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.

Hi Headbomb. You may remember some comments at the dash poll (now in its last ten days) concerning the "between" sense of the en dash. I think it is not clear how you and two others want to vote about that. I am curious! But I am also concerned that the poll achieve a clear outcome. I have posted some evidence that bears on your concerns. Search for the words "concise rather than expansive" in that section of the page. Does the CGEL evidence affect your thinking? Here is some of what was said before:

A di M:

"The border between France and Germany is not the same as the border between French and German; it is the same as the French border that's also a German border."

Later, after a query from me:

"Anyway, I agree that a monumental descriptive grammar based on a decade of research by a dozen linguists should be given more weight than the personal tastes of the authors of this or that style guide."

Headbomb:

"Agree with the first, disagree with the second. A French–German is a border between entities of "French" and of "German" which makes no damned sense. It's the France–Germany border, or the French-German border, but it is not the French–German border."

Oknazevad:

"I'm just going to echo with Headbomb. He says exactly what I'm thinking."

I should note that the enormously respected and descriptive CGEL does not appear to discriminate in its own practice between {adj~adj noun} and {noun~noun noun}. Where the sense is "between", it uses an en dash.

I am posting this message at the talkpages of all three of you. Thanks for your attention to this.

Noetica ^Tea? 05:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you revert my edit here? Is there something wrong with adding the italics around the links on a book page? McLerristarr |  Mclay1 03:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Books have a specific syntax they need to follow. See Help:Books/for experts#Saving books. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've read that. It doesn't mention anything about italics. All it says is that the articles are preceded by a colon. It does not specify anything else. McLerristarr |  Mclay1 04:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The syntax is either :[[Article]] or :[[Article|How you want it to look]]. Nothing else works. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What does it prevent from working? McLerristarr |  Mclay1 05:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The PDF/ODT renderers and the ZIM packager. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll keep that in mind for the future. McLerristarr |  Mclay1 06:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just see that you replaced a "cite doi" template added by Casliber from the Kew Bulletin article. As I use these templates quite regularly myself, I wonder about the reason behind it, so that I can modify my editing if needed. (Like the piped links a while ago, which I now use much more selectively than before). Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I utterly loathe the cite doi templates. Consider two articles, with two different ways to cite articles, both using {{ cite doi}}. The first uses "Smith, J. (2010)", while the other uses "Smith J (Jan 2010)." One editor tweaks the cite doi template, bringing it in line with the convention for his article, which breaks the other articles it's used on. They make articles hell to maintain (not to mention vandalism gets much harder to detect). Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the vandalism part, I don't watchlist those things either. I do see advantages, though: if there is an error in a reference, just one edit can take care of all occurrences. But you're right about the different citation styles... Too bad WP never has been able to agree on a single citation style. I guess in future I'll still use the "cite doi" template to generate a citation, but then copy it directly into the article as you suggest. -- Crusio ( talk) 14:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Or you could simply use {{ cite journal }} to do so, saving yourself the copying part. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the correct name for this database already. See this link: [1]. I don't think the move and speedy deletion is correct at this time. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 21:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a combined database. It would make as much sense to call the SIMBAD database "SIMBAD - CSI". Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, where is the description for the CABS database? It looks like Elsevier combined the two into one database. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

