User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/May

Where is your tool to verify reliable source?

I spent 10 minutes but couldn't find it from your user pages. Thanks. --Woundful (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Woundful: see WP:UPSD Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

note re colloquy

Hi. I would like to request your input at User_talk:Nick_Moyes#note_re_your_message, if you would be so kind. more than anyone else I know, you and Moxy have both shown an admirable willingness to interact with me positively when you thought I had a positive idea, or alternately, let me know when I was making a hash of things, or anything in between. I would like to respectfully request, invite, and welcome your input there, as someone who can personally attest to a past willingness to work with me positively, but also, to indicate when I was in the wrong track. I would appreciate any guidance that you might like to provide. if you prefer to discuss here on your own talk page, that's fine as well; please ping me if that is the case. I appreciate your input. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 02:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Guidance

Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats explains its purpose via {{Inconsistent_citations}} which I include, in part, here:

“ User:Citation bot helps editors to keep citations in a consistent format within a given article. If a mix of {{citation}}and {{cite xx}} templates are used, the bot will convert all citations to the dominant type (as they differ in details of punctuation). It will preserve the original formatting, in case it was intentional. However, in most cases, the editor did not realize that the added citation did not match the format in the article. Therefore, the bot adds a hidden comment and a category (via a template to avoid confusing AWB) to any template that it changes. Human editors should check these comments and see whether the citations they are found in should genuinely have different punctuation to other citations on the page. They should then amend the |postscript= parameter accordingly, removing {{inconsistent citations}}. ”

I had been cleaning up this maintenance category based on the explanation above.

Observations of what I encountered

• the category directly applied, may have been an early form of the bot
• two forms of the bot applied postscript
• incorrectly ‘fixed’ edits of the bot’s postscript
• the {{Inconsistent_citations}} applied by some editor to a CS1 in an article with only or predominantly CS1
• the {{Inconsistent_citations}} applied by some editor to a CS2 in an article with only or predominantly CS1, or another variation, bare ref, etc.
• the {{Inconsistent_citations}} applied by some editor to the article as a maintenance tag

Issues

• it appears from my incomplete testing that the bot no longer applies a CS style fix or adds the postscript
• the inconsistency in reference style within articles is much more common and covers many more variations
• these common inconsistencies exceed and outlast whatever original intent the category and template were intended to communicate
• many of the tools provided to editors do not honor the predominant style

Questions

• How then should we improve the category/tag?
• Where should the conversation take place?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoserf (talk • contribs)

I find that category and those tags to be be mostly useless. It's possibly they were more useful in the past, but their current use eludes me. I'd ask Smith609 (talk · contribs) for his feedback, since he was involved with that category and those tags. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, Thank you. I agree. As is they were just a mess. —¿philoserf? (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Protestant Film Commission

Hi, thanks for cleaning up after me. How come the Harvard refs work without the ref=harv parameter? Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: WP:CS2 (e.g. {{citation}}) supported harvard anchors by default (equivalent to |ref=harv), so the behaviour was extended to all WP:CS1 citation templates (e.g. {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc...) in mid April. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Yoninah (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I deleted the ref=harv from the refs in James Dunn (actor). Some of them are still redirecting to the Bibliography section, but the Griffin ref isn't. What did I do wrong? Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: There's a clash between Griffin 1980 (footnote) and Griffin 1980 (long citation). You can install User:Svick/HarvErrors.js to help you find those broken anchors. If you don't know how, let me know, I'll walk you through it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I made a stupid typo in the year of the sfn cite. I fixed it now and it's working. Thanks again. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wu experiment

The article Wu experiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wu experiment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reyk -- Reyk (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Woohoo, thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

New message from 25 Cents FC

Hello, Headbomb. You have new messages at 25 Cents FC's talk page.
Message added 13:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi mate. I have responded. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 13:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:UPSD

