User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2024/May

Change references?

Hello Headbomb, I noticed your recent edits at Taxonomy of Protista. Are there any reasons I should know to prefer that reference format instead of Template:Cite Q? — Snoteleks (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

First, Cite Q is a blight on the world, making it nearly impossible to fix, cleanup and maintain citations so they are consistent between one another. They also prevent bots from improving them.

For example, in [1], you can't edit Wikidata to flag the DOI as a free-DOI. Most citations also follow a "Last, First" name order, whereas Wikidata's often follow a "First Last" name order. And many many other things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I see... is this a common opinion among editors? I thought it was very convenient because of its easy usage, since it is a centralized system — Snoteleks (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

See the note at the top of {{Cite Q}}: "Until the matter of transcluding Wikidata on Wikipedia is resolved (most likely with a huge and contentious RFC) usage of this template should be extremely vetted to ensure that all of the transcluded information is accurate."

There is convenience in Cite Q, if you're OK with citations with minor inconsistencies. But the more you want to polish things, the more Cite Q gets in the way because if you edit Cite Q to be in one style for one article, it messes up all the other articles using a different style for the same citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I see... I think I'll stop using it then. I agree so far. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sun FAR

I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750h+ 01:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverted your revision of my edit

Hey there, I see that you have done a lot on here and I have not, therefore a little hello from my side if I allready have the gall to just revert your reversal.

I am now here asking you why you would have reverted my edit? www.technology.matthey.com is a dead link, which is the only reason I started editing the page. Further, over half the sources in the article are plain wrong, which is what I have started to ameliorate as well.

Thank you for your input, I am looking forward to your response! OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Then fix the dead links, i.e. [2]. Don't remove valid sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

ISSN error?

Sorry to bother you again with a technical issue, but you know I have no idea how to fix it. On my draft for Grünberg I am getting an error message on the ISSN, which I cannot figure out. You can see it in the journal on p 2 and in worldcat, so I can't figure out what to do about the error message. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW: Long story short, ISSN 0140-7340 does not follow the standard rules of an ISSN. The ISSN should be ISSN 0140-7341, but that's not what some bureaucrat decided to rubber stamp a while back. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Honest to pete, I cannot figure out how you know this stuff. I believe you just have magic. Thanks so much for your help. SusunW (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Magic. And loads of Ms Vickies chips. But also it's in the documentation (see Help:CS1#ATAWM). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL. Next time I'll send you some chips. I am sure there will be a next time because those help pages are completely baffling to me. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)