Talk:International Political Science Abstracts

Initialism

Since it was already listed at the dab IPSA, I shored-up that use by adding it here per standard procedure of WP:MOSDAB. The alternative of leaving it absent and then removing from the dab wouldn't be helpful. The image and a quick WP:RS search finds it in use. Widefox; talk 11:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

After double checking the timings, seems I was mistaken, the dab entry was initially (incorrectly) added by John Vandenberg before the article was created, so it was (actually) correctly removed at that point by EllieTea. My apologies to EllieTea. Still, let's not drop the ball here, IPSA is now correctly listed in both the dab, journal article, org article, and the two articles are now linked. Widefox; talk 11:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In my eyes, acronyms really only belong on an article if they're actually used (to avoid using the same name over and over again). Not really necessary in a short stub like this. Apart from that, only people who can't read would be helped by knowing that the acronym of this journal is IPSA and, somehow, I think that includes precious few of our readers... :-) As the article stands now, IPSA is confusing, because it is referring to the journal and the association. My preference is to remove both. BTW, what is the weird "reference" to an internal document at the British Library supposed to document? --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like one very reasonable consideration inside articles.

However, there's two (tangential) aspects:

• Content: There are more considerations though. I don't think including an initialism causes a WP:WEIGHT / NPOV issue, more of a seemingly gratuitous definition. Thing is, it may seem gratuitous in the article, if it is not utilised in the article (yet), but...
  • Another consideration - if there's RS documenting usage of the initialism for (both) articles, that content should stay per WP:V alone, so I disagree with not including it irrespective of article size
• Disambiguation: How's a user meant to find (navigate) to either article if they navigate using "IPSA"?
  • Use in RS indicate potential usage of readers, irrespective of article size
  • If it's not in the article, we can't list it in the dab per WP:DABACRO - where we're encouraged to insert a (sourced) initialism in the article instead of removing from the dab. Normal procedure at DAB project. The case for an exception to WP:DABACRO needs to be made.
    • It would be easier (for me) to remove from the dab and not fix the article, but the above is much more useful for readers, and included in MOSDAB (no doubt) for that reason

So, even stub content should be balanced with that tangential subject of disambiguation (and navigation)

Agree that IPSA needs disambiguating, an interesting idea to create a journal with the same initials as the organisation.

How does it help if we remove the disambiguation issue? Before being tempted to remove either, you may want to ping the dab project and/or other projects. I'm just following the (intentionally standardising) MOSDAB, so this is normal procedure.

Curiously, WP:ACRO doesn't help, there's maybe more guidance elsewhere?

As for RS - British Library cuts it! It wasn't hard to find more, although initially I was thrown as the org name url came up.... Come on - it's even in the article image! Widefox; talk 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of points... WP:V: not everything that is verifiable also needs to be included. We can, for examle, verify the page count of each and every issue of this journal, but that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic content. Someone looking for the journal or organization by looking up IPSA, will find the full name at that dab page. I don't see why it would then confuse them if they wouldn't see the acronym in the article itself. In contrast, finding the same acronym twice referring to different entities seems less than crystal clear to me. BL: I'm still not sure what this "reference" is supposed to source. That "IPSA" is the acronym of this journal name? Anybody who can read will see that in 3 seconds... We don't need to source that the sky is blue... I agree though that it would be silly to remove this from the dab page. --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Your idea of dab pages it the opposite of the guideline. Did you read WP:DABACRO? "When considering articles to include in the list, it is important that each individual entry is referred to its respective abbreviation within its article." If it's not in the article, we can't put it in the dab. I used a source the second time I added it, as it was removed the first time, which is (I suppose) fair enough considering it was unsourced. Being as the initialism is in use in RS for both articles, and your suggestion is the opposite of guideline, I suggest you seek further opinions before making changes. Widefox; talk 17:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the guideline I'm following WP:DABABBREV "Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article defines the acronym or abbreviation. If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned on the target article, consider adding it to the target article and then adding the entry to the disambiguation page." Widefox; talk 10:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That page also says (at the top): "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I gingerly suggest that putting in 3-sentence stub TWO acronyms that refer to different entities, plus a silly reference to tell people that, yes, the acronym of International Political Science Abstracts is indeed IPSA is perhaps taking things too far. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Political Science Abstracts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202041814/http://cdn.elsevier.com/assets/excel_doc/0003/148548/title_list.xlsx to http://cdn.elsevier.com/assets/excel_doc/0003/148548/title_list.xlsx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)