3079: 3075: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3037: 3032: 3028: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3006: 3002: 2997: 2992: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2979: 2975: 2967: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2942: 2939: 2936: 2932: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2895: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2861: 2857: 2850: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2802: 2798: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2767: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2739: 2735: 2727: 2725: 2721: 2713: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2685:Acta Numerica 2682: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2667: 2663: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2642: 2639: 2635: 2634:Acta Numerica 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2564: 2557: 2550: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2536: 2532: 2526: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2479: 2475: 2469: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2452: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2423: 2419: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2387: 2383: 2373: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2325: 2304: 2299: 2295: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2224: 2218: 2217: 2212: 2209: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2175: 2172: 2169: 2164: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2104: 2101: 2097: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2076:or are not a 2075: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2029: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1994: 1989:|class=stub}} 1988: 1981:|class=stub}} 1980: 1971: 1961: 1951: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1930: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1843: 1839: 1833: 1828: 1821: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1787: 1783: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1756: 1753: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1737: 1733: 1727: 1725: 1720: 1716: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1678: 1675: 1674: 1669: 1664: 1660: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1592: 1588: 1581: 1579: 1571: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1506: 1502: 1495: 1491: 1488: 1483: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1467: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1452: 1447: 1443: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1405: 1400: 1396: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1367: 1363: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1321: 1317: 1307: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1296: 1289: 1271: 1266: 1262: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1218: 1213: 1209: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1165: 1160: 1156: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1093: 1089: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1052: 1048: 1042: 1037: 1035: 1030: 1024: 1020: 1015: 