User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/May

Ovarian Psycos
I added links to their page from 3 other articles about bicycle culture and feminist women of color, etc. Is that enough to remove the orphan tag? ----Sue Maberry (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1 link is enough to remove, although 3+ is best. See Orphan. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
On a side note: It's true I am not very motivated in improving the cleanup projects lately, this is because I believe some people undid a collaborative effort of many by attacking other editors and programmers and this resulted in damaging the project. We lost some good contributors during these last months. I have a belief hat some people who are still around are not here for making Wikipedia a high standard Encyclopedia and this is disappointing for me.

The CHECKWIKI project used to have 0 pages every night. Today it has 33,000 pages. Monthly scans do not happen anymore. We have 300 pages with users signatures on them and/or links to draft space which is a sign of bad quality. More ad more problems pile up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the barnstar ! My advice is don't let the drama drag you down, just take a step back and hear what was being said in terms of concrete things you can do. You obviously care about WP:CHECKWIKI, and you shouldn't care less because some people got annoyed by say 10-20 out of the ~100 or so checkwiki fixes. The world will not end if isn't purged from Wikipedia, but deal with  and that will have a concrete effect the community will be grateful for. Focus on the high-priority CHECKWIKI stuff (the WP:CWERRORS table is now sortable by priority in a way that makes sense), help with the classification of cosmetic checkwiki fixes (the new cosmetic column in WP:CWERRORS should be of great use to you), tackle AWB-framework level issues like those I've posted on your talk page, help bring AWB/CHECKWIKI inline with with the new/clearer WP:COSMETICBOT policy being developped (which seems on track to pass), and I think you'll find your motivation returning, as will the good will and good faith of the community to work with you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:ArtAndFeminism2016 article
Should these be skipped for WIR-8 do you think? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC).


 * Not sure. In theory, Meetup/ArtAndFeminism is both larger in scope (topically) than, and distinct from WIR. I'll start a discussion, but for now you can safely tag the articles with WIR-8. If the templates are redundant, I'll bring them to TFD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I have done a few, see if it grinds anyone's gears. should finish these off tomorrow all being well. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

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

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:ZETA (fusion reactor)/GA1
Headbomb, you opened this GA review over three months ago, and have not been back to it since, despite plenty of activity elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you don't intend to return very soon, please let me know so I can put the review back into the nominee pool in the hopes of finding someone else to review it. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought this was already addressed in User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/March? I still don't have the energy to engage in such a technical GA review at the moment, so feel free to put it back in the pool. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

SSRN
In this edit to 2013 Savar building collapse, you replaced  with. The problem is, the citation now generates a Missing or empty |url= error.

What's the best practice in a case like this? Should the url be added back? Should the CS1 error checking be changed so that the missing url error isn't triggered so long as there is an ssrn? Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That error occurs only when the template is cite web. Given the type of content cited here, I would recommend changing to cite journal. --Izno (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you're talking about here.  gives  No error is generated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, you appear to need a new pair of glasses. :D --Izno (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I don't. You probably have "extra" messages enabled via CSS, but I assure you this displays 100%-fine here, both logged in and logged out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a red "2=Missing or empty  (help)", which if it's red, means it's a CS1 error... which shouldn't be an extra message. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have "extra" messages enabled via CSS (likewise for Worldbruce), that's why you get this error. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, using cite journal for this is not really what should be done, since this isn't a journal. cite document would be more appropriate, or a cite SSRN once it's created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit-conflict) Yes, evidently this error message is one of the ones that display only if the user has their common.css or skin.css set to display all CS1|2 errors, as described in Help:CS1 errors. That's why Izno and I see it, but Headbomb doesn't. So I guess I could turn a blind eye to it by turning off all the extended error checking, but that's sub-optimal for me as it would hide other useful messages, and pages with the error would still show up in the "Web citation with no URL" category of cleanup listings. If there's a consensus to switch to, I'll go with that. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cite document is a redirect to cite journal, which means that's just a semantic concern and not one which will change the final output. --Izno (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, cite journal is for journals, cite book is for book etc... Blindly switching to cite journals is bad, since the paper might not be published in a journal. In this case it was published in a book, so it should have been converted to a cite book. Converting to cite document is neutral on the type of document this is, so that one can be done blindly, if you insist on cleaning up that category. However, given the visual output with cite web is still correct, as is the emitted metadata, so this is a really low-priority cleanup issue, on par for citations with accessdates but no url specified. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Speed of light
Hi! See Special:Contributions/MassimoGuarnieri. Not much room for doubt there, I think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)