User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/June

Wikipedia-Books in the Signpost
An interview for WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is scheduled for next week's WikiProject Report in the Signpost. SMasters had originally planned to write the article but he has been offline all week and I'm afraid something may have happened to him in real life. If I write some interview questions regarding the project, will you be available to answer them this weekend? I know it's short notice, but I'd like to keep up our schedule if possible, and you seem to be the most active and qualified editor at the project. Let me know if you'd be interested. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I should be able to do that. Fire away! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:DASH-related moves
Per Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, editors are not supposed to be moving articles between dashes and hyphens at the moment. I'd suggest posting an "oops" somewhere before you get dragged to WP:AE... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. These moves have nothing to do with the ARBCOM mess anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess I'll get a-dragging, then. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead sycophant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need for that Headbomb. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And there's much less need for this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Advances in High Energy Physics
I created Advances in High Energy Physics per your comment. It didn't seem like it would pass muster with deletionists (no impact factor, etc.), so when they come to delete it, I hope you will defend it and add to it. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Book conundrum
I noticed you kindly did a small tidying edit on Book:Islands of Scotland. I don't know why this was a good thing to do, but thank-you. I wonder if, in addition you would be willing to help with an associated conundrum? Hebrides is now a GA courtesy of request at WP:FTC and now sits on the relevant template. All being well, it will be followed by the companion Northern Isles soon. I am presuming both should be added to the Book. If so, should they be listed as:
 * "Overview" chapters (which they aren't really), or
 * is there some way of nesting the headings so that e.g. "Hebrides" is level 2, and Outer Hebrides and Inner Hebrides are level 3 ( I looked around and couldn't find an example), or
 * does it mean that it should really have only 4 chapters - Overview, Hebrides, Northern Isles, and Other, with the middle two having five chapters each (logical but a bit silly, IMHO), or
 * something else?

Any guidance much appreciated. Ben  Mac  Dui  19:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the fixes, books have to follow a very specific structure (Help:Books/for experts). Some article were declared as : Foobar, which unfortunately doesn't work for the PDF renderers. They need to be declared as :Foobar (i.e. with no spaces between : and [[.

Concerning "subchapters", this is not currently possible, although maybe it will be at some point in the future. You could half-ass something like,


 * Bird
 * ↳ Duck
 * ↳ Parakeet
 * Cat
 * ↳ Siamese

but it's not optimal (and the arrow signs will display in the book). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Ben  Mac  Dui  20:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Book:Madonna
Dear Headbomb, I see you have quite a bit of expertise regarding Wikipedia books, so thought of coming to you. In the talk page of the above wikilinked book, there is a section where a Bot updates the status and rating of the book. Now the problem is when you open the report, it shows that for the Sticky & Sweet Tour (album) article, the bot updates the message that "Page resulted in disambiguation". Do you have any idea why the bot is not able to comprehend the article name and giving it a wrong message? Thanks, — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is weird... Remixed & Revisited is also affected by that... I have no idea what causes this. I'll ask Noomos (the bot's coder).


 * BTW, if you notice any weird things, just mention them at User:NoomBot/Bugs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

New citation parameters
Greetings, I noticed you were notifying some Projects about some updates to the citation templates. My first question was could you add WikiProject United States to the list for future updates please? My second question was, with the inclusion of these new parameters is there any talk yet about a bot or sweep to clean up the coding and eliminate some or all of the old logic? --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed a handful of projects that I thought were those most concerned with identifiers (mostly science-related projects), there's no "notification list" to speak of. As for bots, Citation bot and Bibcode Bot do some cleanup with the parameters, as well as some users with AWB, such as Rjwilmsi and myself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ok thanks. I was going to start cleaning up the citations for articles within the scope of WPUS to replace the embedded templates (like Template:JSTOR and Template:arxiv) with the new parameter logic so we don't have templates embedded in templates (I always hated that). But I wasn't sure if there was abot doing it already. --Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead, don't wait for the bots to get around to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

