User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/August

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. vs. PNAS

Just wondering, what is the bibliographical convention you are using to replace Proc Natl Acad Sci citations as citations of PNAS? The colloquial term for the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America may be "PNAS", but the NLM convention uses Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.... Cowbert (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There are several ways to refer to that journal. I've made changes in articles which were inconsistent in how they referred to it, or had mistakes (Proceedings of the National Acadademy of Sciences). I used PNAS mostly because it's the easiest to write. If you prefer something else (say Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA), feel free to use that one instead. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS sub-pages

Hello. Perhaps you didn't see this discussion? All sub-pages of the MOS are to be moved to actual sub-pages. No one seems to want to be the one to do but going backwards isn't helpful. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add information on the page Steady State theory

Moved to User talk:Yheymann Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Crypt of Cthulhu

Hi, I removed "religious studies journals", because this magazine is not about religious studies at all (the "Cthulhu myth" is a literary creation by Lovecraft). Surely, the editor was speaking tongue-in-cheek when he said the magazine is part "theological journal". As for "pulp magazine", that is perhaps a bit more debatable. Traditionally, pulps are magazines publishing stories, and according to our article they were published from 1896 through the 1950s. Reading more from the article on pulp magazines, this one does not really seem to fit the description. --Crusio (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it's also featured in the "long title" of the journal Crypt of Cthulhu: A Pulp Thriller and Theological Journal... so how tongue-in-cheek he was I don't know... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The magazine's homepage does not use that long title, although it can be found on the contents pages. Going through those contents, I don't see anything that could even remotely been construed as "theology" or "religious studies". Looking at the cover, it looks like a minimally-produced thing, so "pulp" may well be somewhat appropriate. In all, it doesn't really feel like an academic journal at all and we should perhaps categorize it accordingly. (BTW, the link given on the homepage to the publisher is dead, so all we have for the moment is the homepage). --Crusio (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What link are you referring to? This one? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, this one to Lindisfarne Press. It also looks like the magazine may be moribund (issues are listed, but there are no links to contents). On the link you found above, the last issue mentioned is 101, I don't see a date, but the homepage lists that one as "1999". --Crusio (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the website definitely is out of date/incomplete, but the 101 issue was published in 1999, and the website last updated in 2007. So I doubt a journal that would be defunct since 1999 would bother updated its website in 2007. From what I can tell, the journal was mostly published in print, and its editors never really bothered with the online stuff much since those who would know would know, and they were happy with the traditional print media / Lovecraft mailinglists etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• There's no way of telling with this kind of fan publications what the 2007 update means. I do think that this is not an academic journal and should not be categorized as such. Do you agree? --Crusio (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, might be better to re-categorize it as a magazine. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nature Publishing Group

Hi, this article contains a large section (the major part of the article actually) listing which journals it publishes (not sure whether it's complete, but probably at least 90%). Those are all very notable journals, of course. However, some borderline publishers copy this style and create stub articles with long lists of their non-notable journals. Also, some other publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, etc) publish so many journals that it would be impossible to put a list in their articles. Would it perhaps be better to delete these lists and include a "see also" section, with either a link to a list article (as is done for Elsevier) or to the category for their journals (as is done for Cambridge University Press)? I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this. --Crusio (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Standalone lists makes sense for pretty much any publisher that publishes more than a handful of journals. Journal notability isn't an issue for me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the standalone lists, but what about lists in the article on the publisher? See Bentham Science Publishers, for example, wheer some IP inserts external links to journals and lists "provisional impact factors". --Crusio (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Those lists are shit, but that's mostly a problem of formatting rather than of encyclopedic. If there's most than a handful of journal, a standalone list is best just because it's easier to browse and maintain. If only there's a few, there's no problem with a small list, assuming puffery and linking crap are left out. Notability dictates if a bluelink/redlink is warranted, but as far as inclusion in the list goes, that's not an issue to me in 95%+ of cases, the exception being megapublishers with thousands of journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Where would you draw the line as far as numbers are concerned? Bentham has several hundreds. Elsevier has a list article, but they must have thousands of journals (no clue how many). --Crusio (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be hard pressed to give a specific number. "Whenever the article becomes unwieldy because of the list" would be my answer. Ten journals certainly is too few for its own list. One hundred certainly is too much to be in the same article. I'd suspect the tipping point lies around 50 journals, but I suppose that depends on personal preferences. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am assuming both of you are aware of this extensive list of NPG publications [1]. I think a list article would make sense for this publisher. Also, as Crusio seems to suggest, this might be something we could implement for all academic publishers with notable publications (sort of standard operating procedure). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Springer imprints

