User talk:Steve Quinn/Archive 5

JAMA

Hi Steve, good job on that one. I have tweaked it a bit here and there, hope you agree. One thing is the title of the article, I am sure it has to be moved, but I am unsure where to... First, if we keep the full title, it seems to me that "The" is an integral part of the title and the article should be moved to "The Journal of the American Medical Association". However, when I look at their website and the journal cover, I get the definite impression that, like BMJ, they feel they have outgrown their national roots and now just call the journal "JAMA", with the rest just as a subtitle. If that view is correct, the article should be moved to "JAMA". What do you think?

Another thing is "Continuing Education Opportunities for Physicians". The article says that this is another title for the journal, but I don't see that and it sounds more like a slogan to me. Can you have a look at that again? --Crusio (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. This particular article needed some work. You bring up a very interesting point pertaining to the title of the article. In the back of mind, I too had the thought that this article should be moved to "The Journal of the American Medical Association". So we are in agreement on that one. However, I did not notice that "JAMA" is by far, the most pronounced of the title, on the pages accessed throughout the web site (just try out the navigation bar on the top of the page). Therefore, based on your experience, and both our observation (in this matter) the article should probably be moved to "JAMA".

Pertaining to "Continuing Education Opportunities for Physicians", I did not directly add references supporting this claim. So your misunderstanding is my fault. Hence, I shall do so here, and in the article if necessary. It may not be necessary because I agree that this "sectionalternate title" sounds like a slogan. In any case, first, the references -

• WorldCat here, in the section entitled "Details" after "Libraries". You will also see another related title here.
• Library of Congress here you will see a bullet, 1/4 of the way down, entitled "Related titles". You will also see another related title here.
• NLM catalog here you will see a bullet entitled "Other titles". You will also see another related title here.
• National Library of Australia here, you will see a bullet entitled "Also Titled", just after "Other authors/contributors". You will also see other related titles here.

OK, so let me know what you think so far. It still does sound like a slogan. I can even link you to an issue (from 1987) with this as an actual section title.

By the way I still need to put a link in the infobox for the archives page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, three of these references are already in the article, I just didn't think to use them as references for this part of the article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for those refs. Curious. I think it might be good to ask the opinion of a library expert: DGG. I'll post a link to this discussion on his talk to see what he thinks. BTW, the Australian record states that the current title is "JAMA" (with the rest as a subtitle) and lists "Journal of the American Medical Association" as a former title. --Crusio (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed that the references make a distinction between "Journal of the American Medical Association" and "The Journal of the American Medical Association". The second title probably includes JAMA somehow. The point is without the article "The" it is this journal, with a different ISSN published from 1883 to 1960. From 1961 on the official title includes the article "The". When JAMA became prevalent, I do not know. Not much of distinction between the old and new titles is there? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The current US practice is to do whatever the journal does, and to include the initial article if the journal uses it consistently, and Wikiproject Academic journals has adopted the rule of including the initial article. There are multiple possible complications, and an extensive body of rules and an even more extensive body of rule interpretations for dealing with them; I'd suggest we follow whatever LC does rather than deal with the complications ourselves. These are not the only possible rules, and cataloging codes used elsewhere or at earlier periods do it differently in a variety of ways. (In fact, the rules used for some special purposes in the US are slightly different from the LC rules.) The professional debates on these questions are very similar to the debates here on some details of the MOS, except that they are much more extensive and have gone on for over a century now. In the electronic period it does not much matter; for printed journals it does, because almost all medical and scientific libraries shelve journals by title, not by call number--the debates about that have gone on for a very long time also. Journals change titles frequently, , and the recent US library practice has been to consider it technically a new title if there is any change in the first few words or any significant change elsewhere. On the contrary, it has been the consistent practice here at Wikipedia not to needlessly increase the number of articles, and to not to make separate articles for each change of title. We have not been in existence long enough to decide whether to use the earliest, latest, or best known title. Different countries and periods have used every imaginable alternative. (One such alternative is to enter the journal under the name of the publishing body whenever possible). I'm not even going to mention here the considerations dealing with merges and splits of periodicals. I am prepared to defend or oppose any or all of these positions at any length required, for I need only use the arguments in the published debates on the subject in the many books and conferences dealing with the subject. And I know them well, for even the different branch libraries in Princeton use different rules. I was once responsible with a colleague for compiling the printed list of scientific journals, and it took a good deal of negotiation. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Larger-Dipole-FSS metamaterial-antenna-pattern.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Larger-Dipole-FSS metamaterial-antenna-pattern.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, thanks for the heads up. I forgot that this was a non-free image. The image that I replaced it with is a totally different image here. What happened is, I chose a different image for the lead of the article entitled "Metamaterial antennas". Anyway, I will request speedy delete for this imaage, because I no longer intend to use it. Thanks for contacting me regarding this matter. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK as the author, I requested speedy deletion because it is now an orphan that will no longer be used (please see non-free image). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Categorization issues

