User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

DOIs in |url

Hi Headbomb, I recently found out that there's a decent numer of references that use the DOI link in the url parameter which feels kind of redundant when there's the doi parameter in all CS1 templates. Given that your're part of the BAG do you think a bot job would make sense to address this if consensus for a change can be found and do you know where the right place for discussing this is? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I fully agree that it should be bot-removed. Sadly, there's a vocal minority that says 'nooooooooo don't touch my links!' Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1AmNobody24: see also this RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Law journal abbreviations

Per this, I do try to, but they're not always easy to find. If we don't have an article about the journal in question (with that information in the infobox), then I try to see if I can find what the journal itself says on its website. There are sites with what they claim are comprehensive lists, but I often find they're not as comprehensive as claimed and/or out of date.

What resource do you use? Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: On Wikipedia, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Bluebook journals, based on the 18th/19th edition. There's also this, based on the 21st, I think. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A trend I noticed, is that Law Review is virtually always 'L. Rev.' and that Law Journal is virtually always 'L.J.' (and that spacing matters). And sometimes, the same word is abbreviated differently (Environmental is often 'Env't', but sometimes 'Env'l' or just 'Env.'). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Quaternary Science Reviews marked don’t use at Aquatic ape hypothesis?

It isn’t your script but I am hoping you can help. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's not my script, I'm really not sure how I can help here. Which citation exactly does this concern? What exactly do you see/what is the problem? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't think of anyone to ask. I guess I could ask at the Village Pump (technical). It's cite 35, a circle with a red diagonal line.. Doug Weller talk 08:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: That sounds like an issue with User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry to have bothered you. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better to ask and get help than not ask and stay ignorant! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'm asking Superhamster now. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image in the infobox of the article metre

Hello, I noticed that you reverted my change in the infobox of the article Metre. It is allright for me. Charles Inigo (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selection rule edits

Please read the edit descriptions before reverting them Sussus Amogus Incontinentia (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The article is clear that it uses the convention of capital letters. Capital S, L, J, etc.. all refer to the quantum numbers. You are introducing inconsistant notation. It doesn't matter of other authors use a different one, what matters is that the article consistantly uses one notation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source/plagarism help

Hello,

You relatively recently delete a source from the page Technical geography, and while working on improving the page and found the attached source. I believe it is basically just a rip off of the page Physical geography and Geomorphology and I've removed it as a citation where I saw it. I'm wondering if you have any advice on if there is anything that can be done, either on wiki or off? Is there a tag we can put on the talk page letting people know? Thanks for the help. I almost certainly the one who included it in the first place without reading too deeply into it, and before I was as aware of predatory journals and more trusting of things I read on Google Scholar. Want to undo the damage and see if there is anything I can do if I ever see something like this again.

Dada, Anup (December 2022). "The Process of Geomorphology Related to Sub Branches of Physical Geography". Black Sea Journal of Scientific Research. 59 (3): 1–2. doi:10.36962/GBSSJAR/59.3.004 (inactive 1 November 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link) GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I have any specific advice but to check https://beallslist.net/ when you don't know the journal, and use scripts like WP:UPSD to help detect unreliable sources. Here, BSJSR seems a very dodgy journals. How do I figure that out? It's advertising being indexed in Google Scholar and Publons. Neither are selective databases, and will include every possible journal they can, including predatory ones. You'd expect a reliable geography journal to be indexed like Journal of Biogeography, in databases like Web of Science, Scopus, GeoRef, GEOBASE, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on page "Oryctes elegans"

High, you made 4 edits today on the page Oryctes elegans. Two of them are fine, thanks. However, in the other 2 you deleted 2 references to articles by Dr. Mohammed Zaidan Khalaf because they were published in "predatory journals", including a whole paragraph on date palm resistance against this beetle. I don't agree with these 2 edits and will reverse them. However, I will modify the text of one sentence on the resistance paragraph to indicate that the conclusion about the reason for the resistance is not well established. Dr. Khalaf is an internationally respected scientist and an expert on the beetle the page deals with. I trust the research results reported in these 2 articles, although the presentation of the results was clearly not perfect. The journals where these articles appeared may be rated as "predatory journals" on some lists, but this does not automatically mean any article written in them should be automatically discarded as unreliable. In developing countries, the choice of a journal is also often a question of available funds, since the charges in properly refereed journals can be unaffordable to these scientists. I am confident the research results described in these 2 articles would have been accepted by a higher quality journal, although he probably would have been asked to modify some text and improve the English.
Regards, Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard Zelazny: These still are predatory journals, and not reliable source. If you reintroduce them as citation, I will remove them again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing about the journal, but about the scientist who published the results and about his research. It is not clear to me why anything published in these journals should be unreliable. Please see his publication list on Google Scholar

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=u-tzUFUAAAAJ&hl=en

Surely he has published many articles in refereed journals. At the same time, the results published in a refereed journal are not necessarily reliable. A referee can never not judge if the reported results are correct or not, how can he/she? Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is should be based on valid, peer-reviewed sources, not stuff published in unreliable sources. See WP:VANPRED. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, a journal called Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America has no business publishing an article titled "Population density of Oryctes elegans Prell.(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) on some date palm varieties in South Baghdad Orchards". Emphasis mine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense to me to automatically label all articles in peer-reviewed journals as valid and all others as invalid. I now discovered that both references you have deleted have been cited in a reputable, peer-reviewed book published by Springer, see

https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-24397-9_5

Does this make these articles now reliable? Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not peer-reviewed journals, and self-citations are hardly impressive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a forum in Wikipedia where the topic of "predatory journals" and "valid" research can be discussed? Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's RSN for predatory journals. But we don't evaluate research. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]