Good new category! Would it make sense to add the main Springer article to this (i.e., is Springer an imprint of Springer)? Also, perhaps this cat should be added to the "Springer academic journals" cat. --Crusio (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Lightbot partial approval

Please clarify whether the approval expressed in this edit applies when the number is spelled out, for example:

• Before: A motor rated for seven horsepower...
• After: A motor rated for 7 horsepower (5.2 kW)...

Jc3s5h (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently...

Apparently the RFC bot IS NOT exclusion compliant. See here. LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then, feel free to get it blocked. Apparently harej fixed it a few minutes ago however.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he told me on IRC. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bibcode Bot

I regard this edit, and this edit, and this edit as edit warring. Your bot made an edit and a sentient human being reverted it. Do not restore the bot edit until you have gained consenus on that article for that change. Until WP has a policy requiring bibcode links on all possible article citations, editors should be free to decide which links are useful on an individual basis. I suggest this bot be reconfigured to run only within the relevant article space (astronomy, etc) as adding links on citations outside of that area is much less likely to be useful. See my comments on the bot page. Colin°^Talk 07:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's WP:BRD. I reinstated those based on a fully-functional human brain-based decision. We link to all database available, and there IS consensus for this. Citation bot does it, Bibcode bot does it. Rjwimlsi does it. Etc... PMIDs are allowed in astronomy articles for this very reason even though this is not very relevant astronomy identifier, because Wikipedia is read by everyone, not just astronomers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not BRD. The B was your bot edit. The R was Looie496. There's only one R in BRD. You need to discuss before making further edits that add that link. Please point to where the consensus is? As I said on the Bot page, the article topic only gives an indication that the link might be useful: the real determinant is the journal article cited. If you're citing some medical fact in an astronomy article then a PMID would be useful. If you cited an astronomical fact in a medical article then a Bibcode might be useful. But these are medical/biology facts and the only reason the astronomy database picks it up is that the journal happens to carry a variety of science papers. The Bibcode is useless. There is very strong consensus on WP that editors should be free to make decisions about citation format and content. There is no policy that requires Bibcodes and any bot trying to "enforce" such a "policy" should be blocked, as might any editor doing the same. The bots are there to help, not to rule. I shall be exploring where I request this bot is blocked until it can be adapted to have a higher success rate (i.e., only edit articles where the database link is likey to be useful). Colin°^Talk 11:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears I need to go to ANI to request the block. The discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bibcode Bot needs blocked. Colin°^Talk 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So much for the D part of BRD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm discussing. But unless you are prepared to undo all the unwanted edits this bot is making, can I plead with you to stop it while the discussions are ongoing. You yourself, on the bot approval page, only thought this would affect a small number of non-astronomy pages. You got that wrong. Colin°^Talk 13:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

