→Frontiers in... journal series: un-indent my comment (work stuff will probably keep me busy through the weekend, so I should bow out now, and anything else I say would just be retreading the same ground)
:::::::::: No, I like the example very very much: it shows that your vehemently repeated argument that it is ''absolutely and obviously necessary'' to include the list is entirely mistaken. It is a shame that ''you'' don't understand this; but I am not an evangelist, I do not need to convert you, I just want to get this piece of junk out of Wikipedia where it does not belong. (Of course, the fact that you have been so personally unpleasant makes me more committed to this goal than I would be under other circumstances.) --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 23:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::This article is not a piece of junk, nor is the list. [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|Go push your agenda elsewhere]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{outdent}} Headbomb can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of the Forbes 100 example was that it's OK to have a list whose contents are sourced directly to the organization who made the list. Since a new Forbes 100 comes out every year, it's reasonable to avoid overkill and report only the top 10 from each year, which is what our article does. Whether we include the whole 100 or not is incidental to the point that I thought Headbomb was arguing. (The "[[Forbes Magazine's List of America's Best Colleges|America's Best Colleges]]" list is also annual, but shorter, and we report the whole thing.) Again, perhaps I am mistaken, but that's my take-away. I can sympathize with the desire to keep Wikipedia from becoming a giant cruft pile; I have myself argued for the deletion of articles on academics who I thought did not measure up to [[WP:PROF]], or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number|recreational trivialities from pop math]], and I've definitely seen articles on journals that I felt should be deleted (e.g., [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics|this one]] or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Basic and Applied Physics|this one]]). I don't think cataloging every thing that anybody has called an academic journal is a suitable use for Wikipedia. I simply think that in this case, the publisher is obviously notable, and recording what they do makes our article more useful, without imposing a serious burden on readers who don't particularly care. (I do not believe that the [[Talk:Frontiers Media#Removing of journal list|original discussion]] had arrived at a consensus yet before it spilled over here. Three editors felt that a separate list page would be an OK course of action, if it could be reasonably guaranteed to be kept up-to-date, and {{ping|Doug Weller}} wrote, "List or whatever, I think it's important to have a way that readers can distinguish between those published by this company and those with just a similar name.") [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 00:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
