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

Could you post a list of the articles with Harv errors in the project WP:CGR? Thanks! Ifly6 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Ifly6: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for generating these. Do you know why slavery in Ancient Rome was not included in this list? How was the list created? XabqEfdg (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just crossed checked Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors with Category:Classical Greece and Rome articles by quality (recurse 1 level, convert from talk page) with AWB's list comparer. I did that on January 31st. The errors in that article come from after January 31st. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Headbomb, I hope all is well. My name is Matt and I'm a graduate student researcher at Northwestern. Recently I've posted to the BAG IRC chat and the User Bots/Scripts Noticeboard soliciting feedback on research cases that I have selected for a research project. Given that we are looking at WMF feature deployments' impact on user bots and scripts operation, we really value the bot community's perspectives on how we are thinking about these events.

I'm sure that you're quite busy, and I completely understand if you do not have the time. Given your experience on BAG, I just wanted to reach out and see if you had any thoughts that you may be willing to share on our characterizations of these feature deployments. Any information you share will not be included in any research reports, I'm just curious to know your thoughts on how we are framing these events.

Thank you Ggonnemm (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ggonnemm:, I've looked at your research cases and I don't think I'd have much to opine on them.

The only one where I'd have an opinion is the Visual Editor's rollout, which I thought was done a bit sloppily. IMO it could have stayed in the oven a bit longuer before full deployment. And that's really about all the insight I can offer here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, @Headbomb! I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective on this. Ggonnemm (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect National News has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2 § National News until a consensus is reached. I think the redirect would be more appropriate as a disambiguation page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]