A Frontier journal was marked in yellow May I ask why was it not marked in red? Thank you! --The comings and goings (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Because Frontiers journals are borderline sources, see note at WP:CITEWATCH#Frontiers Media. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So the Frontier Journal in question is Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, which is not marked by any color at all per WP:CITEWATCH#Frontiers Media. Whereas User:Zefr did remove it. How should I read the situation correctly? Perhaps User:Zefr removed it by mistake? --The comings and goings (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Zefr for their reasons for removal. In my experience, they are often overzealous. "Per CITEWATCH" is never a good reason, and that's why there's a huge disclaimer on top of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will ask. Regards. --The comings and goings (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Zefr answered on my talk page. Please never mind to join the discussion on my talk page. Regards. --The comings and goings (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

18th Pennsylvania Cavalry

@Headbomb: Great catch and thank you for finding the Rhea 2000 reference in 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment. It was a second Rhea book that I had left out of the references. Thanks also for reading an article about a cavalry regiment that was not very good (the regiment). Do you have any tools that you use to find problems in articles? If so, I would like to use them too. The only tool I have is "Highlight duplicate links". Thanks and be safe! TwoScars (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@TwoScars: indeed there are tools for this. I suggest installing User:Svick/HarvErrors.js per these instructions. It's very helpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The new format deleting harv

You know I am not technical, and though I am frustrated with these new harv changes, I have not complained, but this is a problem. The a, b, c, thing with dates is already an issue as when people drive by and run bots it removes them from dates and causes errors in citations. Add to that this, which now, instead of different articles by the same person in the same year is requiring a and b for different pages of the same article. Would that one could simply write on this platform and not have to worry about the technical things that are always changing and causing issues for writers. There is absolutely no reason it should have to have an a and/or b and is illogical when one must game the system to put 1998a as an entry for both the 1st page and a citation for both pages. It seems to me that the more logical fix is simply to put ref=none in the 2nd page citation, but I am no expert in technical stuff. Will my solution work? SusunW (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: Which bot removes YEARa/YEARb/YEARc? But if you mean something like this instead of this, I really don't see any issue with that solution. So yes, that would work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there's a minor issue with that, namely this is what will get highlighted if you click on the A2 ref, instead of this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: Also, if you are annoyed at Ucucha's script, then replace importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); with importScript('User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js'); in User:SusunW/common.js. Trappist's version is an excellent refinement, and won't throw warnings on articles that don't make use of short footnotes, and will also suppress them from External links and Further reading sections, so you don't have to add |ref=none to those sections anymore. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no earthly idea which bots, (do bots have names?) the one that runs if you press "Dates to dmy", and the one GiantSnowman is always running. I read all of those comments when the release was sent out, but do not understand 1) how to make that change, or 2) what changes it will make and if it will change the way I use the thing I already use. I know how to use what I have, this new stuff I have no clue about how it will impact my ability to write and correct errors. I need KISS interface, not more complications. Thanks for confirming my proposed fix will work. SusunW (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: 1) Bots: Bots do have names, yes. I don't know what the "Dates to DMY" script is, but from looking at GiantSnowman's contributions, it looks to be WP:MOSNUMscript which has a page to report errors to. I'd suggest making use of that if you see that script malfunctioning. 2) Your solution. See the minor issue above. This is also an alternative. "Your" solution has a very minor issue, my alternative condenses things a bit more, which may or may not be to your liking. In the end it doesn't really matter to me which of the two is used. As for your KISS thing, he's the down-lo

• Both {{citation}} and {{cite book}} (and templates like it) generate anchors by default so can be used with {{harv}} and other short footnotes out of the box
• |ref=harv is no longer needed
• |ref=none works as usual
• If you liked the Ucucha warnings before the update, and find them annoying afterwards, use User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to greatly reduce the number of pointless warnings you see
• If you'd rather not see warnings at all, and only want to see actual errors, use User:Svick/HarvErrors.js

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so now I have 2 solutions for what works on Miller, but on hundreds of other articles that I have written, this will now be a problem and will require "fixing" in a similar manner. *sigh* I honestly do not understand the difference between these "actual errors" and warnings with the bots. I want to be able to review the warnings and the errors and do not know if by picking one I lose that ability. So better that I just keep what I have, and put in ref=none where applicable. Why is it that fixing on WP so often leads to breaking somewhere else? (It's rhetorical, no need for an answer). SusunW (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Actual errors" = Red messages. Warnings = Yellow/Gold messages. Errors are anchors which literally don't work, warnings are... I don't really know. Useful to know when a source found in "References" isn't used in a short footnote? Click on Smith 2006 below, and you won't be taken to the citation. That's why there's an error message. Click on Smith 2007 and you will be taken to the citation. No error messages. The full Jones ref doesn't have a short footnote to go with it, and throws a warning.

