User talk:Włodzimierz Lewoniewski (UEP)

Welcome!

Hello, Włodzimierz Lewoniewski (UEP)!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISSNs

Hi, I see you're spending a lot of effort adding ISSNs to assorted refs; for some reason a lot of these seem to be on articles I've brought to GA status.

You may like to note that an ISSN identifies not an individual scientific paper, but just the journal it is in. The citations always provide the name of the journal, which of course identifies it uniquely already; and the DOI uniquely identifies the paper, along with its journal and all the other details. The ISSN is at best redundant to these other identifiers, so it's not exactly important. There are literally millions of poorly-developed articles on Wikipedia, and presumably tens of millions of errors and omissions. One might think these rather more deserving of effort than the rather pointless ISSN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for you work for improving the quality of the Wikipedia articles.

I am also interested in improving the quality of Wikipedia content (including metadata of references). Providing both the DOI and ISSN ensures that the reference is as complete and informative as possible. This aligns with best practices in scholarly communication, where detailed citations are valued. The ISSN ensures that the reference is complete and provides all necessary information for identifying the source, enhancing the article's academic rigor. Even when a DOI is provided in a reference, including the ISSN can still be highly beneficial for several reasons:

The DOI system is robust, but having the ISSN as an additional identifier provides a fallback in case there are issues with the DOI link. This ensures that the reference can still be accurately traced even if the DOI is temporarily or permanently unavailable.
Journals often publish multiple versions of articles, including online, print, and special editions. While the DOI identifies a specific article, the ISSN identifies the journal as a whole. This helps clarify the broader context of the publication and can be useful if the article exists in different formats.
The ISSN identifies the journal, which can be important for understanding the source's credibility and context. This is particularly useful for readers who want to evaluate the quality of the journal in which the article is published, beyond just the individual article identified by the DOI. In other words, if a Wikipedia reader wants to get the ISSN number of a journal, he can do this directly from Wikipedia or must additionally go to the site where the article was published (for example, by DOI number) and search for this information there, spending additional time.
Libraries and databases often use ISSNs to catalog and index journals. Including the ISSN in a Wikipedia reference can help integrate the citation with these systems, making it easier for users to find the journal and related articles.
Over time, URL of the paper/journal may change, but the ISSN remains a stable identifier for the journal. This can be particularly important for historical or archival research where long-term access to sources is crucial.
Wikipedia strives for high standards in its citations and references. Completeness - is one of the quality dimensions. So, the more complete metadata of references - the higher the quality of the Wikipedia content :)

Włodzimierz Lewoniewski (UEP) (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apologia pro vita sua. I'm afraid I think the rationale spurious, because the reasons relate not to the individual paper but to the journal that contains them, and that is a matter not for the Wikipedia article supported by the individual paper, but the article about the journal, i.e. you are making a category error. But there are other editors who spend their lives "fixing" what they believe to be errors like the use of "comprises of", to the annoyance not only of Wikipedia editors but newspaper journalists who noticed the absurd timewasting that goes on on Wikipedia. I'm sorry you feel you have to join that particular band of editors, as there are genuinely many useful things to be done. But I see you are past convincing. Maybe when you reach your millionth inappropriately-added ISSN you will reflect on the futility of your accomplishment. Or maybe not. Carpe diem. Anyway, that's it from me, I'll not comment again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No small text in infoboxes

Please don't add small text in infoboxes. ElKevbo (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs ISSNs for unambiguous periodicals

I'm dismayed to see that you've been adding so many unnecessary ISSNs all over the place. Having full citation information is definitely a positive, but having every citation overcrufted with unnecessary metadata (such as Bibcode, s2cid, LCCN except for works without ISBN, and also ISSN where the publication e.g. already has a DOI): this isn't what citations are for. I think we have bots that remove ISSNs, and human editors certainly do. Most of our periodical citations also don't specify |location=, which is almost always not helpful.

We have so many legitimate problems with low-quality citations. I would kindly urge you to consider improving them in a way that benefits readers more than what you've been doing. Folly Mox (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]