George F. Bond

Hi, I've reverted the series of edits you made to George F. Bond as you removed information such as author first names and authorlinks. I'm sorry that some useful edits that you made have been lost in the process, but I'll try to figure out which ones were useful and reinstate them. --RexxS (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself, but I'd rather you restore this version and work from it than the other way around. It would be much much simpler for you, believe me. I don't care if full first names are used or not, but if they are used, they should ALWAYS be used, not a mish-mash of "Smith, J" "Smith, John" and "John Smith" like it currently is. As for the link, if Charles Shilling really is relevant, it would be much better to mention him / link him in the article rather than in the reference (either inline, or in the "See also" section). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm doing the best I can, and it may take me a while to figure out which of your edits were worthwhile and which not, but I'll end up with an article that gives the best references that I can produce. Frankly, I don't worry if we know some authors' names and not others - we give as much information as we can find and if it looks inconsistent to you, then I suggest you put your time into filling in the missing names, rather than removing the names that someone took the time to find. If you don't think Charles Wesley Shilling is relevant to the George F Bond article, then you really need to read the reference. The template {{cite journal}} has an authorlink parameter for a reason, and it is being used quite properly in this case. I agree it would be better to mention him in the article, so feel free to do the research and add to the article; it would be a far more productive use of your time than removing information from articles that folks have taken the time to assemble. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The "only" things my edits did were give a consistent structure in the edit window, added missing information, and I've properly cited the works concerned, remove the link for Shilling and trim the names to their initials for consistancy's sake. If names and links is what you're concerned about, it will be much easier to work on my version and convert it to whatever format you want. Trust me on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And BTW, most of the times, these citations are filled in by bots. Some databases have the full names, others don't. That's why you end up with the mish-mash of formats for authors. I picked one style and stuck with it. Which style is adopted matters little to me, but it needs to be consistent within the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it doesn't have to always have the same style in that much detail. It's really ok for some cites to have an author's first name and others to have an initial. Believe me, it's far better to keep information than to throw it away simply because you want to impose an arbitrary "consistency" that serves no purpose. We know some peoples' first names; others we don't. That's ok, there's really no need to reduce everything to the lowest level. Readers can cope with seeing a mixture of first names and initials - it's like that in the real world. If you don't like the job I made (because I'm certain to have missed some things), feel free to see if you can do better, but please don't remove any more first names or authorlinks, because that's not an improvement to the article. --RexxS (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the face remains that it would be easier for you to put names as you wished from my version, than it would be to add all the fixes I made to your version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that, as I couldn't be sure from your cryptic edit summaries what you were doing without examining each change in detail. It was actually easier just to start with a version I trusted and hand-craft the references to incorporate the things that I felt you were trying to do, like split author into first/last parameters. I should add that some of the other decisions you (or the bot you were using) made where sub-optimal, such as removing a link to a full text (for subscribers) in favour of an almost empty pubmed page, so I'm afraid that I wasn't inclined to take your others edits "on trust". --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I just told you what I did. The jap.physiology.org link is to an article behind a paywall. The urls should be used for free articles, not duplicate the results of identifiers. The pmid link gives you the link to the same place ("full text sources") anyway.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You told me what you did - and left part of it out. The urls should not be restricted to free articles, but should be used to give links to full text (even if it's behind a paywall) when the other identifiers do not, as the template documentation explains. You see, that's symptomatic of your attitude to information versus mine: I know that a direct link to full text costs us nothing to make in the url. You think that readers should have to find a tiny link on a page that you link to, not realising that 99% of folks will click the pmid link, see there is no text of interest on the page you've sent them to, and go no further. That's not smart linking, because you disadvantage folks who don't spot the indirect link and inconvenience folks who actually have a jap subscription - for what? for no gain at all, other than your desire to enforce "rules" without thinking through the consequences. I regret being so hard on you here, because I can see from your contributions that you generally do good work, but we all benefit from rethinking what we take for granted sometimes. I'll let you have the last word now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lightbot 16

Thanks for your comments at Lightbot 16. I'll have to comment here because the discussion is archived.

I'll take note of what you say. Yes, I was largely an initiator of the mosnum discussion about unit linking because we need more guidance clarity. I don't see many contributors there yet but I hope it documents a consensus soon. There are other approvals already in place and unless you object, I'll continue to make use of them for their more limited delinking scope but that won't be as a primary task (runs targetted at conversion strip out excessive links before parsing the text to add conversions). Lightmouse (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with all the current BRFAs, so feel free to edit within their bounds. The false positive rate is high (at least in terms of absolute numbers), very borderline in fact, but you are responsive and that matters a lot for the continued operation of the bot. But it's about as high as I can allow, so now's the time to let the code become more solid and let it asymptotically approach its final "error rate" and see where that gets us. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your points well taken and noted. Lightmouse (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Headbomb, The article on Journal of Cosmology has come to our attention at the Foundation Office. In reviewing it looks like standard issues with POV and I'm sure it can be sorted out. I just wanted to ask a favor of you - when reverting out good faith additions (however misguided), I've found that it's most effective to leave a user talk page notice explaning why. Often, new users in particular haven't figured out how to read article histories yet, and it is frustrating to them to have their work disappear without being given a reason (since they don't know to look at the history tab). I think it would go a long way toward de-escalating that situation, if you'd be willing to give that a shot. Thanks for everything that you're doing! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of those people. Are you available on IRC? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}

