User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/September

Arba Minch General Hospital

@Headbomb:: I have received your assessment on the article "Arba Minch General Hospital". It is about the reliability of the references I used. I searched for the references in the Directory of Open Access Journals and COPE and they are registered there, for those not indexed in PUBMED. The first reference I used is a hard copy Pdf. As you know Ethiopia is found in the developing world, information might not mostly be available online. Can't I use the local document written about its establishment? How do you suggest I improve the article, given the issues I raised above. This is my first-time experience with Wikipedia. Lokking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Hiwot Abera

Hell Hiwot, I am not extremely familiar with the subject area (how to write about hospitals), which is why I asked on the talk pages of WikiProject Medicine if anyone had advice for you. For the above, I'll only have generalities covered by our guidance on the use of primary sources and independent reliable sources. I highly recommend you ask for advice at WikiProject Medicine, given those are the knowledgeable editors in that area. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Rcats on "Chemical and pharmaceutical bulletin" and WP:Printability#Redundancy

To keep this template call out of the section title: Chemical and pharmaceutical bulletin; changing the venue because this requires no further attention from Tokenzero

I apologize for not realizing in the first place that the capitalization is formally incorrect as a journal title and therefore categorizable as a miscapitalization, so thanks for that. However, there are a couple points I want to raise about the way we have been interpreting WP:Printability#Redundancy.

I do in fact use linkclassifier - actually a personal fork of it, but I haven't changed the definition of the unprintworthy class in any way that matters. I feel that to be irrelevant, since the benefit of WP:Printability#Redundancy asking for explicit R (un)printworthy is not about the editor making the Rcat edit so much as about future editors visiting the redirect page itself.

There are in practice two tiers of unprintability; some unprintworthy Rcats say that links to the redirect "should be updated," while others do not. WP:Printability#Redundancy would seem to apply equally to both, for the same reason: The redirect page itself should be as clear as possible for future editors.

The strikethrough on the section heading "Redundancy" just means "there is no redundancy"; it does not mean the guideline is deprecated or questioned.

I'm sure you already understood much of this, but I just wanted to make clear; I do not need any further action from you. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

{{R from miscaps}} already categorizes the redirect into Category:Unprintworthy redirects. There's no need to add {{R from unprintworthy}} on top of that one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of said categorization, but I am in favor of WP:Printability#Redundancy, which advises that {{R unprintworthy}} be added regardless. I note that Category:Unprintworthy redirects is a hidden category, and even if it weren't (or with the show-hidden-categories preference enabled), editors would visually scan over the {{redirect category shell}} before seeing the categories.

I recognize that you may object to that section of that essay (apologies for describing it as a "guideline" earlier), and I know that the essay's merits would be better debated on its talk page. Nothing further. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What reader is browsing Wikipedia to look at what is displayed on the redirect page, rather than where the redirect lands? This is busywork that serves no purpose. Just learn that {{R from miscaps}} is a specific subcat of {{R from unprintworthy}} and leave it at that. For more, feel free to continue on that essay's page, but I certainly won't bother with discussing a less-than-a-bikeshed worthy edits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Apologies if I sounded at all impolite; I assure you that was not intended. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Help?

No clue how to fix the url error message on Lunazzi in the draft I'm working on, but I know it will eventually show up on some error list somewhere. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Fixed. (Worked around, really.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't care how you did it Jonesey95. I don't have a wand to fix things like this and they just frustrate me. Totally appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Coatings (journal)

Hello Headbomb,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Coatings (journal) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lithopsian (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: that should have been sent to User:137.226.170.157. I only created the redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that after tagging the page. So I put it back to a redirect and deleted the copyvio revisions. Should all be sorted now. Probably for the best since it is potentially a notable subject. Lithopsian (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Just trying

Hello H. Thanks for clearing things up with my edit. I was just trying to be helpful to others that may have taken the same path that I did. Is there anyway to mention it somewhere? Maybe in the multiple hatnotes? There are so many policy and guideline page regarding bots that it took me some searching and blowing the dust off my aging memory banks to find the right policy so I could leave the proper message here User talk:BoredBot that I was trying to save other editors some time. If not no worries. Best regards and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's already mentioned at the WP:BOTACCOUNT section of the bot policy page, with The account's name should identify the bot function (e.g. <Task>Bot), or the operator's main account (e.g. <Username>Bot). In all cases, it should be immediately clear that the edits are made by an automated account, which is usually achieved by including Bot at the end of the account name.. Is any of that unclear? I suppose we could add a caveat about users impersonating bots somewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Okey doke. I'm not sure that is helpful to editors/readers like me who only type "WP:BOT" into the search field. There are several policy pages linked to from that main one. OTOH I'm guessing that the search I was on doesn't happen very often. Thanks again for taking the time to explain things. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll add a link to the username policy, so that should take care of the corner cases. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent idea H. I appreciate your solution. MarnetteD|Talk 19:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)