User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2018/April

Request for feature - Error flag on live article for CS1 error: Web citation with no URL

I picked you to ask these questions of from reading your previous activities around the Wiki-dom and, specifically, you responded to another user's request for a needed feature, followed it to completion gathering positive support and intelligent input to its implementation ---> Template:Infobox.

I have taken on a personal goal of reducing the number of items and articles that appear on the Wikiproject: Oregon Clean-up list. Many of them are simple corrections that are easy to locate. One of the catagories that is proving more difficult than it should be. As titled, CS1:Web citation with no url (accessdate= with no url= I think is the trigger?). Other CS errors are flagged with a red font and message on the live article and these do not. It is hard to search through a reference list of over 60 or so entries to find the ONE that is missing a link. My questions are:

• If missing the url is an error worthy of being on the clean-up list, is there something I do not have knowledge of preventing this from becoming a feature to see them corrected?
• Where do I go to post this request for feature properly?
• Am I right in thinking you are very able to help with this and merely need to hold out hope you have the time?

Thanks in advance for any help to move this in the right direction. I feel this would be a proactive help to many editors in publishing edits without errors in citations. Much respect for your previous work. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darryl.P.Pike: See the instructions to display the errors in question (which should display in green). --Izno (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Much appreciated. I had not seen that page before, it has MUCH to offer me. Thanks!

(Turn on sarcastic yet sincere voice in your head) Seems I can add some code to something called a CSS style sheet and see them! Now, as soon as Google and I come to an understanding of what a CSS style sheet is, where to get one, and how to place it I'll be set! (Ok, turn off) I don't expect anyone to explain CSS style sheet to me or how to use one. That has been done and I will find and read it. I want to point out that from my quite novice position as an editor of this site, seems exhaustive and a deterrent to usage. Seeing these errors should be effected, or enabled, from a different function of Wikipedia than a complicated browser customization. I have to set my browser to see an error message in Wikipedia, got it.

At any rate again thank you for the solution and I am off to implement it if I can. I knew I was starting this in the right place. Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Click on the word "common" in the instructions, then click Edit, then paste the single line of code that is provided in the instructions (starting with ".citation-comment"). Then click Publish. You should start seeing the error messages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I've made what I hope is a slightly more "obvious" link to click in the instructions on this point. --Izno (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: I hope this change helps someone else because you have helped me by leaps and bounds tonight with these simple efforts of yours. I would have figured this out on my own in process, but that made it bone easy and I didn't see it. I read it several times and did not perceive it wanted me to click a solution. Much more understandable with your edit of it, and a whole new world opens... style sheets.... who knew?! ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Hindawi academic journals

The article List of Hindawi academic journals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Listcruft, just a copy of https://www.hindawi.com/journals/.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Hindawi academic journals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Hindawi academic journals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindawi academic journals until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Biological Conservation (journal)

Dear Headbomb,

In good faith, I deleted the assertion that the Biological Conservation journal is affiliated with the Society for Conservation Biology.

You appear to have re-instated this assertion with a reference to the journal homepage: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/biological-conservation/

I followed the link you gave to the journal homepage but I can find no reference nor indication that this journal is affiliated with the Society for Conservation Biology. Could I perhaps suggest you are confusing this commercial title with other journals such as 'Conservation Biology' and 'Conservation Letters' which are actually affiliated with the Society for Conservation Biology.

Kind regards,

Metacladistics (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Metacladistics: From the page (click "Read more"): "Biological Conservation is an affiliate publication of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB). SCB members can obtain a personal subscription to this journal through the Society." See also SCB website. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right! My mistake. Apologies. I did read the page, I just didn't click "read more". Thanks Metacladistics (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag

Hi, Headbomb.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to PERM and request it?
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Headbomb. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A note

I recently came across your's requesting a G6 and executed it.To easily execute such moves, without depending on others, you may wish to have a go at being granted the pagemover flag.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought I was a pagemover already, and got an error message. Turns out I'm a file mover, not a page mover. I'll apply for pagemover rights then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Flip that around... ;-) Primefac (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Headbomb. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

query

Greetings - I have been editing some pages -- but I am new here -- and do not know the playing rules - hence some questions. 1. I tried to make maxwell complete. Right now it is listed as "Stub" class -- but I do not know if I may remove that template in the Talk page and change it to something else, or ask someone, or....? 2. Same story with International Electrical Congress -- plus -- it seems to me that this page would be relevant to the Physics Project, but again, I do not know the process for having such a page adopted. (I also put a query about another page for adoption on the "Talk" section of the WikiProject Physics page, but did not get a reply -- not a complaint -- just by way of explaining why I am now asking you directly. Thanks. Sdc870 (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sdc870: I've upgraded it to Start class by doing this. You can always look at the quality scale and judge for yourself where the article lies. A case could be made for C class, but the article is currently far from a B class.

If you want to add articles to a wikiproject, all you need to do is as {{Wikiproject XXX|class=|importance=}} where XXX is Physics/Engineering/whatever.

There's no formal process to do this, if you think something is physics-related, just add it to the physics project. 95-99% of the time, this is uncontroversial. Units tend to be covered by {{WikiProject Measurement}}, but there's nothing wrong with adding other sciences projects when the units are commonly encountered in those fields. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@HeadBomb: Many thanks for explanations. I can now continue to stumble forward in a more enlightened manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdc870 (talk • contribs)

Your edit to Help:Citation Style 1

Your edit summary was " Help:Citation Style 1‎ (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . Headbomb (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 838264892 by Jc3s5h (talk) this pretty much matches the advice we give at ASIN. Open to different wording though)"

What is ASIN? Also, what reason could there be to link to one online bookstore like Amazon? Why should we prefer one vendor over all the others? Jc3s5h (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

See Help:Citation Style 1#Identifiers (2nd entry is ASIN). Normally, we wouldn't want to prefer one vendor over any other, however there are exceptions, e.g. rare books only carried at one place / providing a link to verify some basic information like author/publisher/year of publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This might be a case better handled via WP:IAR/WP:BEANS though, so I'm not too adamant about including that advice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Redacted

redacted comment.

(talk page stalker) Defending Headbomb here. The reversion was a good one, with a helpful link to an appropriate page, and as far as I can see, that page is not subject to 1RR. I edited it just now and did not see an edit notice to that effect. If that page has a 1RR restriction on it, please provide evidence. An admin might need to place an edit notice on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

1RR violation? Come back when you have something worth talking about, rather than throwing WP:BURO stuff at people. The citation was to Time magazine, and as such, should be cited to the magazine, as explained in the edit summary. If you have a problem the format of such citations, take it to the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My bad. You are right, sorry. Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Peace offering

		Scholarly Barnstar
		For your contributions based on high-quality academic sources, please accept this peace offering. Brian Everlasting (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Not needed, but appreciated nonetheless! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)