From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coverage of content in popular media

The link to the Fox News report is a bit comical. The report cites "Nature Proceedings", not "Nature Precedings". Surely we could have a better example.

Personally I would remove that section. It's trivia - articles from many journals get reported in the popular media, so it is hardly worth stating. It seems like a wikipediaism - a bit of trivia slipped in just to support the notability of the topic. Nurg ( talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Categories/infobox/description

As far as I can see from the description of this "thing", it is not a journal but a repository, i.e. a database. I think the cats and infobox should reflect this. -- Crusio ( talk) 17:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coverage of content in popular media

The link to the Fox News report is a bit comical. The report cites "Nature Proceedings", not "Nature Precedings". Surely we could have a better example.

Personally I would remove that section. It's trivia - articles from many journals get reported in the popular media, so it is hardly worth stating. It seems like a wikipediaism - a bit of trivia slipped in just to support the notability of the topic. Nurg ( talk) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Categories/infobox/description

As far as I can see from the description of this "thing", it is not a journal but a repository, i.e. a database. I think the cats and infobox should reflect this. -- Crusio ( talk) 17:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook