User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/January

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.

nice correction

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)

Bibcodes

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)

Sure thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Metamaterials Handbook

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)

Category:Journals edited by students

Would it perhaps be clearer to name this category "Academic journals edited by students"? --Crusio (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or "Student journals". Feel free to take it to CfD (bots will take care of the rest once consensus is achieved). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that necessary? Given that the cat was only created a few hours ago and only you edited it, wouldn't it be easier to create the cat under the new name and put a soft redirect on the other one (to let the bot do his work)? --Crusio (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well whatever works. If soft redirects triggers the bot, that's good enough for me. We'll just have to delete the category after it's empty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, the bot should move all journals in about a week or so. I have moved one by hand, so that the new category won't be deleted because of being empty. --Crusio (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Try to keep your head cool.

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

Happy New Year, by the way! Thanks for all your continued efforts in Physics related articles. Polyamorph (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hot articles bot request

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)

Replied at Bot requests. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/HotArticlesBot. Kaldari (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your lists RfC

Your links are sending people to Talk:List of journals instead of Talk:Lists of journals.--Hjal (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

HotArticlesBot Trial

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)

Communication

Hello, Headbomb/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Academic Search

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

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)

Drive-by merger tagging

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)

I will "drive by" tag them if I please. It's a perfectly valid way to do things, and leads to great result. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:TalkOrigins Archive. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Like you're any better. In your own words, Have a WP:TROUT and get a bleeding clue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Geoscience e-Journals

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)

I am aware. It just seems the like best place to categorize it.If you have a better place, go for it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

~~"Lists of scientific journals" (awaiting the merge)? --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)~~ On second thought, I think that your first hunch was probably the best. It's not a real publisher, but it is not a list by subject area either (because limited to this portal). --Crusio (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Academic Journal articles

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)

It should be the former. This has to be changed in {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} (|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)

Anti-particles in Feynman diagrams

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)

It depends on how you read things. If you "fix it" the other way around, you'll have just as many problem complaining about it (for example, the uploaders of previous version of this file, such as this one and this one would probably object, or those who wrote this guy [see last slide], or R. Nave from Hyperphysics [3]). Some people write labels relative to the direction of the line, others relative to the outcome as perceived by an observer going forward in time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The option of just removing the bar but leaving the arrow as present has not been tried in the image file history, so who knows who would object and who would concur? As your other examples testify, there is no external universal standard, but that hasn't prevented WP from setting internal standards (e.g. using the MTW space-like metric in GR). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Amongst others, I certainly would object to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Feynman diagrams are meant to be space-time symmetric. Having a time-dependent rule breaks that, and reduces their universal utility. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW Feynman draws his diagrams as I indicated, namely antiparticles have the arrows flipped, but without any bar. See his QED: the strange story of light and matter pages 140 & 145.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, I don't think I've ever seen a Feynman diagram with an arrow on the wiggly line for the gauge boson.TimothyRias (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got 3 such books right in front of me. Can give you the ISBNs if you like. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The arrow on the boson is weird, I agree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented on this topic in the talk page of the Weak interaction article. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So have I. And Feynman is right, you are wrong. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is neither right nor wrong, it's simply two different conventions. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Two conventions, but one is really stupid, which why people are complaining. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Stupid" here seems to stand for nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that it is not just me complaining that the diagrams are confusing. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So? Switching it would only change who complains about it. This is no different than people fighting about humour vs humor. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone complain about the diagram being wrong before you "corrected" it? I didn't see any complaints. People seemed happy before you changed it and complained afterwards. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See my 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC) post above. Now I'd appreciated it if you didn't try to discuss the same things at 20 places at once. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My point stands. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What point? You have none. And for what it's worth, this image was always rendered following this convention, except for a period of 22 days in October 2008. See file history. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:59, 18 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)

That's hardly the case. In 22 days, which is a ridiculously small amount of time compared to 5+ years this version existed, it drew complains from another editor and myself (I made the WP:GL request following comments of another editor). Also note File:Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg, used in several in many many more articles incl. Feynman diagram and the QFT navbox, which follows this convention and never drew a single complaint from anyone. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's true, the first comment from the talk page supports your change. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean up Bach cantatas

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)

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are asking of me... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Older versions of the Bach cantatas include the text in German, some also a translation, both are regarded as unwanted in the articles by the project Classical music, text and translations to many languages being easily accessible in the external links. Rather than removing "br" in the text, you could remove the text completely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to recognize text sections? Also, do you have a link to a prior discussion establishing the removal of these text sections as something desirable? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussions: I said "I think to through loads of German text in the article without a translation is not helpful", the answer was translations ... can often be contentious. There were previous and later discussions. The result was a new format without text and translation, first used in BWV 191. An example for old format is BWV 1, the last one changed from old to new was BWV 73. The text is headed "Text". I just don't want you to waste your time editing these sections which will go sooner or later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BWV 155 is on the Main page now, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

How to I get pages from clicking on a chart in the iPhone topic page and adding to a book for PediaPress?

