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. |
You're right about the arxiv ref. i should have realised it, having looked at it very recently :P. Thanks. Boud ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Do I recall correctly that you asked about conversion of URLs to bibcodes in journal cites being converted to use |bibcode=
? I have a script/potential bot task in mind to add missing |bibcode=
to existing {{
cite journal}}s, that I should be coming round to in the next couple of weeks. Would you be interested in helping/collaborating (non programming)?
Rjwilmsi 00:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work merging these articles under one title, and for your proficient copy editing. I was also contemplating the merge.
I think the notability criteria for this isn't going to be reliable sources in the mainstream press. If you are so inclined see WP:BK#Academic books and reference 8 of this notability guideline. Hence, CRC press, the publisher, appears to be an academic (or scientific) publisher. This book appears to be listed in a sufficient number of University Libraries, according to WorldCat. It is listed in the Library of Congress [1], [2] per Threshold standards.I doubt the mainstream press is going to provide any kind of focus for these books. This is a book based solely on scientific research, written in a review format. However, the related (or relevant) peer reviewed research papers, are listed at the end of each chapter. In other words the content of the book based on primary research. So how do I reference the above as notable for the article? I will copy this to the article talk page. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be clearer to name this category "Academic journals edited by students"? -- Crusio ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Telling people that they "...should really get a clue" is not very conductive to promoting a constructive discussion. I know SBHarris started the mud slinging, but try to stay above that. I would say the same to SBHarris, but I have no reason to believe that he would respond well to such a remark. TimothyRias ( talk) 10:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year, by the way! Thanks for all your continued efforts in Physics related articles. Polyamorph ( talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests#.22Hot articles.22 bot for Wikiprojects. Any feedback on this idea would be appreciated. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Your links are sending people to Talk:List of journals instead of Talk:Lists of journals.-- Hjal ( talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Headbomb, I need 10 WikiProjects with fewer than 2000 articles to volunteer for a trial run of HotArticlesBot. Can you help spread the word. The sign up list is here: User:HotArticlesBot/Subscriptions. Kaldari ( talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In case you don't see it in the edit history, I coreected the date in the infobox. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup on the list of math articles. I knew that it had various issues with the links, but I only had the time to do what I did, and I was planning to fix the individual redlinks as I went through creating articles. It's a lot of meticulous work, so I appreciate your time going through the list.
As for the order of things on the page, it doesn't matter very much to me. I just tried to follow the example at List of chemistry journals to put the list of top-ranked ones first. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not 'drive-by' tag articles for merger without simultaneously DISCUSSing your proposal on article talk, as suggested by both the merger templates & WP:MERGE. Incidentally, WP:MERGE suggests that merge proposals can be closed after "1 week or more" when "discussion has ceased". As discussion never started, it is perfectly acceptable to close such a stillborn proposal after a month. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a publisher, but a portal grouping journals on a similar subject, but from different publishers. Perhaps the cat should be changed. -- Crusio ( talk) 08:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This one seems misnamed, too: either it should be "Wikiproject Academic Journals articles" (because that's the name of the project) or "Wikiproject Academic journal articles", because that would be the proper categorization. What do you think? -- Crusio ( talk) 08:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
|MAIN_CAT=WikiProject Academic Journal articles
→ |MAIN_CAT=WikiProject Academic Journals articles
and we might as well change |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Academic Journal articles
→ |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Academic journals articles
while we are at it.). Some categories will need to be manually created, and overtime (~1 week i think) the banner will repopulate the correct categories. Once the old ones are emptied, they can be speedied.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 08:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Hi Headbomb, in 2008 I believe you reversed the direction of an anti-particle's arrow in a Feynman diagram,
following the quoted rule "Antineutrino are antiparticles and thus their arrows should point backwards in time.". This confusing the hell out of folks - should you have not converted the anti-particle to a particle at the same time? This may be a physics-wide standards problem - the literature does not seem unified on the matter. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
My point is that there were complaints before the diagram was changed and complaints after it was changed back to the original form, but none while it was in the "Feynman form". That should tell us something about which form readers find most comprehensible. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you doing a great job cleaning the Bach works, especially the Bach cantatas! Would you at the same remove all texts and translations, as discussed in Classical music. I do it but slowly, one a week. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
A few questions, it's really minor stuff, just curious. Why do you want to have spaces around the slash? I've never seen that done. And accoding to the NLM, the ISO abbreviation is "Arzneimittelforschung", so I don't think the others belong in the infobox.
