Talk:Physical Review Applied
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Yen-Tzu in topic Physical Review Applied is NOT Physical Review
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Physical Review Applied article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2013. The result of the discussion was Redirect. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
New journal edit
This is a new journal with the name Physical Review Applied. No need to re-direct. Please discuss here, if you disagree. Sabih omar (talk)
- You are violating the consensus from this. You have presented no evidence of there being independent notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Edited request edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you add the following categories to the article
Thanks. It also might be time to reconsider the full protection on this page. The AfD-related dispute is long resolved. Blocking the user would have been much better than FPing the page in the first place.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Those are content categories, so I don't think there are appropriate for adding to a redirect. Nonetheless I have lifted the protection. Presumably Mark Arsten is okay with this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Physical Review Applied is NOT Physical Review edit
The redirect must be removed because Physical Review Applied is a journal all by itself such as Phys. Rev. A, Phys. Rev. B, etc. Yen-Tzu (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)