User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

Need advice for Bakewell glass[edit]

@Headbomb: I am looking for some advice. I am working on an article about Bakewell glass. Bakewell glass is one of Pittsburgh's most famous glass factories even though it closed in 1882. Benjamin Bakewell is considered the father of American flint glass. There is currently a Start-class Wikipedia article called Bakewell Glass written by someone that has not contributed since 2019. I plan to upgrade it to Good Article. I have already written GA articles about glass: Hartford City Glass Company, Fostoria Glass Company, Indiana Glass Company, J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company, Early glassmaking in the United States, and others that are B-Class. The odd thing about Bakewell is that the company was reorganized and renamed numerous times—it had nine different names, all with "Bakewell" in the name. Currently, I plan to use the name that it used for 36 of its 74 years in existence—Bakewell, Pears and Company. Is this a good idea, or is it better to use "Bakewell glass" (not "Bakewell Glass"), even though there never was a company simply named Bakewell glass and the InfoBox Company might be a little awkward? BTW, I will be unavailable for Wikipedia starting tomorrow until May. TwoScars (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really an expert in that domain, but Bakewell, Pears and Company sounds like a reasonable title to me for the article you have in mind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hot Cross[edit]

Template:Hot Cross has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I'd like to apologise for reverting your edit on the page Tehzeeb-ul-Akhlaq. I was not familiar with the ISO 4 abbreviation standard and my ignorance was reflected in my action. Your revert of my edit made me look into the standard and I shall familiarise myself with the same. In a way, I am thankful to you for making me read up about the standard.

Cheers. -- Indianite (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 4 is a bit weird in that something that's not abbreviated can be the abbreviation. That's usually single word titles, but others exist. This is a great site for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

I am working with SafariScribe on an article, but I realize that they cannot see the same thing I see about reference link errors. You know I am not technical, so I hope you can "interpret" my non-precise description of what I need and help us. There is a gadget that one can install in a "skin"? that shows errors in the links to citations and sources in various colors. For example, on the anchor I see this "Harv error: link from CITEREFObi-Young2018 doesn't point to any citation." in orange and in the source, I see "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFOtosirieze_Obi-Young2018." in brown. I have no idea how to find or edit the "skin", much less how to find the name of the gadget or how to install it. Do you understand what I am trying to say and can you help with instructions on how to install the gadget? I very much appreciate your patience with my technical limitations and your willingness to help. SusunW (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: What article is this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying Headbomb. It's Adichie, but we're working in the sandbox. I can see link errors in colors, but Safari Scribe cannot. If we can find the script that lets them see what I see, that would be helpful. SusunW (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of the errors, MacFarquhar 2018 is still problematic. For the script, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips and tricks. It's got instructions on how to install and what things do. You want the one called HarvErrors (likely Svick's version). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe and SusunW: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb, thanks for this. I'm gonna read up and install. I'do hope it's easy! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I very much appreciate you always coming to my rescue on technical stuff. I can use a tool if you give it to me, but trying to find it or install it is outside my area of expertise. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's why i wrote the article to begin with! Look at Citation Style Markers, you might like that one too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb, that was very technical amd resourceful. Thank God SusunW had someone like you. I will always drive-by when I have technical issues like that. Thanks! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe and SusunW: BTW, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie already exists... don't know if you were aware of that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you look at the page history, it reads "copied from ..(main article)." As I speak, it's been reviewed and for better purposes, being the sandbox to avoid drive-in edits that may cause disruption. Thanks for seeing that too Mr. Technical 😂 — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know Headbomb. Safari Scribe wanted to take it to Featured Article. I agreed to help them prepare it and wanted to change the structure of the article, but felt we couldn't do that with it being live, thus the sandbox draft where we are working on it. Safari Scribe has proved to be a fast learner, and while I can help with research, writing and organization for it, the technical things elude me. I told them of my limitations before we started, but promised I could "phone a friend" to help us with technical stuff. SusunW (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change references?[edit]

Hello Headbomb, I noticed your recent edits at Taxonomy of Protista. Are there any reasons I should know to prefer that reference format instead of Template:Cite Q? — Snoteleks (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, Cite Q is a blight on the world, making it nearly impossible to fix, cleanup and maintain citations so they are consistent between one another. They also prevent bots from improving them.

For example, in [1], you can't edit Wikidata to flag the DOI as a free-DOI. Most citations also follow a "Last, First" name order, whereas Wikidata's often follow a "First Last" name order. And many many other things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see... is this a common opinion among editors? I thought it was very convenient because of its easy usage, since it is a centralized system — Snoteleks (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the note at the top of {{Cite Q}}: "Until the matter of transcluding Wikidata on Wikipedia is resolved (most likely with a huge and contentious RFC) usage of this template should be extremely vetted to ensure that all of the transcluded information is accurate."

There is convenience in Cite Q, if you're OK with citations with minor inconsistencies. But the more you want to polish things, the more Cite Q gets in the way because if you edit Cite Q to be in one style for one article, it messes up all the other articles using a different style for the same citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see... I think I'll stop using it then. I agree so far. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]