• Smith 2006
• Smith 2007
  • Smith, J. (2007). Title of things. Publisher of stuff.
  • Jones, J. (2007). Title of things. Publisher of stuff.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@SusunW: re: I want to be able to review the warnings and the errors and do not know if by picking one I lose that ability., use Trappist the monk's script. It does everything Ucucha did, but better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Now if I just knew how to find the articles among the 1,000s I have written which this new change created problems with for different page links on the same source. Don't explain it to me. My head is already spinning. I do appreciate your help, but wp.technology gives me a headache. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I could find you a list, give me a couple of minutes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hitler's Armenian reference

You and User:Buidhe who created the article may not know that Driverofknowledge was a sock. As such it would be good to get rid of their edits, as not doing so will encourage more socking by the sockmaster. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

My contribution to that article was this. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Would it be possible to have hyphens in the page range of {{sfn}} display as en dashes or have CitationCleanerBot replace them? Seems to me that’s an easily fixable mistake. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Probably yes, raise the issue at Module talk:Footnotes because this is LUA stuff that is beyond me, but not beyond LUA coders. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Help, I am puzzled...

The Google Books cites in Bath School disaster have been changed between https://books.google.com/? & https://books.google.com/books? before, most recently School disaster&diff=957372035&oldid=957370051 here by Citation Bot & you. I had it as the books.google.com/books form originally and then they were all School disaster&diff=prev&oldid=954398480 changed in this edit to the books.google.com form by an editor using #UCB Gadget & AutoEd...so does the Gadget have a bug? Has this already been reported? I don't understand all the coding that goes on around here so I'm not sure if this is reportable or where I would even report it... Help! If it's reportable, it would be awesome if you could report it or check to see if this issue has been taken care of. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is more or less a tweak to Citation bot that was a tad bit too aggressive in trimming URLs to the bare minimum (https://books.google.com/books?id=L1uj6s-d44UC&pg=PA175 → https://books.google.com/?id=L1uj6s-d44UC&pg=PA175). Now Citation bot trims/adjusts URL to be the same as what you get when following the link and either add/keeps the /books?... part. See User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20#Changing Google Books links for a recent discussion on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So it's been fixed. Good...I was thinking surely I didn't mangle all those cites myself! I'm pretty sure they were valid and working when I put them in... Thanks again, Shearonink (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ann and Amelia (1781 ship)

Hi Headbomb, I know the two docs you mention haven't been converted, but I only know simple citebook templates. Furthermore, I have no idea what the Messenger source is. Others have worked on this and they may have inserted it. Just because I worked on an article does not mean I know all the sources. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Just do what you can. But the script really does make this easier to handle and see what you missed, what's broken, etc... It wouldn't let you fix everything out there, especially if you don't know what the missing ref is, but it would have flagged something like this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Messenger (2003) however, it goes back to the creation of the article [1], so if you don't know how Messenger got there... Did you copy this from another article? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Try looking at French corvette Bacchante (1795) for clues. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's alright, I went ahead and adjusted the ref. Shearonink (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Bibcode bot still going?

Hi, from my database dump there are about 30k en-wp templated citations where a bibcode could be added (that is, there is a templated citation in that or another article for the same DOI that has a bibcode set). Is the bibcode bot still running to have a go at those? Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

API changed killed it. It could be revived, and eventually plan to do so within the next few years/decades. But I'll need to level up in pywiki/python/general coding skills first, because I truly suck at it.

I have the code around if you want to tackle updating it though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, Citation Bot is now much better at adding bibocodes than before. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, the bibcode API change. I might also look at that for my own implementation at some point (not in python). I've been doing some cleanup in the last couple of days (same DOI linked to multiple different bibcodes across articles etc.), that is tidy now, so will now set up a spreadsheet to review matches (for articles already having other bibcode(s)).