1011: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 998: 995: 989: 983: 980: 979: 978: 962: 957: 953: 946: 945: 944: 943: 940: 936: 932: 927: 926: 925: 924: 921: 918: 916: 911: 909: 902: 901: 900: 899: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 861: 856: 852: 846: 845: 844: 841: 839: 834: 832: 825: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 794: 793: 789: 785: 781: 780: 775: 774: 768: 767: 766: 765: 761: 757: 756: 749: 746: 736: 735: 718: 714: 710: 705: 704: 703: 698: 694: 687: 686: 685: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 634: 633: 628: 624: 618: 617: 616: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 590: 589: 588: 583: 579: 573: 569: 568: 567: 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 540: 539: 538: 535: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 521: 516: 512: 505: 503: 494: 492: 491: 486: 482: 476: 471: 470: 465: 461: 453: 446: 444: 443: 438: 434: 430: 426: 422: 417: 410: 407: 392: 388: 382: 379: 378: 375: 358: 354: 350: 349: 341: 335: 330: 328: 325: 321: 320: 316: 310: 307: 304: 300: 287: 286: 285: 278: 275: 258: 254: 250: 249: 244: 241: 237: 236: 232: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 4018: 3996: 3993: 3968:source check 3947: 3941: 3938: 3911: 3908: 3900: 3897: 3894: 3873: 3868:do not merge 3867: 3731: 3707: 3603: 3602: 3595: 3475: 3345: 3291: 3287: 3280: 3265: 3251: 3219: 3198: 3175: 3148: 3100: 3096: 3050:I disagree. 2994:themselves, 2968: 2953: 2907: 2848: 2771: 2728: 2717: 2684: 2680: 2677:WP:NJournals 2645: 2644: 2630:WP:NJournals 2607: 2465: 2461: 2453: 2450: 2411: 2377: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2329:WP:NJournals 2223:diddly squat 2221: 2149:WP:NJournals 1987:Maths rating 1890: 1829: 1825: 1582: 1577: 1575: 1535: 1522: 1518: 1486: 1333:WP:NJournals 1311: 1293: 1234:WP:NJournals 1229:WP:NJournals 1183:WP:NJournals 1177: 1067: 1040: 1038: 1031: 1028: 990: 987: 975: 915:(Discussion) 914: 907: 838:(Discussion) 837: 830: 797: 777: 771: 753: 750: 744: 741: 653: 645: 637: 506: 498: 474: 472: 454: 450: 413: 387:Mid-priority 386: 346: 312:Mid‑priority 282: 281: 246: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3644:Steve Quinn 3564:Steve Quinn 3526:president". 3487:Steve Quinn 3439:Steve Quinn 3181:Steve Quinn 2752:Steve Quinn 2690:Steve Quinn 2616:Steve Quinn 2544:Looking at 2147:satisfying 2055:Steve Quinn 2039:Steve Quinn 1979:WP Journals 1912:Steve Quinn 1765:Steve Quinn 1691:, Not sure 1614:Steve Quinn 1540:Steve Quinn 1523:prima facie 1487:prima facie 1472:Steve Quinn 1419:Steve Quinn 1345:Steve Quinn 1295:User:Crusio 1238:Steve Quinn 887:Steve Quinn 810:WP:LINKFARM 800:to be (see 784:Steve Quinn 709:Steve Quinn 654:SIAM Review 527:WT:JOURNALS 362:Mathematics 353:mathematics 309:Mathematics 148:free images 31:not a forum 4071:Categories 4040:Randykitty 4005:Report bug 3841:Funandtrvl 3802:Funandtrvl 3797:WP:REDLINK 3735:Funandtrvl 3724:Merger of 3406:Astérisque 1907:John Wayne 1181:satisfies 1136:WP:NOTABLE 199:List-class 3988:this tool 3981:this tool 3412:. — Carl 3388:. — Carl 3362:. — Carl 3174:. In the 3152:articles. 2957:JRSpriggs 2889:. Relax. 2398:JRSpriggs 1960:math-stub 1532:WP:VERIFY 1337:WP:WEIGHT 1176:That the 574:. — Carl 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 4036:WP:UNDUE 3994:Cheers.