User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2018/May

Book reports
Headbomb will you be able to check why the Book reports are not being updated by CyberBot? I asked its operator User:Cyberpower, but it seems he's terribly busy IRL. — IB [ Poke ] 15:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish I could, but I'm completely awful at coding. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you revert the change I made? Gerard Ghislain (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What changes? Not really sure what you are talking about here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Status of access lock parameters?
Since your Nov 2016 Signpost article I have been adding "url-access=subscription" when referencing using restricted sources. I recently noticed a follow-up CitationCleanerBot edit replaced a JSTOR url with a more concise format but left the residue of a red "|url-access= requires |url=" warning on the article. I had thought to leave a note on User talk:CitationCleanerBot suggesting it might also replace "url-" with "jstor-" in "url-access=subscription", as in the Sometimes-free identifiers section of the Signpost article, but "jstor-access=" is not a recognised parameter. (An alternative is to suggest that the bot should erase the -access parameter but that seems negative.) The Village Pump discussion around the same time was mixed in outcome: is work on extending parameters and their visualisation on the backburner? AllyD (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, really the templates should support jstor-access, but I'd raise that to Help talk:CS1 if I were you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Extra "|" in Infobox journal
Hi Headbomb. This edit has an extra "|" between "search" & "1=" which is causing great consternation on Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Davemck (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences
No offence but isn't 40 academic journals a bit much? I'm not sure if that many would be of interest to a general public audience. Plus, are academic journals really "mass media"?

I guess if you're taking a long-term view you could instead beef up the section to maybe ~80 magazines and ~100 newspapers, but considering that the list of Level 5 vital articles is intended to be 5x as long as the list of level 4 vital articles, I'm not sure if such major expansion would be appropriate. I just have a hard time imagining that the average reader is going to have interest in something like Science Advances comparable to Newsweek or even Harvard Business Review (which isn't on the list). I don't want to edit war which is why I won't go and remove some of them directly, so I'm bringing this to discussion here. feminist (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, with 3000 missing things here, I felt I had the room. I know journals more than magazines, so I'm more comfortable adding journals than magazines, but impact on academia is quite a different thing than impact on the general population. My view was the magazine side could be greatly expanded, probably to 100-150, since it's missing lots things big ones like Foreign Affairs. Once those are added, the journal list won't seem so exaggerated in comparison. It could certainly be culled a bit, if 40 is too much, but I tried including things with both high-impact/highly cited and with high traffic/viewcounts (top 40 journals from here). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point. I'll try to expand the list of magazines and newspapers to maintain a balance, though I still think the list of academic journals can be trimmed to maybe 20 to 30. Going with popular pages is a good option (I'm doing it right now for newspapers), but there is a need to consider long-term significance as well. feminist (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * look at WP:MCW/TAR, it'll give you lots of highly cited/highly-impactful magazines, although it's impact on Wikipedia so there's a couple of niche magazines out there and judgement needs to be used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's useful. feminist (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

CENT
Re: this. No, it's not. It's a minor change that doesn't need wide community discussion and where CENT might overcomplicate it. The AfD talk page is more than sufficient. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's still something subject to consensus and which benefits from a wide input from community. It belongs there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said at WT:AFD, this is the most pointless thing I've seen on CENT for a while, but if you want to make a discussion that could be resolved in 48 hours or less last a month, that's your problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you, Headbomb, for tidying my messy edits! HLHJ (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure where, but thanks for the gnome! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

ISSNs
Why are they invalid and also unnecessary? Is there a discussion somewhere? --Nessie (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No style guide recommends putting ISSNs in citations, and our guidance is to add ISSNs only when the publications are ambiguous/hard to find. In either case, the ISSNs were still invalid ( isn't a valid ISSN, hence the error message that displays/was displayed on the page. While that did produce a link to the OCLC entry for Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany, the article wasn't published in that journal, but rather a in a book series affiliated with the journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If they aren't advised, why are the parameters not deprecated in the templates? Plus you removed multiple ISSNs.  This isn't in an RfC?  --Nessie (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because sometimes they are warranted: When the publications are ambiguous or very old/hard to find (see not online). And I removed the other one for consistency / to fall in line with most style guides. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see it in the MOS anywhere, and I don't see an RfC on the issue. What it does say is Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The ISSNs are required when translating the articles into other languages, particularly German, which is why I supply them. Therefore, I am reverting the change.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You've basically breaking citations style, forcing inconstant usage. E.g. used 1 ISSN in 19 journals. None of the other journals has ISSN, what makes Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society special here? And the practices of German Wikipedia has no bearings on English Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not breaking the style. ISSNs are supplied when available, but not all journals have them. Similarly, not all books have ISBNs, but I have supplied them when they do.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Every journal in J. Robert Oppenheimer has an ISSN if you look them up. Journals without ISSNs are exceedingly rare, are are pretty much limitted to defunct journals from the 1800s/early 1900s. And yet pretty much every style guide out there omits ISSNs, as did the article. I made it consistent, you made it inconsistent. So really it's you here who changed the article's established style. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The culprit here is the Physical Review, which is indeed a defunct journal from the 1800s/early 1900s.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is available online with fully working DOIs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But not everything has DOIs either. Fn 2 is a case in point. I found a reference to the article in a book, and downloaded it via JSTOR.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A nastier example: See fn 80 in Messier 87.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, something online, with fully working identifiers. ISSN is again pointless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Redundant, not pointless. Link rot may remove the online version but there is always the possibility of locating a paper copy.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Identifier links are stable. That's the point of those links. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Chien-Shiung Wu
Hi, I didn't see her birth date in the cited source. I was actually in the process of changing the reference again to instead. — howcheng  {chat} 21:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)