Moved to Help:Books/Feedback Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Arzneimittelforschung

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)

The spaces are mostly for the infobox to look right. As for Arzneim. Forsh. (hyphenated or not) and Drug. Res., these abbreviation are often used (at least on Wikipedia and from google searches), and no dominant one seems to be used accross journals (some even use Arzneim. Forsh. Drug Res.). This is possibly because of prior versions of the journals being named "Arzneinmittel-Forschung", and thus got abbreviated to "Arzn. Forsch.", but sometimes people translated the title to "Drug Research" and used "Drug Res.". Or that some people cite the German title, and others the English title.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Listing awards when adding books

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"

AWB replaces "rigourous" with "rigorous". This violates WP:ENGVAR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this must be reported in Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Were "rigourous" actually in the dictionary this might be a problem! Rjwilmsi 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is... [5][6][7]...? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"rigour" is a word, "rigourous" is not, in the OED it is listed as a pre-17th century form along with rigorouse and rigorus etc. Full OED (if you have access). Unless you refer to a particular archaic use of it, it's not a word. Rjwilmsi 23:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, see links above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Young Scientist Journal

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)

Linked in isn't considered a reliable source, so that doesn't fly. My "irrelevant" comment refers to the circulation numbers of any specific issues, what's important / of note is that it's distributed in all Canadian high schools. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point now, and I guess that to every high school in Canada (of which there are approximately 3200) is specific enough but another thing that I would like to change is the abbreviation which is most certainly not what you put it as. Even the website name says CSYJournal.ca I believe this is indication enough for it to be supported. Mountjudo (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Can. Y. Sci. J. is the ISO abbreviation, which is usually what is given in the infobox. Other abbreviations can be mentioned in the main text if they are important. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this being the official ISO abbrevaition? I have tried to find one to no avail, I am not very familair with this type of abbreviation and do not even understand why it should be included in the article at all. Please explain, thanks Mountjudo (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This was added by User:Crusio. You should ask him about that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article on Wikipedia about the ISO. It becomes clear when trying to find official academic journal abbreviations, it is one very small segment of the work this organization does. Here is a Wikipedia list of ISO standards. Here is the online ISO catalog. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The applicable standard is ISO-4 and that is what should go into the infobox. CYSJournal can be mentioned in the body of the article (see Genes, Brain and Behavior as another example: "Genes Brain Behav" is the ISO abbreviation, "G2B" is used by the journal and its society). The ISO abbreviation is what will be used in reference lists if an article is cited by another journal. --Crusio (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Theory and Hypothesis

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)

I know the difference between theory and hypothesis. However to theorize and to hypothesize is to do exactly the same thing. Rutherford is the one that came up with the idea, Rutherford gets the credit. Anything that happened after is refinement on the original idea. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"However to theorize and to hypothesize is to do exactly the same thing" - no, to theorize and to hypothesize is not to do exactly the same thing, because theory and hypothesis is not the same thing. One is a guess - possible explanation, the other is a theory, exact explanation, not a refinement of Rutherford ideas. Rutherford ideas at that time were not accepted, and the prevailing opinion was that nuclei consists of electrons and protons. Soviet physicists were the first who managed to theoretically prove (construct the full theoretical model) the otherwise. So I think it is good to mention all three names. Theorized means to construct a theoretical model, give a theoretical solution - what soviets did. Hypothesize means to propose a possible explanation, but without giving a theoretical solution - what Rutherford did. Heyheyheyhohoho (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Mystery

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)

Thank you for your insightful comments there. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Science

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)

Perhaps but comparisons with Nature are really off topic in this article. We wouldn't write "Apple, one of the most famous software developpement along with Microsoft, announced a new app making it easier to edit Wikipedia from their iPhone" or similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)