CABS. CABS contains 1,700+ journals, and is a subset of BIOBASE which contains 1900+ journals. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to leave for about three hours. Hopefully it will be OK to get back to you then. Am I just being nit-picky? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are being nit-picky yes. BIOBASE is an extended electronic version of CABS, it's not called "BIOBASE - CABS" . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for your patience. I agree that I was being picky. (Sorry I had to leave) Please proceed with the Speedy delete and the page move. Also, DGG left a helpful response here. Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the ref.i am curious of the content of the paper-- Beaucouplusneutre ( talk) 06:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb. Just a comment about this . As far as I can see the jstor parameter is not supported for cite article, which actually (confusingly, in my view) redirects to cite news. Thus your edit has had the effect of losing the url from the reference. I've changed the template to cite journal so all is now well in this case, but you may want to watch out for this issue in your travels. Otherwise, congratulations on the great work! -- Simon the Likable ( talk) 15:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Weird, I thought cite article redirect to cite journal. Anyway thanks for the heads up. Maybe I'll update {{ cite article}} to handle the identifiers. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Why did you revert my edit without an edit summary? PPdd ( talk) 03:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you restore vandalism/whatever it's supposed to be is a much better question? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The article Paleontological Research Institution describes the academic journal Paleontographica Americana so it seems to me that the category Paleontology journals is appropriate for this article. You deleted the category. Please explain to me why this category is not appropriate. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the PRI is not a paleontology journal, it's a paleontology organization. Bulletins of American Paleontology, Paleontographica Americana, American Paleontologist are, so these are the one categorized in Category:Paleontology journals. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb, what on Earth is wrong with a reference to the web of science (and note that I don't put the URL in any more, you're right about that)? We have problems enough as it is to source most journal articles. In addition, even though you may not be inclined to put such a reference in articles, I really fail to see why you would take the effort to take it out if someone else puts it in. As for "the", I have yet to hear somebody say "I saw this in Journal Citation Reports", only "I saw this in THE Journal Citation Reports". that's because of the "reports", I guess. You're right, of course, that nobody would say "the Physics Today", but that is a very different title. -- Crusio ( talk) 17:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for me it's the other way around. I never heard anyone say "the Journal Citation Reports", although I supposed because of the "reports" it's grammatically correct (but Jesus does it sound wrong to me). As for a reference to WoS, it's useless clutter. Who would ask "Do you have a reference for the 2010 IF?" after reading "JCR reports the 2010 IF to be...". If something must be added, then it should be a proper reference to JCR, such as

• "Rank in Category 'Chemistry': Journal of the American Chemical Society". Journal Citation Reports/Science. Thomson Reuters: p. xx. 2011. doi: 10.xxxx/xxxxxxxx. {{ cite journal}}: |page= has extra text ( help); Check |doi= value ( help)

or however one would cite the actual thing. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• A reference like that cannot be given. JCR is a website, has no doi, and no pagination. I have seen people insert the URL they copy from their browsers (same for WoS), but the will only work within a particular session and within a particular institution. In articles on completely different subjects, it is still completely normal to insert a reference even after saying that something cam from "Magazine of Foo" or "Journal of Foo". Even if it is not online. I really don't see your point. If something is wrong with a reference, fix it, don't just delete it. -- Crusio ( talk) 18:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that saying you found the IF in "Web of Science"is about useful as saying you found it on Google, and certainly no more useful than saying "JCR reports the IF to be X". What's the reference? JCR! You just said it! Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the proper way to cite is "Journal Ranked by Impact: Acoustics", 2010 Journal Citation Reports (Science ed.), Thomson Reuters, 2011. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's a helpful suggestion. I have adapted this (see here). Thanks. As for the "the", I still think you're wrong (and so does my US-born wife). Perhaps you should ask some native-English speaker somewhere (don(t know whether there is a special noticeboard for grammar questions). -- Crusio ( talk) 09:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language. In general, unless you are referring to an item, articles are not used with most non-geographical proper nouns and "Journal Citation Reports" is a proper noun. It does not matter that the last word is "Reports", same way as "Black" in "John V. Black" would not be an adjective. So "I saw this in Journal Citation Reports." unless "I saw this in the Journal Citation Reports that is lying on my table." [specific copy of journal] —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 09:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• So you would say: "I read that in Los Angeles Times" and not "I read that in the Los Angeles Times"? To me, that sounds very weird. -- Crusio ( talk) 09:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• As I said, that's the usage with most non-geographical proper nouns. Unfortunately, common usage often contradicts grammar rules, no matter if they sound weird or not. My guess is that since many popular newspapers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, etc.) include "The" in their names it has become common to prefix "The" to other publications as well. Would you say "I read the War and Peace." —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 10:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some other proper nouns: "I'm a member of American Psychiatric Association", "of International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society", or non-geographical "I'm a member of Human Genome Organization"? Of course I wouldn't say "I read the War and Peace", but in the previous examples I definitely would insert a "the". That's why I think the rule you cite must a bit more complex than that. -- Crusio ( talk) 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

