Talk:Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Academic Journals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. Physics: Publications Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.

Should this journal be split into two separate wikipedia pages? I.e. one for Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A and one for Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B? This would be consistent with journals like PRA, PRB..., which each have separate wiki pages. Alex Malins (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would advice against splitting an already brief stub into two separate articles. I haven't looked at the examples you mention, but perhaps those could be merged to make a more substantial article? --Randykitty (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physical Review A, Physical Review B etc. are major physics journals that came from the old Physical Review journal. None of them are stubs and better not merged IMO due to their own separate notariety and importance now. I'll try and give these two a flesh out on the current page first. Alex Malins (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems like a good way to proceed. If then it turns out that there's enough to split, that can still be done. --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]