User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/July

That column

A word of encouragement. I read the column and it was very informative. I hope at some point you can get that published with people reading it and using the bot. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thanks! I've had more people express support for the column (both that specific one and the idea of a Tips & Tricks column in general) at various places on and off Wikipedia than most Signpost pieces get comment on. Many of them privately because they don't feel like being on the receiving end of the Signposts' ire. It's really telling that people don't feel comfortable participating there, of all places, when it's supposed to be Wikipedia's voice.

So it looks like publication will have to wait for new leadership at the Signpost, or that I find an alternative venue to publish that in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Tech News might be a suitable venue for a link to such a post, if there is some mention of how it could be useful for wikis other than the English Wikipedia in the future. Otherwise, maybe try the WMUK blog so it can reach at least the wikipedians who pay the most attention to such news feeds? Nemo 23:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Newsletters navbox is busted

I think this change added an extra set of close braces. Bri.public (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bri.public and Bri: should be fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Minor link error

I just noticed on Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Opinion that you wrote WP:JCW#COI when you probably meant WP:JWG#COI. I thought I'd let you know so that you can decide whether to edit the comment or leave it as-is. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Special pages

I appreciate the ping here. Basically, the true response is that it's both yes and no. I use Special:Diff for just about everything (including what most people generally use Special:Permalink for). Since Special:Diff/whatever is only four letters to type (and because I learned about special:permalink waaay too late), I realized I could just link to a subsection; and it'd only be possible to notice it was a diff if you scrolled up. What I'm saying is, I used Special:Diff in that instance as a plebeian form of Special:Permalink. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Well, if you use diff, you're not taken to the section, so... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Ping failed btw. Special:Diff/904872442#Special pages? It seems to work for me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: This is what that diff link shows to me: [1] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Huh, well then I must've broken a lot of links that I thought were fine. At least I know that they aren't accessible to everyone now, so thank you for bringing that to my attention –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: But how can I trout if you behave reasonably and learned something you didn't know before because of technical weirdness? I guess {{Minnow}} will have to do. Consider yourself minnow'd.

Plip!

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the first minnow/trout I've gotten. lol thank you –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Diff with link to section only works if the user has not disabled the HTML preview of the page in diff view in their preferences. Most people who monitor RC or watchlist are expected to disable the preview in order to reduce load times. Nemo 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I am packing up my house and moving do a different time zone, selling my home, etc, ..., etc.. I am very happy the OAuth is done before this! Just a heads up that I will still try to fix bugs, but new features (other than hdl, which are super easy), will be slow for a while. Keeping up with my day job will be hard enough. Feel free to delete this after you have read it. Thanks. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: No worries, you've done more than anyone I know of in the recent years and the major parts of the bot that needed love have received it. Most of the requests I have are nice things to have more than critical things. Good lock with the job and the move! I'll be patient until you can spend some more time on the bot, or that others step up. Feel free to pick up low hanging fruits over the big complex ones though! On-wiki impact is often not related to coding complexity. For example, the journal caps things, if implemented, would save me a butt ton of work on WP:JCW since I could cleanup all "Journal of physics→Journal of Physics" through the bot, without having to double check (or wait till the next dump) to see if there was any Journal of physics→Journal of Physics type of cleanup in need of doing. Or it lets the way more powerful Citation bot handle them + bring its other benefits, instead of having to use the way-more-limited User:JCW-CleanerBot.

Scale that up to ~1000 of such entries per dump, and that's saving me 10+ hours per dump, and unleashing the full power of citation bot on thousands of additional articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is ramping up now. FYI, I have written PHP code on my iPhone before, but it is lame. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: what is? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

my moving time suck and living on the road. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Web to Journal

Thanks for fixing my citations! I was aware that the links I grabbed were usually from journals, but I formatted them all as if they were webpages. I meant to go back and fix it post publishing, but I am grateful that you were able to. Utopes (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Utopes: Not sure what page(s) you're talking about, but it's usually just pushing a button (see WP:Citation expander or WP:UCB). So it's really not that much work :p. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks for some advance tricks when the bot doesn't want to cooperate (basically keep {{cite journal |doi=10.1234/whatever}} and then click the citations button). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Chromium(III) telluride, my apologies Utopes (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Utopes: Yeah, I figured that was it after I looked at my 'thanks' log. No worries, I hope you find the above links useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CJASN cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CJASN cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of The Journal of Individual Psychology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Journal of Individual Psychology 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal of Individual Psychology 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Randykitty: btw, I'm not the creator, that's Notgain (talk · contribs) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You originally created this as a redirect, so Twinkle sees you as the creator... --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware yes, just saying you probably want to notify them rather than me, although they've been active and are watching the page, so they'll likely know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Peter Lang (publisher)