APA and IBANGS are not geographical proper nouns, if that's what you meant; "geographical" refers to mountains, lakes, structures, etc. and article usage is very convoluted then. For the rest of the cases, including APA and IBANGS, you wouldn't ordinarily use articles. I don't really see a difference between "I'm an employee of National Rail", "I'm an employee of Charlie's Pancakes", and "I'm an employee of American Psychiatric Association". Why do you treat organization names differently? —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 14:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's because you need to insert an article "I'm a member of the ... Association". The best way to go at it IMO, is to put whatever you're thinking of at the start of a sentence. "American Psychiatric Association reported that..." vs "The American Psychiatric Association reported that". "Consumer Reports wrote that ..." vs "The Consumer Reports wrote that...". "Journal Citation Reports mentioned that..." vs "The Journal Citation Reports mentioned that..." Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain Why did you do this? Please post to my talk. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah I didn't notice this. I think I had 2-3 version of the book opened at once and saved one time too many. Although that |description= parameter really ought to be revamped or removed. I think this is the only book that uses it. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for adding the image, and for generally tidying it up. TheRetroGuy ( talk) 08:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, 2 questions: 1/ what is wrong with the "Official template"? Why should it not be used? 2/ The journal page is at the website of the association. Is there any reason why a second EL to the association's website is needed? -- Crusio ( talk) 16:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