— 3849:contribs 3774:contribs 3766:Headbomb 3669:contribs 3661:Headbomb 2887:deadline 2579:contribs 2571:Headbomb 2499:contribs 2491:Headbomb 2237:contribs 2229:Headbomb 2129:contribs 2121:Headbomb 2116:WP:CIVIL 2074:verified 2069:fr:AERES 2006:contribs 1998:Headbomb 1871:contribs 1863:Headbomb 1538:." ---- 1064:linkfarm 883:User:CBM 671:contribs 663:Headbomb 602:contribs 594:Headbomb 553:contribs 545:Headbomb 429:contribs 421:Headbomb 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3918:my edit 3866:I vote 3778:physics 3673:physics 3501:WP:PROF 3437:. ---- 3157:WP:NPOV 3141:WP:NPOV 2583:physics 2503:physics 2241:physics 2133:physics 2010:physics 1875:physics 1612:. ---- 1343:. ---- 1341:WP:NPOV 1041:content 675:physics 606:physics 557:physics 433:physics 389:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3882:Tkuvho 3817:Crusio 3750:Crusio 3626:Crusio 3550:Crusio 3505:Crusio 3458:group. 3358:, and 3313:Crusio 3274:; and 3260:, and 3106:Crusio 3057:Crusio 3052:WP:LSC 3010:Crusio 2931:WP:BRD 2912:Crusio 2871:Crusio 2849:per se 2837:, and 2813:Crusio 2775:Crusio 2434:Crusio 2333:Crusio 2278:Crusio 2184:Crusio 2153:Crusio 2112:WP:AGF 2110:Hans, 2082:Crusio 1798:Tkuvho 1634:Crusio 1493:best". 1378:Crusio 1187:Crusio 1122:Crusio 1073:Crusio 931:Crusio 879:WP:GNG 875:WP:GNG 814:Crusio 802:WP:NOT 205:scale. 126:Google 4054:Bduke 4021:Bduke 3782:books 3677:books 3380:Also 2938:Adler 2894:Adler 2587:books 2507:books 2347:split 2264:Adler 2245:books 2208:Adler 2171:Adler 2137:books 2103:Adler 2014:books 1879:books 1606:WP:RS 1602:WP:RS 1521:, is 1253:page. 997:Adler 908:Bduke 831:Bduke 776:and 760:talk 679:books 610:books 561:books 534:Adler 475:could 437:books 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 4058:talk 4044:talk 4025:talk 3886:talk 3845:talk 3821:talk 3806:talk 3770:talk 3754:talk 3739:talk 3717:talk 3694:talk 3665:talk 3658:Uh? 3648:talk 3630:talk 3614:talk 3568:talk 3554:talk 3538:talk 3509:talk 3491:talk 3443:talk 3420:talk 3396:talk 3384:and 3370:talk 3334:talk 3317:talk 3300:talk 3231:talk 3210:talk 3194:say. 3185:talk 3170:and 3110:talk 3097:none 3078:talk 3061:talk 3031:talk 3014:talk 2978:talk 2961:talk 2935:Hans 2916:talk 2908:were 2891:Hans 2875:talk 2860:talk 2817:talk 2801:talk 2779:talk 2756:talk 2738:talk 2694:talk 2666:talk 2636:and 2620:talk 2575:talk 2535:talk 2495:talk 2478:talk 2438:talk 2422:talk 2402:talk 2386:talk 2337:talk 2298:talk 2282:talk 2261:Hans 2233:talk 2205:Hans 2188:talk 2168:Hans 2157:talk 2125:talk 2100:Hans 2086:talk 2059:talk 2043:talk 2002:talk 1983:and 1965:and 1916:talk 1867:talk 1842:talk 1802:talk 1786:talk 1769:talk 1736:talk 1719:talk 1663:talk 1638:talk 1618:talk 1610:WP:V 1591:talk 1544:talk 1505:talk 1476:talk 1446:talk 1423:talk 1399:talk 1382:talk 1366:talk 1349:talk 1320:talk 1265:talk 1242:talk 1212:talk 1191:talk 1159:talk 1126:talk 1102:talk 1090:and 1077:talk 1051:talk 1034:here 1014:talk 994:Hans 956:talk 935:talk 891:talk 855:talk 818:talk 788:talk 713:talk 697:talk 667:talk 656:and 648:and 627:talk 598:talk 582:talk 549:talk 531:Hans 515:talk 485:talk 464:talk 425:talk 280:See 