Talk:Historical Association

• Dicho y hecho

I rewrote it at: Historical Association/Temp Not sure about the second sentence. Is it needed? Joaquin Murietta 00:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the journal _History_? It is a professional journal that has been published since 1912 - it is the _the_ journal of the Historical Association and deserves a mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.86.65 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Marskell 10:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In case things seem a little out of context... Since the earlier versions were copyright infringement, I have deleted those edits. Only the non-copyright infringement versions remain. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal

May I suggest a merger of the page History (journal) with this page? -Historical Association? This does not seem to carry any stand-alone weight. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – These are two distinct and well-established entities, one an organization established in 1906 and the other a journal established in 1916. Even if connected, they are of sufficient note and long-standing to have separate articles, IMHO. For me, any publication in existence for almost a hundred years is likely to be considered "notable". — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral While Jpbowen is most likely correct that both entities will turn out to be notable, that does not mean that we absolutely must have two separate articles. As it is, both articles are pretty short (and academic journals being what they are, it's very well possible that the article in the journal will be difficult to expand), so merging them might result in a "meatier" article. With appropriate redirects in place, I don't see any disadvantage to such an approach. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I do; separate articles means the appropriate categories for each can be included. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Don't see why those cats cannot be added to the combined article, we do that with other articles, too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Or categorize the redirect itself. fgnievinski (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Merge: unless the journal's notability is demonstrated; see Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) for background. I noticed that it doesn't carry an Impact Factor from Thomson Reuters, but I also note that's the case for most journals in List_of_history_journals#General_history. At least indexing information is necessary (although not sufficient for notability); please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide#Abstracting_and_indexing_information. fgnievinski (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Took me less than a minute to verify that the journal is indexed in Scopus, meeting NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• First, I meant it needed (still needs) demonstration in the body of the article. Second, I thought you considered indexing in Scopus (a non-selective biblio db) insufficient proof of notability? fgnievinski (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• While I personally don't like Scopus very much, that personal preference is not the current consensus, which is that Scopus indexing is enough to meet NJournals. And for this merge discussion, it's not so much important what actually is in the article, as what could be in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have added Scopus information to History (journal) with a reference, thus demonstrating WP:NJournals notability under Criterion 1 following Note 1. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: the journal and the association are conceptually distinct, even though the one is in some sense dependent on the other. Can the tag be removed from the article now? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI @Andreas Philopater:- they are not 'in some sense dependent' on each other; the journal is the journal of the society. It belongs to it, not the converse. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to make. The one being dependent on the other in no way makes the two conceptually equivalent. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)