The journal's title is ambiguous anyway. NLM calls it "Arzneimittel-Forschung" (but as far as my knowledge of German goes, Arzneimittelforschung is correct German, too). The journal's own website calls it "ArzneimForsch/DrugRes", the cover displays ArzneimForsch with DrugRes just below, but also gives a complete title "Arzneimittel Forschung" (no dash), with "Drug Research" underneath. Go figure... Cheers, -- Crusio ( talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked about this on my talk page. See [4] and other edits by this editor. I don't think it's a good idea, but do we have any guidance on this or is it ok? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
AWB replaces "rigourous" with "rigorous". This violates WP:ENGVAR. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Canadian Young Scientist Journal article you deleted the circulation of 3200 stating in the comments that "remove think which the source has disappeared, and which was kinda irrelevant anyway (particular to one issue)" from which I could not discern the meaning of your decision other that that of not finding the link attached or said link being dead and that this fact which gave the article more depth was somehow irrelevant to the article. I believe you should undo your change in order that the fact be presented as there was a link that accompanied it ( http://www.linkedin.com/companies/canadian-young-scientist-journal). Thanks Mountjudo ( talk) 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you can check about difference between Theory and Hypothesis here http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm or you can search by yourself in google. Hypothesis is like a guess, while Theory is something more established.
Ernest Rutherford proposed explanation, but didn't build theoretical model of his explanation, that is, what is called hypothesis. Soviet physicists first built theoretical model, which predicted existence of neutral particles.
Heyheyheyhohoho ( talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As the user who created Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books), you are very experienced with Wikipedia books. Would you provide input at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Mystery? I am unfamiliar with policies regarding books and am unsure whether a vague name is a reason for deletion or whether a rename should be done. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Mystery. Cunard ( talk) 01:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important to point out the extraordinary prestige of Science in the research community. If you publish in it, your career is given an enormous boost. This is important to the article, isn't it? Tony (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
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. |
You're right about the arxiv ref. i should have realised it, having looked at it very recently :P. Thanks. Boud ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Do I recall correctly that you asked about conversion of URLs to bibcodes in journal cites being converted to use |bibcode=
? I have a script/potential bot task in mind to add missing |bibcode=
to existing {{
cite journal}}s, that I should be coming round to in the next couple of weeks. Would you be interested in helping/collaborating (non programming)?
Rjwilmsi 00:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work merging these articles under one title, and for your proficient copy editing. I was also contemplating the merge.
I think the notability criteria for this isn't going to be reliable sources in the mainstream press. If you are so inclined see WP:BK#Academic books and reference 8 of this notability guideline. Hence, CRC press, the publisher, appears to be an academic (or scientific) publisher. This book appears to be listed in a sufficient number of University Libraries, according to WorldCat. It is listed in the Library of Congress [1], [2] per Threshold standards.I doubt the mainstream press is going to provide any kind of focus for these books. This is a book based solely on scientific research, written in a review format. However, the related (or relevant) peer reviewed research papers, are listed at the end of each chapter. In other words the content of the book based on primary research. So how do I reference the above as notable for the article? I will copy this to the article talk page. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be clearer to name this category "Academic journals edited by students"? -- Crusio ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Telling people that they "...should really get a clue" is not very conductive to promoting a constructive discussion. I know SBHarris started the mud slinging, but try to stay above that. I would say the same to SBHarris, but I have no reason to believe that he would respond well to such a remark. TimothyRias ( talk) 10:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year, by the way! Thanks for all your continued efforts in Physics related articles. Polyamorph ( talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests#.22Hot articles.22 bot for Wikiprojects. Any feedback on this idea would be appreciated. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Your links are sending people to Talk:List of journals instead of Talk:Lists of journals.-- Hjal ( talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Headbomb, I need 10 WikiProjects with fewer than 2000 articles to volunteer for a trial run of HotArticlesBot. Can you help spread the word. The sign up list is here: User:HotArticlesBot/Subscriptions. Kaldari ( talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In case you don't see it in the edit history, I coreected the date in the infobox. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup on the list of math articles. I knew that it had various issues with the links, but I only had the time to do what I did, and I was planning to fix the individual redlinks as I went through creating articles. It's a lot of meticulous work, so I appreciate your time going through the list.