{{ Official}} is an optional templates. Forcing it on the article is no different than switching an article between varieties of English. The first link is to the journal's webpage, the second to the association's webpage. That they are both hosted on the same website is inconsequential IMO. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have put a question about this here. -- Crusio ( talk) 16:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to decline your db-move request, but I see Fastily has done it. However, I don't think you should make the move, and I suggest undoing your changes to the article, because it's clear from its own homepage, which starts "EP - Europace - The European Journal of Pacing, Arrhythmias and Cardiac Electrophysiology - is an official Journal of the European Heart Rhythm Association... " and has links like "Recommend EP-Europace to your institution's Librarian", and also from pages like this that the journal itself thinks its title is "EP - Europace" (or "EP Europace" - they use both on the same page, which is confusing). Also, there are other Europaces around: 1 2. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The journal is named Europace. See all databases that holds it ( [2] [3] [4] [5] for example). This is no different from say BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia vs British Journal of Anaesthesia or JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute vs Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to run the bibcode bot against this list please? Each article should have at least one bibcode to be added (as of a couple of weeks ago). Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. It might overlook some pages though since there's a bug in Bibcode bot, and I'm skipping pages containing a "\n" "\t" or "\r" (as in <math>\tau</math>. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually my bot refuses to login for some reason. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Any update, it would be great if the bot could most of them for me? Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot refuses to login, so I can't make it edit anything. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help sorting out the book. As you will have noted, I had some problems in this area! Shipsview ( talk) 10:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If you have question just ask me. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I just created Category:Electronics scientific journals. At about the same time I created a redirect to this category Category:Electronics journals. First, I think this redirect is incorrect and I am wondering if you can fix it. I guess I don't know how to create soft redirects for category pages. Second, before I add some of these articles [6] to this newly created category, do you think it should be Category:Electronics scientific journals or simply Category:Electronics journals. It seems you have more experience with this type of editing than me, so that is why I am asking you. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be Category:Electronics journals per Category:Academic journals by subject area/ . As for the category redirect, it's done correctly. What it does is let tell a bot that whatever article in category X needs to be recategorized in category Y. So you should put the category redirect template in Category:Electronics scientific journals and make it redirect to Category:Electronics journals. Then either you wait for the bot to recategorize articles, or you do it yourself (there are only two, so...) Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I see -> -> So, Category:Electronics journals will be a subcategory of Category:Scientific journals. I will swap the redirect and make the correction. Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's done. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you're going through a bunch of articles and switching Ann. of Math. to Ann. Math., but according to mathscinet, the former is the correct abbreviation (it's certainly the abbreviation I've always seen). What reason do you have for these changes? RobHar ( talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Because Ann. Math. is the proper abbreviation? Like Ann. New York Acad. Sci. is the abbreviation for the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, and not Ann. of New York Acad. Sci., or Ann. Ulster is the abbreviation of Annals of Ulster and not Ann. of Ulster (or Ann. Bot. for Annals of Botany). It's certainly the first time I hear of keeping the "of" in an abbreviated title. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's not the proper abbreviation if it's not the abbreviation that everyone in the field uses. Additionally, you can check out the website of the American Mathematical Society for the list of all math journal abbreviations. Even papers in the Annals of Mathematics use the abbreviation Ann. of Math. in their references. Could you please revert all of your changes? Thanks. RobHar ( talk) 20:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ann. Math is the ISO abbreviation, however, which is the one that we've been using all over the WikiProject Academic Journals. Like Headbomb, I've never seen the "of" being kept in an abbreviation. Of course, some fields have different abbreviation styles (US law reviews, for example, which use a very different referencing system and quite idiosyncratic abbreviations according to the [[Bluebook])). In such cases I generally list the ISO abbreviation in the infobox and the alternative abbreviation in the text. Something like that could perhaps also be done here? -- Crusio ( talk) 14:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Q: Is there an official list of these ISO abbreviations somewhere? Which ISO standard is it? — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 14:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Information and Documentation, Rules for the Abbreviation of Title Words and Titles of Publications (ISO 4:1997), which is an update of ISO 4:1984. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a list of rules or a list that specifically mentions that the abbreviation of the Annals is Ann. Math.? Because if all this is is the former, than doesn't convince me that wikipedia should forcefully apply these rules even in cases where there is a clear preference to disregard them. RobHar ( talk) 20:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Really though, if the entire math discipline and the journal itself uses "Ann. of Math.", then that is the abbreviation. I can't even find anywhere that says that the abbreviation is "Ann. Math.". RobHar ( talk) 17:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• For instance, here and here. -- Crusio ( talk) 17:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing a link to a page that specifically claims "Ann. Math." as the abbreviation. However, the fact remains that the journal itself, as well as all journals in the subject use "Ann. of Math.". I don't see why wikipedia should ignore this fact. RobHar ( talk) 20:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I've posted a discussion at the Academic Journals WikiProject on the subject (see here). RobHar ( talk) 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in the selected article(s) for September [7]. Books with physics related topics are selected from WP:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books. Please feel free to copy edit the introduction, and feel free to add or remove titles. I don't know the date when WikiProject Wikipedia-Books was established (see intro). Perhaps there are other books in the pipeline that may be ready by September, if anyone is interested. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course we can do this again at a later date if more books become available. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, re this edit: the effect of altering |origyear=1976|year= to |year=1976|year= is to hide it. This is because when the MediaWiki template parser encounters the same named parameter more than once in any given template transclusion, all are ignored except for the last one, even if that last one be blank. The correct fix would have been either |origyear=|year=1976 or |year=1976. Thanks. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice there is a field with the same name as the journal? The only difference between the two is now a capital R. As some people tend to capitalize scientific fields, when they make wikilinks of those fields this has the potential for producing some incorrect links, I think. -- Crusio ( talk) 06:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a bit of a mess, including two different journals with the same title... Perhaps this should be re-worked as a dab page. But what to do with the two journals with the same name? (Although I did not look to see whether the Indian one is notable, the older one probably is). Suggestions/ideas welcome... -- Crusio ( talk) 07:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved the page to Academic journals of insect science because it covered several academic journals pertaining to insect science. Also, I moved the page twice because the first move resulted in a typo in the title (see move log). ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess it would have been helpful for me to review the edit history. It was a stub-page for only the Indian journal until a new user added all the others on July 27, 2011. It might havwe been simpler to simply undo the change. Oh well, I guess it can be a disambiguation page by giving these other journals their own page. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to create the other "insect science" journal articles. I have to leave and won't be available for the next eight or nine hours. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the link. i was looking at the precursors at nasa for robotic industry in space. either in moon or asteroid mining.--Beaucouplusneutre 19:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre ( talk • contribs)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. RunningOnBrains( talk) 15:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)