Talk:List of probability journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

RfC on journal list names[edit]

There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page watching[edit]

This question is directed to User:Melcombe: I'm curious to know whether you watch this page? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why shouldn't I? Other readers might look at my talk page to see that this "editor" thinks that redlinks should not appear in this artcle but is reluctant to properly introduce a discussion of the point on the article's talk page (and can't really be said to have done so now). Looking at this article's history one sees that this "editor" had removed redlinks on now 2 occasions despite this obviously indicating that at least two contributors think it worth including them. Wikipedia guidelines have various things to say about redlinks, but perhaps the most relevant is WP:REDDEAL. Melcombe (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason you shouldn't watch this page. The reason I wanted to know, is that if you watch this page, then I can remove it from my watchlist in the knowledge that someone is taking care of this list. I am fully well aware of all guidelines/rules/policies regarding redlinks. The reason that I remove them from list articles on journals is the following. To start with, there are quite a few such lists. Apparently, very few serious editors watch them. As a result, many of these lists contain redlinks, some to journal articles that should be created, many more to journals that fail every notability test. Worse, many of these lists don't contain redlinks, but external links to these non-notable journals. As some of these lists articles contain hundreds of entries, it is extremely difficult to decide individually for each single redlink/EL whether this is not a spamlink (there are "academic journals" popping up all over the place trying to make a fast buck on the open-access wave). As I seem to be the only one who seems to care about these lists, and my time is only limited, I have been forced to taking the shortcut of removing redlinks, as I feel that this is the lesser of two evils (i.e. rather remove good redlinks than leave spamlinks). If a journal is notable, it should have an article and get a bluelink. In the case of the present list, knowing now that someone like you, who knows the subject and cares about it, is watching this list and will certainly remove any spamlinks if they are inserted, I can safely remove it from my own watchlist. Which I am now doing, so if you want to respond to this, you'll need to post on my talk page. From your answers (here and on your own talkpage), I get the impression that I somehow have irritated you, which was not my intention, sorry about that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]