As for the order of things on the page, it doesn't matter very much to me. I just tried to follow the example at List of chemistry journals to put the list of top-ranked ones first. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not 'drive-by' tag articles for merger without simultaneously DISCUSSing your proposal on article talk, as suggested by both the merger templates & WP:MERGE. Incidentally, WP:MERGE suggests that merge proposals can be closed after "1 week or more" when "discussion has ceased". As discussion never started, it is perfectly acceptable to close such a stillborn proposal after a month. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a publisher, but a portal grouping journals on a similar subject, but from different publishers. Perhaps the cat should be changed. -- Crusio ( talk) 08:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This one seems misnamed, too: either it should be "Wikiproject Academic Journals articles" (because that's the name of the project) or "Wikiproject Academic journal articles", because that would be the proper categorization. What do you think? -- Crusio ( talk) 08:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
|MAIN_CAT=WikiProject Academic Journal articles
→ |MAIN_CAT=WikiProject Academic Journals articles
and we might as well change |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Academic Journal articles
→ |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Academic journals articles
while we are at it.). Some categories will need to be manually created, and overtime (~1 week i think) the banner will repopulate the correct categories. Once the old ones are emptied, they can be speedied.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 08:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Hi Headbomb, in 2008 I believe you reversed the direction of an anti-particle's arrow in a Feynman diagram,
following the quoted rule "Antineutrino are antiparticles and thus their arrows should point backwards in time.". This confusing the hell out of folks - should you have not converted the anti-particle to a particle at the same time? This may be a physics-wide standards problem - the literature does not seem unified on the matter. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
My point is that there were complaints before the diagram was changed and complaints after it was changed back to the original form, but none while it was in the "Feynman form". That should tell us something about which form readers find most comprehensible. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you doing a great job cleaning the Bach works, especially the Bach cantatas! Would you at the same remove all texts and translations, as discussed in Classical music. I do it but slowly, one a week. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
A few questions, it's really minor stuff, just curious. Why do you want to have spaces around the slash? I've never seen that done. And accoding to the NLM, the ISO abbreviation is "Arzneimittelforschung", so I don't think the others belong in the infobox.
The journal's title is ambiguous anyway. NLM calls it "Arzneimittel-Forschung" (but as far as my knowledge of German goes, Arzneimittelforschung is correct German, too). The journal's own website calls it "ArzneimForsch/DrugRes", the cover displays ArzneimForsch with DrugRes just below, but also gives a complete title "Arzneimittel Forschung" (no dash), with "Drug Research" underneath. Go figure... Cheers, -- Crusio ( talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked about this on my talk page. See [4] and other edits by this editor. I don't think it's a good idea, but do we have any guidance on this or is it ok? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
AWB replaces "rigourous" with "rigorous". This violates WP:ENGVAR. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Canadian Young Scientist Journal article you deleted the circulation of 3200 stating in the comments that "remove think which the source has disappeared, and which was kinda irrelevant anyway (particular to one issue)" from which I could not discern the meaning of your decision other that that of not finding the link attached or said link being dead and that this fact which gave the article more depth was somehow irrelevant to the article. I believe you should undo your change in order that the fact be presented as there was a link that accompanied it ( http://www.linkedin.com/companies/canadian-young-scientist-journal). Thanks Mountjudo ( talk) 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you can check about difference between Theory and Hypothesis here http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm or you can search by yourself in google. Hypothesis is like a guess, while Theory is something more established.
Ernest Rutherford proposed explanation, but didn't build theoretical model of his explanation, that is, what is called hypothesis. Soviet physicists first built theoretical model, which predicted existence of neutral particles.
Heyheyheyhohoho ( talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As the user who created Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books), you are very experienced with Wikipedia books. Would you provide input at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Mystery? I am unfamiliar with policies regarding books and am unsure whether a vague name is a reason for deletion or whether a rename should be done. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Mystery. Cunard ( talk) 01:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important to point out the extraordinary prestige of Science in the research community. If you publish in it, your career is given an enormous boost. This is important to the article, isn't it? Tony (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)