User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2022/December

Odd author in references
It seems that back in 2019 at Lambda-CDM_model, something went odd with these references: Andre Maeder isn't an author of these papers. It seems to have been introduced by this edit by, invoked by you. I'll manually fix it now, but any thoughts on what went wrong? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Maeder, Andre; et al. (DES Collaboration) (2018). "First Cosmology Results using Type Ia Supernovae from the Dark Energy Survey: Constraints on Cosmological Parameters". The Astrophysical Journal. 872 (2): L30. arXiv:1811.02374. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab04fa. S2CID 84833144.
 * Maeder, Andre; et al. (Planck Collaboration) (2020). "Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 641: A6. arXiv:1807.06209. Bibcode:2020A&A...641A...6P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. S2CID 119335614.


 * My guess is bad metadata. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see how, since he's not mentioned on the arxiv/journal side. He is the first author of another paper referenced in the article, though, perhaps it somehow leaked in from that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The bot used the arxiv data to make its edit. Either the bot choked on itself (which I can't reproduce/underlying bug has been fixed since 2019), or the arxiv metadata was bad at the time of edit. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It must be the first of the two - good if the bug has since been fixed. Very unlikely that arxiv metadata would be bad in the same way, in two very separate articles. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Lustrum (journal)
Hi, could you have a look at this? Despite the reference bombing, I'm not convinced this is notable, but must admit that I haven't checked each and every reference... Curious to hear what you think about this. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's covered by WP:SIGCOV and criterion 1 of WP:JOURNALCRIT; these I think are three sources clearly demonstrating this:
 * WP:JOURNALCRIT also says an article can qualify by being in selective indexing services, it's indexed by several (as cited in the article) including L'Année philologique and IBZ Online.
 * I purposefully separated out footnotes which were to articles published in the journal itself in order to make it clear I trying to "reference-bomb". Umimmak (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:JOURNALCRIT also says an article can qualify by being in selective indexing services, it's indexed by several (as cited in the article) including L'Année philologique and IBZ Online.
 * I purposefully separated out footnotes which were to articles published in the journal itself in order to make it clear I trying to "reference-bomb". Umimmak (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I purposefully separated out footnotes which were to articles published in the journal itself in order to make it clear I trying to "reference-bomb". Umimmak (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * also, re WP:JOURNALCRIT criterion 2; I think it's also worth mentioning that many academic librarians include Lustrum in their research guides for classics. I didn't think this was important enough to put in the Wikipedia article (because I'm trying to reference bomb), but I think they also show that the periodical is notable:
 * §Standard Bibliographies
 * §Review Journals
 * §Bibliographies
 * §Recommended Book and Museum Reviews
 * I'm glad I happened to be a page watcher of this talk page so I could give my rationale for its inclusion on Wikipedia, but I really wish you had given me a courtesy ping or ideally brought this up on the talk page of the article itself before going to multiple editors about this. Umimmak (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ignoring first party source that are given for WP:V purposes of uncontroversial facts like who was editor, etc... there seems to be enough sources about Lustrum, and while we don't have scopus/jcr, it is included in L'année philologique which is very decent. Maybe not enough on its own, but combined with the other sources, that's enough for a keep for me. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ignoring first party source that are given for WP:V purposes of uncontroversial facts like who was editor, etc... there seems to be enough sources about Lustrum, and while we don't have scopus/jcr, it is included in L'année philologique which is very decent. Maybe not enough on its own, but combined with the other sources, that's enough for a keep for me. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Headbomb. I'll have another look keeping this in mind., I didn't see any reason to ping you. It's not like I was starting an AfD or some discussion, I just was looking for a second opinion from an editor whose judgment I value, which I got. I'm removing the article from my watchlist, as its style is way too drummed up for my taste and far removed from how I write articles on academic journals (weird formatting in the "editors" section, dozens of references to the journal itself with detailed presentations of what it published, etc). --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Some stuff to put on your sources script
I just came here to bump User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. 137a (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Headbomb : Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RV (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message