Talk:Proceedings of SPIE

	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 articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Physics: Publications Low‑importance

	Physics portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.

The journal (or even proceeding) should be mentioned with a stub, not only with a link[edit]

In the most of cases, the reader look for a paper, not for SPIE. The shorter is chain of links, the better. dima 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm classification[edit]

The WikiProject classification for Proceedings of SPIE is Start-class. However, the page has less than 100 words, so it might not meet the grading criteria. If it should be a stub, then please set |class=Stub on this talk page & reinstate the stub tag(s) on the article page. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stub. @Tom.Reding:. If you think it looks like a stub (see WP:JWG), just update the talk page, or just leave a message on the talk page. Removing the stub template + leaving a talk page message for others to re-add the stub template and update the talk page templates is tedious. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I will do that for the most obvious cases (like this one). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]