does your bot work in french ? or other languages ?
hello, congrats on your bot, i wonder if it could work in french (probably just dreaming)--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Quel bot? Bibcode Bot? Ou AAlertBot? Ou parlez-vous d'un autre bot? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Bibcode, i see it as a automatic source bot, am i correct ? thank you for the writhing in french --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright well if you want to speak in English, English it is. There's no reason why it couldn't work on the French wikipedia. It would need to be modified to take the French templates into account (template names, and their parameters names), but it should not be a very difficult thing to change. I've got a bug to fix first, then I could probably make the required modifications. However be aware that I don't have any time to run the French version of the bot myself, so you would need to operate the bot yourself (or find someone else who's willing to operate it). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you with that, i will find another way.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for help with the list of style guides
Headbomb, that's great work with User:Noetica/StyleGuideAbbreviations1. I have many more entries to add, and it's shaping up as a really handy resource for MOS development. You've improved the layout enormously. Thanks! N oetica Tea? 05:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Journal of... what?
Bot_requests and an older version here. Was that just a prank that went unnoticed? Just curious – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 01:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about Journal of PENIS!!!1h!AHA, that was an example of vandalism more than anything else. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok, I was sort of amused that it was there and people were talking around it as if it were normal :) – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 02:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Sorry. The revert was an accident. I check my watchlist on iPhone and wish there was a way to hide the rollback button on mobiles. I was just about to undo my edit, but you were faster. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 21:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You might find something useful at VPT, mixed responses, but worth a try - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See the solution at User:EdJohnston/monobook.css, which hides the rollback links from my watchlist on all my devices. The rollback link still appears as an option in the article histories, where it causes less trouble on a touch screen. (Without this gimmick, it is hard to even scan through a watchlist on a touch screen without hitting rollback). A number of people seem to be using this trick, but I don't remember who invented it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He only wants it for his iPhone though. Using a bit of JavaScript to check the useragent before adding the css allows that - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you stalkers. :) I seldom use the rollback link. I don't need it on any of my devices. The CSS change is not working for me though. The rollback link is still showing on my watchlists. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 02:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Found a solution for this. Inserted the following code on vector.js.

if (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i) || navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i)) { var styleEle = document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(document.createElement("style")); styleEle.sheet.insertRule(".mw-rollback-link { display: none; }", 0); } — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 00:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but I would appreciate it if you could continue this conversation on another talk page. Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your article on gravitational fields
Hi, I liked your article about particle physics, but your section explaining gravity seems a little bit off. In your article, you state that gravitons always attract, and do not repel. I believe this is incorrect. Gravity is the distortion of spacetime that creates gravitation. It is caused by an object's mass/density displacement of space/time which causes a repulsion of any other less dense object caught between the distortion lines and the denser object itself, effectively "pushing" or repelling any second, less dense object toward the first, denser one. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.18.246 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No idea what article you're talking about. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ACNR
Hi, I only saw you tagged this for WPJournals after removing the tag. Was this by mistake or am I missing something? Don't worry about it in the first case and sorry in the second :-) --Crusio (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See Redirects for discussion. I'm tagging it so it shows up in our Article alerts while the discussion is going on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello
HB can you tell me when we create a new book, does NoomBot automatically updates its ratings or do we have to include it somewhere? I'm asking because a recent book I created, Book:The Fame Monster, hasn't been rated yet. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The bot runs everyday in theory. In practice the bot sometimes crashes and you have to nudge Noommos. It's currently running and is somewhere around the Cs, so you'll probably get the report for The Fame Monster around morning. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Experimental Hematology
Hi Headbomb, I'm a bit puzzled by this edit and your edit summary ("restore links") is not really helpful. Using the "Official" template for a journal's website is done on hundreds of pages and I don't see what would argue against it, so I'd appreciate if you could tell me what you think the problem is. The second link is to the society website. However, the society has an article and the EL should be there, not here. See WP:ELNO#19. Cheers! --Crusio (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's only done because you convert all non-official-based links to official-based links. As for the link to the Society's, it's both relevant and perfectly allowed by WP:EL, there's absolutely nothing in WP:ELNO that goes against it, and we explicitly recommend this in our writing guide. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I systematically change external links to journal homepages to the "official" template, because that seems to be the right thing to do. What is wrong with it? If it's wrong, I'll stop doing it of course, and will revert whenever I encounter it. WP:ELNO#19 seems to explicitly say that we should not include links to any affiliated organization, just as we remove ELs to the homepage of the publisher. Despite ELNO19, I tend to leave such ELs if there is no wikiarticle on the organization, but if there is, that seems to be the place for the EL. If our writing guide says differently, we should perhaps change the guide to comply with ELNO19. Perhaps I misinterpret ELNO19, please let me know how. --Crusio (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Using official isn't wrong, it's just optional. I see that on the same level as colour vs. color. I interpret WP:ELNO19 to be more about things like giving ext. links to various particle accelerators in the quark article, or an ext. link to the US Navy Seals in the article on the death of Osama bin Laden.