Hi, I see you categorized their journals as being published by a non-profit. However, the charity's website says that the company was sold to management, so it would appear not to be non-profit any more. But perhaps I'm missing something? --Randykitty (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I categorized the journals as being published by the publisher Peter Lang. Not sure what's non-profit got to do with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• You included Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers when you created Category:Peter Lang academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Randykitty: Oh that. Copy-paste mistake. No idea if it's relevant or not, feel free to remove. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nursing Open

This one doesn't look notable to me. MIAR only lists DOAJ and ESCI, which is not enough. Am I missing something? --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Scopus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hah! First time I see MIAR being incorrect. I guess the listing is pretty recent, although I was under the impression that MIAR did its indexing automatically, because they even list stuff for journals that are not really included and have no dedicated page. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Could just be out of sync. Or it could be wrong. Double checking in Scopus would be best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, MIAR was right. It's in Scopus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I checked Scopus and your right, this is indexed, but as far as I see, that is not mentioned in MIAR, which only lists DOAJ and ESCI. BTW, for your amusement, have a look at the histories of the articles on the editor and of Parveen Azam Ali... One has to admire how open they are about this! This would have been a feast for Jytdog. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Randykitty: then open MIAR again and search for 'Scopus', because it's definitely there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, clearly a tit-for-tat thing going on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I hadn't realized that the line "WoS / Scopus (2/5)" is clickable and assumed the "2" referred to DOAJ and ESCI. I went too fast here... Only (lame) excuse is that I'm doing two other things at this moment, too :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I warned the two against tit-for-tat schemes btw. Also 'Scopus' is mentinned on the landing page too "Está en índices de citas (Emerging Sources Citation Index, Scopus) = +3.5". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3

Hi, can you please check whether I filled this correctly? Thank you. Nemo 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: looks correct to me. I'll let someone else deal with the trial however, given I'm fairly close to this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you, Nemo 14:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

	Thanks
	Thank you! I was at one of the events were she was installed as president and thought she would be a good person to try my first Wiki on given her status. Any help would be appreciated - I'm just learning! Josephryanorr (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Illinois Journal of Mathematics deletion

Hi, I added a page on the Illinois Journal of Mathematics right after including it in the list of math journals. It’s not the most obscure - want to add it back in, but is there another reason it should still not be included? Harsimaja (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Harsimaja: Well since it's a bluelink now, feel free to add it back. It wasn't when I removed it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently there’s a trend for red links on that page to be deleted. This doesn’t seem a good reason to delete, especially if you’re not checking whether or not they actually exist, and it’s easy to imagine lots of journals could be included there before their pages are written. That could be a launching point for them. Harsimaja (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The reason why we have WP:WTAF on that page is that these list of journals are magnets for non-notable journals to spam themselves. Bluelinks ensure that these lists remain useful and unspammed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Harsimaja: Also, do read WP:JWG. Right now the list of authors is... not ideal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Tried to follow WP:JWG, and corrected the last sentence. Will try to add an offline reference or two in the morning.

Should the authors list go? Not something that would be included in most articles on journals but is meant as extra information in the body. It’s just about the inaugural volume. I have removed any weasel language. I’d argue ‘diverse’ is substantiated and simply means it isn’t e.g. specialised to algebraic geometry, etc., rather than adding some biased colour to it. Harsimaja (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I see, some disambiguations were needed. Thanks :) I’ll check the other links in the morning. Harsimaja (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of the author should go yes. However any landmark papers could stay, and those authors mentioned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Patrick di Santo (American artist 9) edit

@Headbomb:could you direct me to remove the upper draft, not sure why it is not accessible to me, I do have a TBI and sometimes that effects my abilities to understand pedantic code or information and reviewing the cite information gets that way on this article. The upper was a draft not ment for submission, though some how has been permanently attached to the top of the article. Thank you for your efforts on wikipedia it is a great public library of people and events below is the full article solo, नव (Lilbitograffiti (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC))

@Lilbitograffiti: done. Feel free to resubmit, although I can't say I took a deep look at things given the start of the article made no sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Page Charles Reid

Hello, I'm novice on Wikipedia and I think that you corrected some orthography faults, so I thank you. Regards --Lize56 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for improving Signpost contributor experience

Headbomb, I found the changes you made to {{Signpost draft}} really useful when composing the latest Special report. Especially the quick links at the top of the draft for style templates, which are hard to memorize. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the goal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)