User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Headbomb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Extra vid
I am curious how you believe that a record producer would have the rights to a TV show produced by Warner Bros? Am I missing something here - WP:YOUTUBE? -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that if a record producer (who should be well-versed in copyright law) hosts copyrighted material on his channel, then he's secured the rights to do so. It might be very WP:AGF-y of me to assume that is the case however. If you think this is an unwarranted assumption, feel free to revert me again. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite Quran/Print
Template:Cite Quran/Print has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Headbomb. I've reverted your edit to the above because it is misleading to 21C readers. Terminology changes, and the Annals was an academic journal discussing the latest developments in (what we now term) science and engineering. Using the "philosophy" tag implies to modern readers a theological or moral argument, which is lacking from the Annals. If you have a chance to browse the online version you'll see what I mean. The same terminological misunderstanding occurs from time to time, I think I corrected a previous case about a year ago. Thanks for your well intentioned edit and best regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know who 21C readers are, but you're right that this one is about science. I've updated the stub tag according. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, 21C = 21st century. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I added the missing documentation to this so that more people may use it, and to prevent future TfDs. I'm thinking of changing the functionality so that if |access-date= is not specified it becomes a 1-liner external link with no {{cite web}} wrapper, so it can nicely fit into, for example, Whirlpool Galaxy#External links. If |access-date= is specified, then it retains its current behavior. Otherwise it looks out of place in ==External links== (see Comet Stonehouse#External links). Since it has almost no transclusions, now's the best time to decide. What do you think? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think this one probably needs to be moved to {{cite APOD}} and {{APOD}} can then become the simpler external link version. Kinda like we do with {{JPL small body}} and {{cite sbdb}}.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Women's health
I reverted your edits to Women's health because they either created red links or links to the wrong page, eg subject rather than journal. i did not understand the rationale. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Those all link to the correct pages save Academic Medicine which I've updated. And redlinks are fine per WP:REDLINK. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I beg to differ - I really do not understand why you felt the need to make these changes. Those to CA were relatively minor but don't add anything. Academic Medicine was incorrect. Canadian Journal of Public Health you redlinked for some reason. One might as well redlink all the journal citations on the page that don't have WP entries. If you feel CJPH shpuld be linked a better stategy is to create a target. I'm putting this up for GA and redlinks don't look good in a review. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway there is a workaround which I am going to utilise here, which is to redirect to the Association that publishes the journal. A relatively common practice on WP. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redlinks don't matter in a GA review, or FA review, and point me to anyone that says otherwise and I will personally trout them. As far as redirecting the entry, please don't. Canadian Journal of Public Health is a notable journal and should have its own entry, and the article should be created. Redirects will discourage that creation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway there is a workaround which I am going to utilise here, which is to redirect to the Association that publishes the journal. A relatively common practice on WP. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I beg to differ - I really do not understand why you felt the need to make these changes. Those to CA were relatively minor but don't add anything. Academic Medicine was incorrect. Canadian Journal of Public Health you redlinked for some reason. One might as well redlink all the journal citations on the page that don't have WP entries. If you feel CJPH shpuld be linked a better stategy is to create a target. I'm putting this up for GA and redlinks don't look good in a review. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Point of double links
Hi Headbomb, thanks for reverting that speed of light stuff. I have put some warnings on that user's talk page. By the way, regarding this, the reason why I do this, is because the first link leads to the title page (with the book meta data), whereas the second directly takes one to the cited page. I think I'm not the only one who does it this way. But no big deal here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)