User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2024/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ewald Prize
Just to let you know that I replaced the redirect you created for Ewald Prize with a new article. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Yesterday you and/or Citation bot have made changes to references in the new article Ewald Prize. During this process it seems to me a large number of errors have been made. I compared the revisions of 17:14 and 18:12 on 29 Feb 2024 and found the following significant problems:
- In refs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 19 the author(s) have been deleted
- In ref. 17 the author "Anon." has been replaced by "Coppens, P." who is the subject of the article not its author
- In ref. 3 the journal has been deleted
- In ref. 5 most of the title has been deleted
- In ref. 26 the link to the pdf of the article, provided by the referenced journal, has been replaced by a landing page, provided by another institution, from which a user can then get to the pdf
- In refs. 5 and 7 S2CIDs have been added, but appear to have no value
I feel the article would be improved if I reverted the changes made by you/Citation bot. Please let me know if you are OK with me reverting these changes. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not OK with you reverting these changes, but I've updated the citations in line with your feedback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for making these changes. I have added the authors to ref. 1 (they are shown on page 2 of the pdf file), and I have added the author and full title to ref. 5. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Scripting Barnstar | |
| I've always wanted to thank you for the reliable sources script, and I got reminded today again of how much of a time-saver in deletion discussions it is. Pilaz (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
You tagged this as a miscapitalization, yet it appears to what the APA uses for PyshInfo. Where was it decided that PsycINFO would be the correct form? Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seems the camelcase version is new. PsycINFO was the uniform branding up until very recently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Infobox Journal Template
Hello. I recently joined Wikipedia. Thank you for creating this template that’s used by many law journal pages on this site.
Can you add two parameters to the template? The first recommendation is “Current Volume” or “Volume” so that this info can be displayed under the “Edited by” parameter. The second is “Faculty Advisor” perhaps at the bottom in the Publication Details box.
If there is a way to do this where I can edit the template within my page, please let me know.
I have some knowledge in coding, but new to this platform. Thank you! SDIL1 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- First you need to get consensus for those change at Template talk:Infobox journal. In my opinion, it seems unlikely you'll get them. But I'm not a prophet, I could be wrong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions for yellow/red links
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources#Situational and Unreliable below. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Hurricane season button templates has been nominated for renaming
Category:Hurricane season button templates has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Noah, AATalk 11:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Hurricane season bar gap
Template:Hurricane season bar gap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AATalk 21:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you help?
I am in a quandary. I'm working on an article for Doreen Othero which has a weird message. It says the OCLC number is incorrect on the last one of her works in the "selected works" section, but it isn't. Per worldcat it is 10146270069, which is what is input. I typed it character by character so I don't think there could be any hidden code, but I am baffled as to why this is happening. Perhaps you or a page stalker with more technical expertise can fix the problem? I appreciate your magic. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Likely the OCLC limit was hit. It'll resolve itself as soon as someone gets to it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Clarifying "predatory source" revision on Acinetobacter baylyi
Hello, @Headbomb
Thank you for looking over the Acinetobacter baylyi article, I am new to working on Wikipedia. Could you please clarify what it means for a source to be considered "predatory" and how to recognize that? Additionally, the citation was removed from the end of the "aminoglycosides" paragraph, but the original citation shows up later with a citation of a similar article (it seems there is a common mentor and research location) at the end of the "chloramphenicol" paragraph. I am guessing that those pieces of information and associated citations would also need to be replaced and/or additionally supported by other (non-predatory) sources?
Thank you for your advice and assistance for a student, it is much appreciated. Mgcorn5051 (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pharmacognosy Communications is published by the same people who publish Pharmacognosy Reviews, a group that brands itself EManuscript Technologies (which really are PhCog.net), and that general publishes low-quality herbal medicine research. Predatory might be a bit too harsh, but it's definitely not a high quality source required for medical claims (see WP:MEDRS).