User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2021/June

Nomination of List of preprint repositories for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of preprint repositories is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of preprint repositories until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Writing article
Hello my friend, I wrote an article about the biological nuclear effect and the article was not published about 2 days and I respected all rules. I am hopping to know what is the probleme? And thank you. عبد القادر شكيب (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

help?
I'm not sure if you can help me with this or not, but lately I have run into many references wherein the main book edited by X is available at doi 10.xxxx but I am citing an author who wrote a chapter in that work. For urls, it's easy as you have url and chapter-url to cite the whole work and separately cite the chapter. But with doi there is no chapter-doi. What's the easiest way to deal with this? Thanks if you can help and don't worry if you are too busy. I appreciate your technical skills. SusunW (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , without an example, it's a bit hard to be specific. Personally, I'd just do  (or similar) and have Citation bot expand things via the Wikipedia:Citation expander. You might have to add editors and publishers manually, but usually it works pretty well.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For example,  gives
 * once expanded. You can then add the missing information (in this case, author, editor, publisher, possibly location, but I don't like to include location since it's useless information) manually to have
 * &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if I understand correctly, I should not input the doi for the entire book, but rather just the chapter doi. (Next time — because I am sure I will need your help again — I'll pull an example, but yes, Storr is one of them, I've recently encountered). Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, if they're available chapter DOIs do work with that method. It's usually incomplete information, sadly, but it still will cover a lot of it. Sometimes editors are added. Sometimes authors are added. Sometimes both. Publisher is rare, but I've seen it happen. Basically it works the same as general book DOIs, which also often need extra TLC to include everything about the book. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have learned that in the book template in this editing window, if you type in the isbn and hit the magnifying glass, it will fill in most everything. I usually do that and then just add authors, chapters, editors and links. As you say, easier than manually inputting everything, but still requires proofing the info. I didn't know about the tool you gave above and it is helpful, especially if the work doesn't have an isbn. SusunW (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, the RefToolbar is also a good way to do this, but doesn't work with DOI and books very well. The RefToolbar will generally be quicker, the bot can sometimes take a few minutes to react. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have learned that in the book template in this editing window, if you type in the isbn and hit the magnifying glass, it will fill in most everything. I usually do that and then just add authors, chapters, editors and links. As you say, easier than manually inputting everything, but still requires proofing the info. I didn't know about the tool you gave above and it is helpful, especially if the work doesn't have an isbn. SusunW (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, the RefToolbar is also a good way to do this, but doesn't work with DOI and books very well. The RefToolbar will generally be quicker, the bot can sometimes take a few minutes to react. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Book-prod
Template:Book-prod has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Questions about citations
On Function of several complex variables I citationed Complex Analytic and Differential Geometry and I would like to explain that this is OpenContent book, is this enough to explain in the External links section? Currently used on 22th and 23th of Inline citations and I haven't explained this.thanks!--SilverMatsu (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is why do you want to explain this? For purposes of WP:V, this is not required, and in fact rather distracting. In a WP:FR or WP:EL section, it might belong, if it's genuinely a good resource for the topic. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I thought it was necessary to explain that this reference is open source because the URL to the reference was only the pdf download URL, but if not, I don't have to worry. I got this reference in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2021/Jan. Regarding the necessity of reference, there is a notation fluctuation in the name of X-Pseudoconvex. For example, planetmath called "Levi strongly pseudoconvex" a "strongly pseudoconvex". As Diederich & Fornaess reference, it seems too weak to show that a arbitrarily chosen complex manifold is a Stein (strictly pseudoconvex) manifold. I've seen someone call it "Lelong strongly pseudoconvex", but I haven't found a any suitable reference. I might call "(Strictly) Strongly pseudoconvex" more than "Strongly (Strictly) pseudoconvex" for clarity, but the current meaning of "strongly pseudoconvex" seems to be the meaning indicated by the current reference ...--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to contact you often, but I also found MIT lecture notes. I would appreciate it if you could check it at this opportunity. See Function of several complex variables.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)