I'm not going to use citation bot, when I was last using it I found it liked to make more changes than I thought appropriate. And secondly it and OAbot use some shared library for somewhere that proposes PMC identifiers that seem to be found based on a search just on paper's title, that neither bot seem to properly filter/validate, so we end up with some PMCs for papers in different journals/by different authors being slapped on. So while that's an open issue I'm not touching either of them (and spend time cleaning up from them). Rjwilmsi 07:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Halp

I was trying to create a FAQ for Bath School disaster so I created Talk:Bath School disaster/FAQ but when I go to edit it THIS or Creating Talk:Bath School disaster/FAQ/FAQ is what comes up. I've done something wrong but I have no idea *what*...I've tried to understand the Template:FAQ instructions but obviously I don't otherwise I wouldn't have an impending FAQ/FAQ page. Help please? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Put {{FAQ}} on Talk:Bath School disaster. And then you can edit the /FAQ page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I did it right? If you could pop your head in and maybe take a look - wikicode-ing is *so* not my strong suit. Thanks for all your help - Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thanks for correcting my typos in my refs! Oof! Can't believe I loeft out the year. No wonder they didn't work! Hhfjbaker (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hhfjbaker: No worries. Note that if you install Svick's script per these instructions, you'll have a much easier time finding out problematic citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

some new recent edits

Hi. I made some new edits recently, at WP:CBB. feel free to let me know if you have any comments. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

In general if people have comments, they will make them. As mentionned when you last pinged me, I have no opinion or advice to offer here beyond those already given. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

ok, I understand. that sounds fine. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Predatory publishing

Predatory_publishing#cite_ref-Ross-Hellauer_2017_127-0 appears to be published by the Bentham Open. Do you think this reference should be removed for failing to meet WP:RS? Thanks. --I am pleased to meet you (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

F1000Research is not published by Bentham Open. Why do you think it is? It's a problematic source for other reasons, but not because it's predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh! I asked because I saw your tool's tooltip showed that Borderline source...only those published by Bentham Open are of concern., which got me think that "Predatory_publishing#cite_ref-Ross-Hellauer_2017_127-0 was marked in yellow and was open-access". What I inferred from your tooltip was that "every Bentham's source is automatically marked in yellow but only those open-access are unreliable."--I am pleased to meet you (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the full tip. "Borderline source, which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements. For Bentham journals, only those published by Bentham Open are of concern." Meaning that if it's a Bentham journal being highlighted, only those from Bentham Open should give pause. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. But if it's not published by Bentham Open, why the tooltip specially mentioned Bentham Open when there are still other problematic publishers? --I am pleased to meet you (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Because that piece of code will highlight all Bentham journals, regardless of whether or not they are published by Bentham Open. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I get it. Thanks. I think I was misled by "Open" as Open here is not equal to "open-access"; some of Bentham's sources also are open-access. --I am pleased to meet you (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Query

Hi mate, hope you are doing fine. I have got a query, once we nominate an article for GA, putting GA nomination is enough or we add article's entry at Good article nominations ?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 15:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not really sure where this request comes from, but I would just follow the instructions at WP:GAI#Step 2: Nominating the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you mate. A bot adds article at nominations page. Thanks you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind helping, I'm just curious why I happened to be the person to contact for this. In general, if you have questions about a process, there's usually an instruction page and questions can be directed on the associated talk page, or at WP:HELPDESK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation bot

Why do I see your requests go through all day long while my own languish? I was stunned to see my own forgotten requests going through a week after I requested them. Alas, I may have to select a different maintenance task. There are so many. —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning about your edit warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Food and Agriculture in Nazi Germany; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Smallchief (talk)

@Smallchief: You're ridiculous, you know that? I have explained my actions multiple times, you abused the rollback function, you reverted reflexively many times, you refuse to use the talk page, etc. I have sought outside opinion, I waited 2 days for your 'nap' to be over, and you still refuse to engage. If you revert again without engaging, I will take you to ANI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Headbomb/Archives/2020, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)