User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2018/November

Codename Lisa
Hi, re : nobody has usurped the account - what happened was that nobody had remembered to do. Hence should not be necessary; and indeed, its presence means that we can't detect other mailing lists that may need to be cleaned. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Check the block log and user contributions, the account was usurped after a rename. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Military Historical Society of Australia
G'day, Headbomb, I saw your request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and have had a go at putting something together for the Military Historical Society of Australia. I haven't written anything like it before, so I'd welcome your feedback if you had a moment to take a look. I also created a redirect for the journal, Sabretache, per your suggestion. If you have any suggestions, would you mind putting them on the talkpage? Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a rather impressive article you whipped up! No real suggestions for now, I couldn't have written an article like that on that society myself. WP:JWG has a guide for the journal section, that's about the advice I can give you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Citations and preprints
Hi Headbomb, can you please explain that it's not compliant with English Wikipedia policy and practice to state that links to preprints in citations are misleading and outright remove them just for this reason? Thanks, Nemo 22:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here. The issue with zenodo is one of copyright, not preprints. And as a rule, preprints links should not be used in lieu of free links to full versions of record, especially if they're redundant with arxiv/citeseerx links. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A preprint-url would be useful in citation templates though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you because I think you have good institutional memory to provide directions on the policy and practice on preprints in citations (copyright aside, which is being discussed elsewhere).
 * I agree on avoiding redundancy where feasible. I wouldn't personally oppose a preprint-url parameter but we don't have one and there's no alternative standard on how to link preprints, is there? (Some repository records also contain more than one version.) Nemo 23:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sovereign states of Europe
How would

be added to the bottom of this template? — Eli355 ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1984 (magazine)
Hi Headbomb, what's going on with this AfD nomination that you created? You note "Bad AFD nomination, meant to RFD". However, RFD is for redirects, and 1984 (magazine) is an article, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Additionally, if you want to close an AfD, it should be done this way, not by asking for a G6 deletion. Natg 19 (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What I mean by that is I clicked on AFD when I meant to click on RFD. It should be G6'd as there is no actual AFD nomination worth keeping. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, just curious then, did you create an RfD somewhere? I'll close the AfD nomination then, if this article should not be at AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * See 1984(magazine) for the real one. And the AFD shouldn't be closed, it should be deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and other of the AMS
This article is in Category:American Meteorological Society academic journals which is already in the Category:Meteorology journals. So it is redundant to leave the latter category there!

Pierre cb (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not redundant. One is categorization by field (physics, meteorology, chemistry, etc...), the other by publisher (American Mathematical Society, Elsevier, etc...). That all BAMS journals are meteorology journal has no bearing on categorizing the article in both. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So even if all apples are fruits, you have to list all the varieties of apples in the fruit category according to that, instead of having the apple category as a whole? AMS is not an ordinary publisher, like Elsevier which publish all sciences, it only publishes for meteorology because it is the Society publisher. Pierre cb (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:American Meteorological Society academic journals does not belong in Category:Meteorology journals, that's a different categorization tree. There is no way of knowing whether AMS will not, at some point in the future, start publishing a journal that is not a meteorology journal (say, a sociological journal covering the societal effects of climate change, but not covering climate change per se). The journals that were removed from Category:Meteorology journals should be restored to that cat. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)