User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/August

AAB ded

Bot crashed in the morning Special:Contributions/AAlertBot around "WikiProject Contract bridge". I can't rerun it since it's in the middle of things. So rerun without downloading/unzipping and skip to that project. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RfA?

Wanna start an RfA? I'm not econfnimed, you would have to start it, ok? Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Isaac Todd

I’m a member of the Gilroy Historical Society in California. We are about to publish a booklet about a Scotsman, John Gilroy, who sailed on the Isaac Todd and, if not the first non-Hispanic resident of California, is among the first. If this is of interest, please contact me at phidgety@gmail.com. Phidgety (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm contacted for this. You might want to try WP:CALI or WP:SHIPS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Phidgety, I hope your new book doesn't actually claim that John Gilroy was one of the first non-Hispanic residents of California. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Would appreciate your input

Headbomb, I realize that you don't think an RFC on CNN and MSNBC is needed... as you know, I have decided to go ahead and post one anyway. Having said that... I have drafted some language (see: User:Blueboar/drafts), and would appreciate your comments as to format and neutrality before I go live with it. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Still not needed. If I participate, it will be to say that the RFC is not needed and that pre-emptively placating the Alex Jones of the world is not the job of RFCs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok... thanks anyway. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Blueboar: "...I have decided to go ahead and post one anyway."

It's not too late to save your reputation, avoid embarrassment, and not cause unnecessary disruption. Just change your mind and don't do it. No one is making you do it. -- Valjean (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Article alerts 20 August 2020

Hi, also @Hellknowz:, Alticle alerts may have not run fully today and I don't believe ran or ran fully on 18th or 19th either. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot stopped towards the end of the run on 17th, and Headbomb finished the run on 19th. Today it crashed early. It's again in the middle of a run, so he has to continue/finish it on his end. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

PubMed Error

Thank you for Diff. Good pick-up. I would have accepted the PubMed spelling error (Gynaecol) as I rarely go to the publisher’s site (Gynecol).

I have reported this to Taylor & Francis (publisher) Support. According to PubMed, the journal publisher’s team or department that submits XML citation data to PubMed is the one who can correct citation errors at PubMed. Thank you. Memdmarti (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Might you?

Because of my thoughts here, would you please remove the semantic scholar links at DVT? I would appreciate it. And if you have time maybe you could consider starting an RfC to determine if there is a true consensus to have them added to articles? Sorry to be asking if you could do these things instead of me doing them myself. I'm pretty short on time these days. Biosthmors (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll purge those that Citation bot considers unhelpful (i.e. those not actively confirmed to be copyright-violation free by Semantic Scholar), but I really don't see a need to remove Semantic Scholar links to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 26#Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

CiteScore

Are you proposing to include CiteScore in all journal articles? Scopus has a much wider coverage than the JCR, so that would be a major undertaking. Or do you propose to only include it with certain journals but not others? According to which criteria? And finally, while IFs are still widely employed and used by authors and evaluation agencies, the same cannot be said of the Cite Score. As of now, I still haven't heard an author say yet "we submitted to this journal because it has a high CiteScore". BTW, according to MIAR, Conservation Letters is in the SCIE, so it should have an IF (or get it next year). --Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see why CiteScore or Scopus journal rankings need to be excluded. If a journal is a top rated Scopus journal, that's important to know. Website says an IF of 7.something, but I haven't confirmed it. The previous claim in the article was to a junk database and a fake impact factor. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Up till now, we have not included Scopus' CiteScore or Scholar's h5 in journal articles, only IFs and if really desired, rankings based on that. If we include some of these for this journal, we need to do it for all journals. And as I said, at this point, except for Elsevier nobody cares about a journal's CiteScore. Not everything that can be sourced needs to be included in an article. Or should we also include MIAR's ICDS or whatever other metric that we can reliably source (i.e. excluding fake metrics)? Such as the JCR Immediacy Index or Scopus' SJR and SNIP? With only 3 or 4 people editing in this area and thousands of journal articles, this is going to be quite something... --Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Really indifferent about the h5, I consider that one pretty useless. CiteScore is a good metric though, or rather, associated Scopus rankings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, this is based on your evaluation of these metrics and rankings and you propose to add them to all journal articles. --Randykitty (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying there's no a priori reason to exclude those metric, and don't see the case to exclude them here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Sprache" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sprache. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Sprache until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)