User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

---

Can you help?

I am in a quandary. I'm working on an article for Doreen Othero which has a weird message. It says the OCLC number is incorrect on the last one of her works in the "selected works" section, but it isn't. Per worldcat it is 10146270069, which is what is input. I typed it character by character so I don't think there could be any hidden code, but I am baffled as to why this is happening. Perhaps you or a page stalker with more technical expertise can fix the problem? I appreciate your magic. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Likely the OCLC limit was hit. It'll resolve itself as soon as someone gets to it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you. I never know if I did something wrong or if it is just a glitch. I appreciate your skill and thank you for always being helpful. SusunW (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hurricane season bar gap

Template:Hurricane season bar gap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AA^Talk 21:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying "predatory source" revision on Acinetobacter baylyi

Hello, @Headbomb

Thank you for looking over the Acinetobacter baylyi article, I am new to working on Wikipedia. Could you please clarify what it means for a source to be considered "predatory" and how to recognize that? Additionally, the citation was removed from the end of the "aminoglycosides" paragraph, but the original citation shows up later with a citation of a similar article (it seems there is a common mentor and research location) at the end of the "chloramphenicol" paragraph. I am guessing that those pieces of information and associated citations would also need to be replaced and/or additionally supported by other (non-predatory) sources?

Thank you for your advice and assistance for a student, it is much appreciated. Mgcorn5051 (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Pharmacognosy Communications is published by the same people who publish Pharmacognosy Reviews, a group that brands itself EManuscript Technologies (which really are PhCog.net), and that general publishes low-quality herbal medicine research. Predatory might be a bit too harsh, but it's definitely not a high quality source required for medical claims (see WP:MEDRS).

And yes I've removed the other two citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Question re: url-status=live

Hello @Headbomb I just saw your edit on the article Craft Centre of Great Britain. I started my Wiki journey by copying some citation links and the "URL-status=live" was part of the chain I copied. Never knew what it was for, but thought it was just 'necessary'. Should I just delete this bit going forwards, please? Thanks 1.64.66.117 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

|url-status=live serves no purpose when there is no |archive-url= present. See Help:Citation_Style_1#Web_archives. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Bot approval advice?

This request Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#BsoykaBot 3 has open for several weeks with no comment from an approver. Can you expedite or advise? Dicklyon (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Need advice for Bakewell glass

@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)

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hot Cross

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)