User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/November

new talk page section
hi. i opened a new section at the talk page for WP: COUNCIL, regarding a brief update and status report on WP:HIST. if you wish to comment there, we would welcome any input, feedback, or comments that you may have. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Portal recognised content
Have you discussed removing recognised content from portal talk pages? Portal_talk: is explicitly listed as a valid place for it. The lists are used to generate automated content, and removing that input will blank many portal sections. Certes (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's explicitly allowed, but that's an design oversight from the early days (it's also allowed in the Book: namespace for instance). Either way, this is an abuse of the system and overwhelms discussion pages (and talk page histories), and these should be migrated to the main portal page instead, since these are not discussion related. Those were all mass-added by The Transhumanist, who's judgment on portals has been... non-mainstream let's say. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just updated WP:RECOG doc, BTW.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then please discuss migrating the data to the main portal page (better: a new subpage) instead of deleting data which is in active use. I won't cause further disruption by rolling back the edits, but please consider this a formal request to invoke the WP:BRD process.  Certes (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was the first step of a conversion (e.g. + ), I wasn't planning on leaving things blank. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. WT:WikiProject Portals is active and would be a good place to agree which portals are actively using their recognised content list, and to decide on the best home for them.  It may well be that some can be deleted.  Certes (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I aplogise if my messages to the WikiProject and above came across as alarmist. Many of us spent most of 2019 on constant watch for unexpected removal of portal content. Although I'm happy that those days seem to be behind us, I never got around to taking the pages off my watchlist. As this material is clearly content rather than discussion, I agree that it doesn't belong in talk pages, and I thank you for your constructive efforts to find it a better home. Certes (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's only alarmist in the sense that someone that got involved in the 'portal wars' would raise their shields up at the mention of something being 'systematically removed' thinking it's the some kind of mass purge of portals from Wikipedia or something. It wasn't an inaccurate description, just one that lacked a bit of context for those coming in with that background. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
Have some vitamins and Bach music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And you have some Morricone! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, love it. Here's a childhood song in turn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and music from a beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, I haven't grown fond of opera just yet. There's a few I like, like Don Giovanni (with the one of the deepest notes sung at 5:36/5:37), or it's appearance in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. And I also don't mind Carmen. But in general, it's not a genre I'm naturally inclined to seek. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's not much "natural" about opera, but much about high emotions. I saw that Salome, and it made me curious about Carmen by the same team, which became the last opera before the lockdown. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have to clean up old DYK noms for ref=harv, - feel free to do it for "my" FAs ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it cluttered category:CS1 maint: ref=harv with templates, so I got rid of those. Makes it much easier to do further cleaning runs, and see what actual templates (and not just pages in the template namespace) use it, which then appears on articles which use these templates. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Petscan can help find templates in CS1 maint categories. It shows 179 pages currently. Note that sometimes the error is shown only on the template page itself because a parameter is invalid there but works fine when the template is transcluded. Ping me if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Australians in Italy
Hi there, I am currently partaking in an educational assignment and I was wondering if you could please review my article. The link is as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australians_in_Italy Are you able to please give me further feedback on why the citations were deleted? One was from the department of foreign affairs and another one from the International Journal of Advanced Research.

Thanks Nobody1966 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you mean edits like this, this merges redundant references. If you mean this removal, that's because that's a predatory journal published by Scientific and Academic Publishing, and is not a reliable source. Same for this, another predatory journal. See also WP:VANPRED. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Message from paper author (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis)
Hi there! I saw that you are an editor of the Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis page. I wanted to bring to your attention a paper that was published yesterday. I think the paper might be relevant for the article as it highlights how widespread Bd is (found in 86 countries) and how pervasive it is (1000+ known amphibian hosts).

I am one of the authors so I feel doubtful about making edits and cite my published research as it feels like a conflict of interest (I want to share my research!). The guidelines suggest deferring to the community's opinion so, besides adding a note in the talk page I wanted to contact you directly (I'm not sure if editors check the talk page often).

All the best,

Federico Castro Monzon
 * I would suggested taking it at Talk:Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and see what people think. I have no specific background in fungi and mycologi, I just did minor cleanup on that page. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Onium has been nominated for renaming
Category:Onium has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 07:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Predatory source
Hello :) I was going through the history for the article on robot-assisted surgery when I noticed that you removed a citation from the page for being a predatory source. The journal in question is the International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems (IJARS), a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. I would like to know what gave the impression that IJARS was predatory? AnAbyssButNotScary (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In 2004, the International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems was published by IntechOpen, a fairly famous predatory publisher. It's only been published by Sage Journals since 13 May 2016. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, good catch! Thanks! AnAbyssButNotScary (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can check WP:UPSD if you're interested in catching sneaky citations like that. It doesn't flag everything, but it flags a lot. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Predatory source on Ual (tool)
I completely agree on it being a predatory journal source on Ual (tool), but I feel that things go deeper. When looking for an alternative source since you removed it, I found the same author has officially published a book through the Bodoland University in Assam. I'm wondering if said journal was the only access they had for some reason? Would it be wrong for me to source from that other book the person has made? The issue being that it's in this sort of repository online. Though the repository seems to be run jointly by the university and this company. Silver seren C 22:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have much insight here, save that predatory journals shouldn't be cited. If the book/university/whatever is reliable, feel free to cited it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Try Google Scholar? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That definitely helps, thanks. Though there's still so many false positives due to "ual" being the end of so many words in English. Silver  seren C 23:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)