 * I usually put it this way. If someone says "Foobar society", can you reasonably think "Foobar journal"? If so, the ext. link to the Foobar society should probably be there. If not, it should probably stay out. For example, if I say Elsevier, the chance Earth and Planetary Science Letters comes to mind is pretty slim. But if I say World Health Organization, you could definitely think of Bulletin of the World Health Organization. I wouldn't give an ext. link to Elsevier in the EPSL article, but I would give an ext. link to the WHO in Bulletin of the WHO article. Which is basically what our guideline says. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's just optional, then why revert? Using a template means that all these links have a uniform appearance throughout WP and, if needed, could all be changed just by modifying the template. As for your interpretation of WP:ELNO19, I disagree. It states explicitly that "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article" are excluded and none of the cases under " something that should be linked or considered" seem to apply. In fact, even in those cases where there is no article about the organization (which should have their page linked as its "official" page) and where I leave in that EL, I think that I am technically violating ELNO19. --Crusio (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said my piece on it, and I'm really not interested in having a long argument over something as petty as the external links to a journal's affiliate society. Start an RFC at WP:JOURNAL if you still disagree on it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not hugely important, but you seem to feel strong enough about it that you have repeatedly reverted my edits in this direction. I've posted a notice at WP:External links/Noticeboard requesting some input from other editors. --Crusio (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Luther" redirect move discussion re-opened at new page
I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes 68   (talk)  20:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ACNR reverts
Nonsense? Why is it nonsense? The software that creates the Short Pages reports only knows to avoid real, properly formatted redirects. Once the RFD template is placed on them, they are no longer considered functional redirects by the system, and they start showing up on the reports. But there is nothing for short pages monitors like me to do with them. So they are just clutter on the report. Worse, for every page on the report that does not need to be there, there is room for one less page on the reports that could actually benefit from attention. So they are a hindrance, actually.

You say that the long comment would need to be on every RFD redirect. Yeah. And in general, I put it there. They do no harm there, they do harm to my work when they are *not* there, and I shoulder the responsibility to put them there. So with that all said, your reverting me does nothing to benefit the project, and is actually harmful to the short pages monitoring effort. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if those systematically ought to be on all RFD redirects, I suggest you request a bot to handle them (which will handle all addition/removal of those templates). It would greatly reduce editors' workload to filter out the legitimately short vs the temporarily short, and users will be able to ignore the bot's edit on their watchlists. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The way this was handled before with a similar situation with the copyright violation template was to restructure the template to require it to be subst-ed. Much of any working template, substituted, will be enough characters to knock things off the reports.  Currently the report goes up to 126 characters.  I've seen it as high as the mid 140s or 150s when several of us were working systematically to clear out entries.  But that was a good long while ago.
 * Anyway, as for a bot, I'm not sure there are enough to make it worth a bot owner's time. I've generally been of the mind that, since I'm the one with a problem with things, it was on me to fix it.  And so far it's not been that big of a burden.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It really wouldn't be a hard thing to code. It could take care of disambiguation pages and redirects (including those to Wikitionary), and handle the removal of the template once the disambiguation page have grown long enough to be left out of the short pages report (like 1973 Daytona 500), as well as remove them from resolved RFDs, etc... and whatever else can be systematized concerning short pages. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguations are an interesting point. The *vast* majority of pages on the reports are disambiguations.  Most of these are not in need of attention.  But when I work cleaning up short pages, I would say 10-30% of short disambiguaitons need some sort of attention.  So I do something to these ones besides just slapping a Long Comment on them.  Generally minor cleanup, but something.  Having a Bot do the comment would mean that this small percentage does not get that attention.  OTOH, it would mean that the 1-2 thousand pages on the reports (depending on which version of the reports) would have a much higher likelihood of needing attention, given that most disambigs would be off the list.  It's an interesting possibility.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"dissemble" and Peter Falk
Hi Headbomb,

regarding your edit summary at Peter Falk &mdash; there is in fact a mistake there. The word dissemble means "feign" or "pretend". In context, the author, assuming that's what he wrote, clearly thinks it means "take apart", which it simply does not. Therefore the [sic] is appropriate.

(It's true, of course, that Columbo dissembles. But he doesn't dissemble the cover stories.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A bot that...
Thanks for the information, I use Mac, will that be a problem if I want to use AWB? Magister Scienta (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

AWB runs on Windows 2000 or newer (aka 2000, XP, Vista, 7...) and .NET version 2 or higher. If you run Windows on a Mac, AWB should work fine. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)