Template:Categorization issues has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Discussion point from Wim Crusio's Talk Page

First, to see how "free speech" applies when editing Wikipedia, please see WP:FREE SPEECH. Free speech, per se, is not applicable to editing on Wikipedia. Second, on Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. This topic has satisfied general notability guidelines WP:GNG, and notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Also, notability guidelines do not say to accuse an editor in good standing of sock puppetry. Hence, the argument pertaining to the size Crusio's biography article, and having sock puppets, whcn compared to nobel laurettes's articles, appers to be unrelated to the topic (which is Crusio's biography).

Furthermore, the argument is not based on reliable sources, is therefore WP:OR, or more precisely WP:SYN. This second point also contradicts Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, as well as simply being an off topic rant. According to talk page guidelines, use of talk pages are for staying on topic, and irrelevant discussions are subject to removal, and talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Based on the above, this argument does not discuss how to improve the article. In addition, I see this as a way of personally attacking wikipedia editor User:Crusio, especially when accusing him using sockpuppets - because of edits on another article, which User:Bondiveres does not agree with. See this discussion Regarding Changes to Dr. P.S. Timiras Wiki Pages.

Moreover a discussion pertaining to this editing behavior is underway at Administrators Noticeboard - Incidents; here: User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran . ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Proposed deletion of Delusion (spirituality)

Hi Steve. Thanks for your work in improving Wikipedia. I have removed the proposed deletion tag on Delusion (spirituality). See the talk page. Also, I noticed my page move to was reverted by User:NuclearWarfare without comment. Is this another WP username that you use? -- Best, Bill Huston ^(talk) 08:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Astronomical Society

Job done. Past presidents organised by date in usual way. One or two gaps to fill, though. Plucas58 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Theory and Phenomena of Metamaterials

The article Theory and Phenomena of Metamaterials has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Theory and Phenomena of Metamaterials – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 13:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

Can you help me to understand the purpose of creating this redirect? It's just a rephrasing of the title with a period at the end. how is this in any way useful to readers? Also, I'm curious as to why you would add to it an inapplicable redirect template like {{R from abbreviation}}. Am I missing something? Regards, œ^™ 07:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for asking. First, the {{R from abbreviation}} was an error - you are correct it is an inapplicable redirect template. Second, the purpose of the period at the end of the title is because this is how various library catalogs list the title. Therefore it would be easy for any interested person to add the period to the search term (or search phrase). When I plug it in from the Library of Congress to the Wikipedia search box, for example, it goes directly to the article. Here are some examples [1], [2], [3], and[4]. It covers first word capitalization, and covers the convention of proper names capitalization for titles. I actually got this idea from User:Headbomb, so I am most likely not the only one who does this for Academic Journal articles. Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more information. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahh I see! Thanks for explaining, I learned something new. :) -- œ^™ 00:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did you study condescension?

It must be an excellent school. [5] I see you are "interested" in physics. Did you notice that CBM is a professional academic, a Wikipedia admin and bot operator since 2007, and probably the most respected member of WikiProject Mathematics? But I guess all of this doesn't count when he proves his silliness and unreliability by disagreeing with you about some details. Hans Adler 18:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Hi, There is a BLP issue and an RFC in here about Kaveh Farrokh. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Einstein and Locker-Lampson

Steve: I see that you have contributed to the Einstein Talk page. Any chance of your coming in on an exchange I've been having in relation to the now extensive passage on Locker-Lampson on the Einstein page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Emigration_from_Germany

I had advocated cutting back the original fairly brief mention of Locker-Lampson, but Wikiwatcher1 has done the reverse, and added considerably more on him. I don't believe such detail about an individual of no great consequence in Einstein's life is appropriate. My comments on Locker-Lampson, and Wikiwatcher1's responses, are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein#Request_image_restoration

It would be helpful to get other opinions, so I'm hoping you'll chime in. Esterson (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Metamaterial based FSS combined with antenna.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Metamaterial based FSS combined with antenna.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)