I'm actually editing from a machine that's not my own right now, so no... but I'd be happy to set a time to chat with you by IRC tomorrow, or at your convenience. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow's fine for me. I got a relatively flexible schedule so pick a time and I should be available (I assume you're on the WMF offices on the West Coast, so I should be up before you are, being on the East Coast). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Is 1PM pacific okay? I know that's right at the end of the workday for you, so if you'd like to do it another hour, I'm relatively flexible as well. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fine with me. If you want to do some late-night reading, try [2][3][4][5], it would probably make things faster for tomorrow. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I know where you're coming from, and I'm not trying to tell you they're legit or not... I frankly don't care about that side of it - we have people like you who watch out for the quality of the material. I'm just interested in how we interact with new users. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fried in the deepest manner in which it is possible

...and slathered with gravy. Dinner is served. Juliancolton (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

XD XD. Well thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ion storm (disambiguation)

Hi, can you explain why you think a DAB page for this is necessary? We only have one article on an "ion storm" of any kind, so it is not at all misleading to redirect to it. As I said in my edit summary, implying that "ion storm" and "interplanetary coronal mass ejection" are the same thing is wrong (and the target article doesn't even mention the words "ion storm"), and the reference to science fiction is mere trivia with no central article on the subject. Per WP:DAB at least three ambiguous article titles are needed for a DAB page to be necessary, whereas we have no article title conflict here at all. Thanks, Miremare 20:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Because ion storms can refer to several things. Their use in fiction is notable, as are the physical phenomena. In all cases the disambiguation page should not be redirect to the main article. It should either exist, of if you disagree, be deleted (hence the AFD suggestion). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But we don't have an article on the "physical phenomena", we only have one article on any kind of ion storm, which is the company. We also don't have an article on use in fiction, so whether or not that is "notable" isn't relevant. DAB pages are for disambiguating between articles with ambiguous titles, not for listing definitions or possible definitions. Also can I point out again that there is no suggestion either in the interplanetary coronal mass ejection or anywhere else I can find, that it is synonymous to an "ion storm". Miremare 21:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if you disagree, send it to AFD, and it'll be debated by everyone. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a DAB page so AFD doesn't apply - and the guidelines for disambiguation pages are pretty clear on when a DAB page is and isn't necessary and what is appropriate and inappropriate to put on it. If you disagree with any of that then it would probably be best to take it up at the talk page there. Thanks, Miremare 21:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want AFD then MFD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not answering any of the points I'm making. What would be gained by wasting everybody's time with an xFD? Again, the guidelines for disambiguation pages are clear on when a DAB page is necessary and what is appropriate to put on it. In this case there is only one article with "ion storm" in its title, and we don't include definitions when not accompanied by an article, therefore a DAB page is not appropriate in this instance. If you disagree with the guidelines then please take it up at the DAB talk page, there's not much point discussing changing them here. Miremare 00:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no answer to give you. I believe the disambiguation fits within policy and is useful. You don't. We are at an impasse, so send it to MFD and let the community decide, or leave it as it is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe it fits within policy why won't you explain why? Also, I have not been trying to delete it, I have been trying to redirect it, which is not what xFDs are for. Miremare 00:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A redirect from (disambigation) to the main target is completely misleading. It should either be deleted because it's useless or against WP:DAB (which it isn't), or it should stay as it is (and perhaps expanded if possible). Redirect is not an option in this scenario. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think it is "misleading" to redirect a DAB page to the primary topic, that doesn't make any sense. And given that I've already explained why it's against WP:DAB, can you please explain why it isn't? Just saying "I don't agree" doesn't make it so. Miremare 07:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Book:Rock Band

Thanks for helping cleanup the book and related articles! –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Annalen der Physik

Quite impressive that we succeed in collaborating on something relevant while at the same time fighting over formatting issues. Thank you. You are a good guy, after all. If your user name weren't so ugly... is it just a continental European susceptibility of mine, or did you choose it to be provocative? -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What in the world is provocative about my name? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My dear, the cultural gap is really that large? For me, associations evoked by head-bomb are: Una-bomber, suicide terrorist, Danish Mohamed drawing. Forgive me, my knowledge of the English language is highly selective: strong in the domains I use in my work, weak and superficial in others. Hope it's all a language problem. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose one could associate it with the Mohamed drawings, but I've used this named since ... 2000 (more specifically on the day Perfect Dark came out, I needed a profile name and I came up with Headbomb then). It could easily have been HorsePizza or TepidZombie, there's really nothing behind the name, I just though it sounded cool.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will try hard to get the bomb out of my mind when communicating with you. But was it really necessary to restore the bibcodes to this history article??