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3962:RfC 3932:to 3713:CBM 3690:CBM 3610:CBM 3534:CBM 3416:CBM 3392:CBM 3366:CBM 3330:CBM 3296:CBM 3227:CBM 3206:CBM 3074:CBM 3027:CBM 2991:not 2974:CBM 2856:CBM 2797:CBM 2734:CBM 2662:CBM 2531:CBM 2474:CBM 2418:CBM 2412:put 2382:CBM 2294:CBM 1838:CBM 1782:CBM 1732:CBM 1715:CBM 1659:CBM 1587:CBM 1501:CBM 1442:CBM 1395:CBM 1362:CBM 1316:CBM 1261:CBM 1208:CBM 1155:CBM 1098:CBM 1068:all 1047:CBM 1010:CBM 952:CBM 851:CBM 798:not 755:DGG 745:all 693:CBM 652:or 623:CBM 578:CBM 511:CBM 481:CBM 460:CBM 381:Mid 176:TWL 4073:: 4060:) 4046:) 4027:) 3975:. 3970:}} 3966:{{ 3888:) 3851:) 3847:• 3839:-- 3823:) 3815:-- 3808:) 3780:/ 3776:/ 3772:/ 3756:) 3741:) 3733:-- 3715:· 3692:· 3675:/ 3671:/ 3667:/ 3650:) 3632:) 3612:· 3570:) 3556:) 3548:-- 3536:· 3511:) 3493:) 3465:, 3445:) 3418:· 3408:, 3394:· 3368:· 3354:, 3350:, 3332:· 3319:) 3298:· 3278:. 3270:; 3256:, 3229:· 3208:· 3187:) 3166:, 3112:) 3101:is 3076:· 3063:) 3029:· 3016:) 2976:· 2963:) 2918:) 2877:) 2858:· 2833:, 2819:) 2799:· 2781:) 2773:-- 2758:) 2736:· 2696:) 2664:· 2622:) 2585:/ 2581:/ 2577:/ 2568:. 2566:}} 2560:{{ 2552:}} 2546:{{ 2533:· 2505:/ 2501:/ 2497:/ 2476:· 2440:) 2420:· 2404:) 2384:· 2339:) 2296:· 2284:) 2243:/ 2239:/ 2235:/ 2190:) 2159:) 2135:/ 2131:/ 2127:/ 2118:. 2088:) 2061:) 2045:) 2031:}} 2025:{{ 2012:/ 2008:/ 2004:/ 1995:. 1985:{{ 1977:{{ 1973:}} 1967:{{ 1963:}} 1957:{{ 1953:}} 1947:{{ 1932:}} 1926:{{ 1918:) 1877:/ 1873:/ 1869:/ 1840:· 1804:) 1784:· 1771:) 1734:· 1717:· 1661:· 1640:) 1620:) 1589:· 1578:is 1546:) 1534:- 1503:· 1478:) 1444:· 1425:) 1397:· 1384:) 1364:· 1351:) 1318:· 1263:· 1244:) 1210:· 1193:) 1157:· 1128:) 1100:· 1079:) 1049:· 1012:· 954:· 937:) 929:-- 893:) 853:· 827:-- 820:) 762:) 715:) 695:· 677:/ 673:/ 669:/ 625:· 608:/ 604:/ 600:/ 580:· 559:/ 555:/ 551:/ 529:. 513:· 483:· 462:· 435:/ 431:/ 427:/ 418:. 156:) 54:; 4056:( 4042:( 4023:( 4007:) 4003:( 3990:. 3983:. 3884:( 3843:( 3819:( 3804:( 3784:} 3768:{ 3752:( 3737:( 3719:) 3711:( 3696:) 3688:( 3679:} 3663:{ 3646:( 3628:( 3616:) 3608:( 3566:( 3552:( 3540:) 3532:( 3507:( 3489:( 3441:( 3422:) 3414:( 3398:) 3390:( 3372:) 3364:( 3336:) 3328:( 3315:( 3302:) 3294:( 3233:) 3225:( 3212:) 3204:( 3183:( 3108:( 3080:) 3072:( 3059:( 3033:) 3025:( 3012:( 2980:) 2972:( 2959:( 2914:( 2873:( 2862:) 2854:( 2815:( 2803:) 2795:( 2777:( 2754:( 2740:) 2732:( 2692:( 2668:) 2660:( 2646:I 2618:( 2589:} 2573:{ 2537:) 2529:( 2509:} 2493:{ 2480:) 2472:( 2436:( 2424:) 2416:( 2400:( 2388:) 2380:( 2374:) 2335:( 2300:) 2292:( 2280:( 2247:} 2231:{ 2186:( 2155:( 2139:} 2123:{ 2114:/ 2084:( 2057:( 2041:( 2016:} 2000:{ 1914:( 1881:} 1865:{ 1844:) 1836:( 1800:( 1788:) 1780:( 1767:( 1757:. 1738:) 1730:( 1721:) 1713:( 1703:. 1665:) 1657:( 1636:( 1616:( 1593:) 1585:( 1542:( 1507:) 1499:( 1474:( 1448:) 1440:( 1421:( 1401:) 1393:( 1380:( 1368:) 1360:( 1347:( 1322:) 1314:( 1267:) 1259:( 1240:( 1214:) 1206:( 1189:( 1161:) 1153:( 1124:( 1104:) 1096:( 1075:( 1053:) 1045:( 1016:) 1008:( 958:) 950:( 933:( 889:( 857:) 849:( 816:( 790:) 786:( 758:( 711:( 699:) 691:( 681:} 665:{ 629:) 621:( 612:} 596:{ 584:) 576:( 563:} 547:{ 517:) 509:( 487:) 479:( 466:) 458:( 439:} 423:{ 393:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index