User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2015/August

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.

De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Headbomb. De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus

On 12 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1654 catalog of celestial objects was forgotten until 1985? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

Why a redirect to non-existing article would be useful?Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There, fixed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article nominations

Thanks for your edits to George William Symes. I currently have three articles at WP:GAN#CHEM: Frank Spedding, Edwin McMillan and Willard Libby. If you could review one or more of them, that would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'll have to decline. I just don't have time for GA reviews at the moment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent page moves

Hi, I find your use of disambiguators confusing. A few days ago, you moved the articles on the two journals (one defunct) with the title Open Medicine to "Open Medicine (publisher's name)". Today you moved Journal of Optics to "Journal of Optics (publisher's name journal)". Why the different treatment? I find the former much more logical than the latter (apart from the not-very-pretty repeated use of "journal" in the title). Perhaps an oversight? --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you find inconsistent. I moved Journal of Optics (IOP Publishing) to Journal of Optics (IOP Publishing journal) for consitency with our other dab'd titles (e.g. Physics (American Physical Society journal)). If I moved things to 'Open Medicine (publisher's name), then that's an oversight/mistake, and they should have been at Open Medicine (publisher's name journal). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Journals

Dear Headbomb,

I've seen, that you are preparing lists of missing academic journals from WP:JCW. May you send me a table of the most-cited journals in english-language Wikipedia? I would like to check their coverage in German Wikipedia.--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kopiersperre: If you go on WP:JCW, you'll see there's blue navbox just after the intro. One of the sections of the navbox is 'Most popular', which has the ~1000 most cited journals of Wikipedia. If you can't find it, try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Popular1 directly, and you can use the arrows at the very bottom of the page to navigate popular journals.

See also WP:JCW#Interpreting_the_data. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! To Headbomb, thank you for updating redirects about the Cochrane Collaboration. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)