I hope very much a technical solution will be found - some switch that allows you to see many many database links, and me to see compact references like in a scientific journal. Couldn't you just stall your bot until such solution is found? -- Yours, Marie Poise (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to do it via skin tweaks. If you don't know how, request one at WP:SKINS/WP:CUSTOM, although personally I'd try WP:VPT first to see if there are technical issues that needs to be solved first, like wrapping identifiers in <span> tags. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphan

In this edit, you labelled the article Acromis spinifex as an orphan. WP:ORPHAN defines an orphan (at least, one worthy of tagging as such) as an article with no incoming links from the article namespace. Acromis spinifex has 2; moreover, it is linked to as much as could be expected given the state of the rest of the encyclopaedia. Why was it tagged as an orphan? --Stemonitis (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This was WP:AWB's doing. It checks for orphans automatically, and usually doesn't screw up when counting incoming links. Very weird. I'll drop a notice to the coders. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And it's not just a one-off. It might be best to stop using AWB until its errors can be fixed. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talking about your shut up the IP move

here. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You really have a persecution complex eh? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

PRL symmetry breaking papers

Hi Headbomb, I added some more material to the discussion in the talk page. Can you really not see why I think that the article is heavily POVed? If you have a different opinion on this issue it would be useful to discuss it on the talk page. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the material, which is why I reverted myself about two minutes later. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but I wanted to draw your attention to the additional stuff that I added today (i.e. after your reversion and counter-reversion), including the issue of possible deletion. Since you've been a regular editor on that article (perhaps the most active after "Mary at CERN") your opinion carries weight. If you now agree that the article is biased, what do you think we should do about it? Can you see a way to make it impartial without too much effort? Or should it indeed be deleted? This stuff could be discussed on the article's talk page. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If there article's POV'd, then the POV should be removed (it's mostly WP:WEASEL stuff). Deletion is not the way to go about it, because it's an otherwise great article on a great topic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

While it's certainly a great topic, it's also a topic fraught with politics: not more than three people can share a Nobel prize if the Higgs boson is discovered, and GHK are likely to be left out because their paper 1) appeared a few months after the other two papers, and 2) cites them, showing that GHK were aware of their existence. Have a look at the quotes from John Ellis in the nature article cited above, as well as his recent talk at the 2011 Higgs Hunting Workshop.

On the other hand, is this really "a great article"? As I tried to show in the talk page, the article relies entirely (but, to some extent, stealthily) on the arguments of Guralnik, who obviously has an interest in promoting the idea that his paper was "more compete" than the others. Thus, it seems to me that the problem with this article is not just about "weasel words": there is an ongoing debate on who (apart from Higgs himself) should take credit for the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the article blatantly takes one side in the debate. I don't think that Wikipedia should be a tool in this sort of media campaign, and it's not obvious to me how the bias can be removed from the article without rewriting it entirely (and in that case, which sources should we use to document the other points of view?)

Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now "Mary at CERN" commented on the article's talk page, and I replied something along the lines of the paragraph above. If you have any comments of your own, please add them directly there. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just making sure you're aware of WP:3RR, it's better to discuss your proposed changes to the article on its talk page rather than trying to edit war your changes into place - you risk being blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 17:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I DID raise stuff on the talk page. It's you who's removing a tag that should be there. I'm raising this at the NPOV noticeboard, and hopefully someone will put a stop to this petty wikilawyering. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Igor Stravinsky

Category:Igor Stravinsky, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

FTC deletion

Hm, I never noticed those other two articles until you mentioned it. While i think Crackity Jones should be deleted, Debaser should've been a Good Article before the nom. Thanks for your input. GamerPro64 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)