User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/April

Saved book

Would you know why this is appearing in the community books category? Noom _talk ^contribs 14:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It was created in Bookspace, then moved to user space. It takes a while for the cache and category watchlists to catch up. Or maybe the book was in bookspace at the time of the edit, then it got userfied.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Still listed:

catsearch.php Category:Wikipedia_books_\(community_books\) User:.*
User:Endingsesame/Books/Endingsesame
Found 1/1617

Noom _talk ^contribs 21:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed RfC

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Excluding in print

I seem to remember you knowing something about how to fix printable versions of pages. If so, it would be great if you could comment at Template talk:URL#Printable version, if not, don't worry about it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'd really appreciate to hear from you.--Elitre (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian French

This edit of yours removed the label for a footnote in a quote. 216.239.65.158 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And? A footnote is not part of a quote, so why should we bother keeping it? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you bother reading our footnote? It says:

• The footnote reads: "Il faut noter ici que le terme de «français canadien» avait autrefois un sens plus restreint, désignant le français du Québec et les variétés qui s'y rattachent directement, d'où l'emploi à cette époque de «canadianisme» pour parler d'un trait caractéristique du français du Québec."

Without the label, it's impossible to know what footnote this is talking about. 216.239.65.203 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your solution doesn't say where the footnote is located in the authors' text. Having the number there does. 216.239.65.23 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

But the footnotes' location is not important in the least. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You say that, but I don't see why we wouldn't want to tell people where the footnote was. There's no cost to keeping it, as it's just one character.

The footnote number is supposed to be retained in cases like this. See [1], which discusses the issue. In this case, we have to keep the footnote because its content is used to support assertions in the Wikipedia article.216.239.65.23 (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote from that link, "Footnotes contained within quotations are omitted unless the meaning or purpose of the quotation would be obscured without the footnote." AKA, we omit the footnote, since the quotation isn't made unclear by its omission. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we need the footnote in this case to support our content, and there is no harm in ishowing the location of the footnote number, which is what you are opposed to. The source indicates the appropriate format for inclusion of the footnote. "If the footnote must be retained, keep the original footnote number and place the footnote directly below the quotation, separated by a 10-space line."

Honestly, I don't think we're going to agree about this. At the moment, there's one of us on each side, hence no consensus, so we should return to the previous state for now. If someone else supports your view, then things will be different. I'm going to copy the content of this conversation to the talk page so other people can comment if they want to. I'm also going to return things to the way they were. With your agreement, I'll try to match the format suggested in the source. 216.239.65.66 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For these: [2][3]. :) Acalamari 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Glass Project -- on hold??

Hi, I've been monitoring activity in the Wikiproject Glass, which is part of the larger project of Physics.

I posted a couple of questions on the talk pages of a couple of ones that interest me (As a longtime user, but a recent editor) and have received no replies. I know my enthusiasm is a little after-the-fact but from my explorations in the project, it seems largely unfinished, and could use an infusion of "new blood" so to speak.

I'd love to know what is going on even further behind the scenes than the talk/discussion pages are showing, since for at least three sections of the project Glass talk page, the headings read "under construction"? I hesitate to add my name to the "members" list, as I am not a physicist, rather a user who has varied interests in art, music, culture, society, business, etc, and all those interests seem to coincide with sections that, within the glass project, are under construction. --FauxClaud (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you don't have to be a physicist to be part of the physics project, simply someone who cares about physics-related articles. The same is pretty much true. The glass project does care about art, culture, etc... related to glass, so if you care about that, you should probably get involved. Like all small projects, interest goes up and down. I recall one of the most active editors doing good work at first, then he got in trouble for pushing weird and unusual points of views, and activity died as he got less and less involved.

The best way to kickback some activity in that taskforce is to do a round of recruitment. Find out who edits glass-related topics, invite them to join WP:GLASS. If you have friend, acquaintances, or colleagues interest in glass-related stuff, invite them over. Find out some tasks that need to be done, like taking Category:Ancient Roman glassware and bringing all articles to C-class, or something like that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I have my homework set out for me! About the "under construction" sections within the project discussion page...should I take this to mean I can edit that part to show there is current activity happening in those areas, and list some "to do" tasks within those? FauxClaud (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh the "under construction" thing is pretty old. Don't pay much attention to it. The page hasn't been edited since ... July 2009. If you want to change something about it, just go right ahead. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

See Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Headbomb and if you accept, transclude and notify the appropriate places. MBisanz ^talk 05:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WP Physics in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Writing guide

Hi, you're right, WP:EL is rather ambiguous about this. But #19 under "links normally to be avoided" suggests to me that ELs to an organization should be an exception rather than the rule. We don't link to homepages of publishers either, so why would we do this differently for organizations? For most publishers we have articles and anyone interested in their homepage can find the "official website" there. We have less coverage for organizations, so that's why I have been removing ELs to organization homepages if the organization has an article (which should have that link), but left it if the organization has no article. Thought that was a good compromise. Let me know what you think. --Crusio (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• PS: on a related topic: I regularly butt heads with editors insisting that the complete editorial board of a journal be included in an article. I think there is pretty good consensus in WPJournals that we should not do this and routinely refer to WP:NOTADIRECTORY and the writing guide to justify removing these lists. It was recently brought to my attention, though, that this is not in the writing guide, only in DGG's list of suggestions. AS NOTADIRECTORY does not explicitly mention boards, it would perhaps be good to include this in the guide, to avoid having the same discussions over and over again. --Crusio (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)