WikiProject Academic Journals	(Rated Stub-Class)	Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
v • d • e 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.  Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

	WikiProject Resource Exchange	Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange articles
v • d • e If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.

[edit] Merge from IJET

This editorial in AJET states that the board of AJET approved in 2007 a merger from the International Journal of Educational Technology, and the about AJET page now states "In 2007 we announced the merger of IJET (International Journal of Educational Technology) with AJET, marked by the creation of the new IJET Archives." I suggest a merger of the corresponding Wikipedia articles; they're both kind of weak as articles on their own and would be strengthened by being combined, as it would give more of a story to tell about their history, I think. —David Eppstein 06:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In general earlier titles that lasted for only a short period should be merged into a combined article under the present title. Libraries in the US list each title separately to avoid confusing the details, but even for this specialized use separate listing has always been controversial (& personally as a librarian I have never liked it). For a general encyclopedia, it seems unnecessary & will produce too many small articles difficult to support. I'd say that in general the preferred handling in almost all cases would be to merge, unless the various parts had significant independent existences. DGG (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I performed the merge. —David Eppstein 02:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)