Jump to content

Talk:Acta Crystallographica

Split proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split the article

@TheBigPikachu: is there any particular reason to split out the sections of this journal into 6 different articles? Reconrabbit 17:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question that you've asked there helps to make the point - these are six separate journals and not sections of one larger journal. I think somebody looking for, for example, Acta Cryst. B would be more interested in finding out about the current journal rather than being initially presented with a history of the journal family. TheBigPikachu (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also just noticed that I've asked this question before!: Wik.ipedia.Pro talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#Multi-part journals TheBigPikachu (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning established at the Wikiproject makes sense (that they are independent entities with historical connections to the name). I support the split; abstracting and indexing for each "section" is far and above what is accepted as notable. Reconrabbit 13:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See what we do next...

OR

By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.

Success: You're subscribed now !