Talk:Science (1979–1986 magazine)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Relationship to the journal[edit]

Science magazine and Science the peer-reviewed journal have the same ISSN. I believe Science magazine is just the common name of the peer-reviewed journal which is sometimes used in casual speech. According to worldcat.org both the journal Science and the ejournal Science have the ISSN 095-9203.

Davida Scharf Librarian New Jersey Institute of Technology contact me at scharf@njit.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscharf (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move 1st and 3rd articles; no move for 2nd. I've redirected Science (magazine) to the journal, as every single incoming link I tried to fix actually intended the journal.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– The current primary publication of the AAAS is published as "Science Magazine" (e.g., as noted on the publication's home page at http://sciencemag.org and its Twitter page at https://twitter.com/sciencemagazine and Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/ScienceMagazine – just looking at those URL names makes that obvious). The current article at Science (journal) acknowledges that the publication it discusses is "widely referred to as Science Magazine". It therefore seems clear that the older defunct publication currently discussed in the article at Science (magazine) is not a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Science (magazine)". In fact, that older and less important publication wasn't even published exactly as "Science"; as noted in the article, it was published with a name that changed every year from "Science 80" to "Science 81" to "Science 82", etc. Since the older publication is presumably fading from memory and the other topic is the primary current publication of AAAS (received every week by all AAAS members) as "Science Magazine" (although the cover art just says "Science", but with a footer on every page that says "sciencemag.org"), that name seems to provide a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC identifier and also provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation. The discontinued 1970s television series currently described at Science Magazine is also presumably fading from memory. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 12:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: it seems that consensus is to abandon the second move. All are in favour of the third one but there is some division over the first one. Please discuss accordingly.

No, the title of the publication is Science, not Science Magazine. I'm fine with the 3rd move though.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is worth considering, but I believe it is only relevant to one of the three moves that are suggested here. And that issue could be resolved for the one that is affected by moving Science (journal) to Science (magazine), if we think that is better than moving it to Science Magazine (although I personally still prefer Science Magazine, since that is also commonly used and it provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation). We can't move any of them to Science. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except Science is a journal, not a magazine. The name is an artifact of the times, much like how Philosophical Magazine is a journal, not a magazine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support first and third moves leave the (journal) where it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support first and third moves only. The second move is unnecessary and a bit inaccurate. ONR (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not on the second proposal. As Headbomb says: "Science is journal, not a magazine." Such a move is not just a bit inaccurate, it is greatly inaccurate, BarrelProof's wikilaywering not withstanding. What's on the cover IS the title, as confirmed in the publication notice on the bottom of the table of contents. The page footer BarrelProof refers to is the url, which is no more authoritative for the title than "www.nytimes.com" is for The New York Times. As to "widely referred to", the citation for that is an incidental usage on Twitter. References to "Science magazine" (note the case) are, as noted above three years ago, casual speech.

I do support the third change (some explication seems useful there), but not the first: I do not see there is any general form or category "1979–1986 magazine" distinct from "magazines" generally. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF please. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question his good faith, but some of his argumentation is so sloppy that it should retracted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support 3rd proposal, Oppose 2nd proposal per above. For the first proposal, I prefer Science (general magazine) since the famous journal was also published during those years. Timmyshin (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.