7 February 2025 Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians News and notes: Let's talk! Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon In the media: Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed Traffic report: A wild drive Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Optical properties of carbon nanotubes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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are sites with what they claim are comprehensive lists, but I often find they're not as comprehensive as claimed and/or out of date.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]

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]

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]

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]