User talk:Boghog/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It looks like this citation is for a different article. Did you intend to add a different one? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My edit should have been added to Alendronic acid/colecalciferol. Cheers, Boghog (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

On a personal note: I apologise, Boghog, that this boilerplate warning template has this newby-addressing text. :-( -DePiep (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the page; however, if there is content you believe you should be preserved that is not already included on the page Caffeine, please contact me and I can send you any relevant text to include. —Verrai 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Verrai and DePiep: The Caffeine (data page) was deleted with the explanation A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content. What had happened is that a proposal was made to merge the data into the parent article but this was never done. The data was then deleted from the page, and then proposed for deletion because it had no data. Hence the rationale for the deletion was faulty. The data page had data content relevant to caffeine, and much of it was sourced. Furthermore, as shown here, there was no consensus for the deletion. There is agreement that the data should be sourced, but there is disagreement whether the data should be merged into the parent article. Hence I request that the data page be restored and only proposed for deletion if the is a clear consensus to do so. Boghog (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You objected to a speedy deletion rightly at 11 Jan, ca 07:00 UTC, es like "data is not in Caffeine": I had put it up speedy by mistake (data was not merged b/c different infobox).

After this, I added all (new, additional) info from the data page into Caffeine: [1] (11 Jan, 08:46-09:32 UTC).

With that, indeed all data was into the parent article (especially here), and so redundant in article Caffeine (data page).

Then today, three days after the actual data move (c/p), I added tag

WP:A3 (14 Jan, ca. 04.00 UTC). To prevent misunderstanding (for the admin), I removed the redundant data (=all data): "empty" indeed. -DePiep (talk

) 06:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: Including the chemical data in the parent article produces unnecessary clutter. It was better as a separate data page. Furthermore, there was no consensus for the deletion, and you did not alert me to your second proposed deletion. Please go back and carefully consider Beetstra's comments. It would be better for the project to come to a consensus on what to do with these data pages. Boghog (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A. I have addressed your es re "data is not in C.". Now it is.

B. "clutter" is arbitrary. Begs the question why a table in article X is clutter, but that same table in Article Y is not clutter.

C. You and everyone is free to propose moving content into a separate article, as

WP:SPLIT

describes. I note that 'clutter' is not mentioned in there. That new article will be scrutinised as any article (this route: I myself see no future for recreated/reinstated Caffeine DP).

D. Development and discussions on how a datapage might look like etc. etc. can happen anytime. Does not depend on existence of redundant/empty/poor data page articles. So far, I have not seen serious proposals. Nor did I see any argument to keep a datapage article because of such secondary design issues. A keyword is "substantial", (but not: a better design will make a sub-stub data page worth keeping).

E. Also: the very same page redesign issues can be said about regular, parent articles (where you see 'clutter'). So far, these weeks, in your argumentation I often miss the more obvious route to add such data to the parent page in the first place. Reasons for splitting out are known, and apply in both ways: retrospectely for existing splits as data pages. Reverse splitting ie merging is a viable outcome too.

F. If/when a refund is deemed useful, then not into mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@

The more obvious route to add such data to the parent page in the first place. In this case, that is exactly what happened (see Chemical properties and biosynthesis section of the September 2011 version of the parent article). This large chemical infobox was split out as a data page, because the large chembox was messing up the layout (for discussion, see Talk:Caffeine/Archive_5#Chembox Talk:Caffeine/Archive_5#Chemistry). Now you reversed this split without consensus. Boghog (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies on what seems to have been a hasty speedy deletion; it feels like this is more suited to a general deletion discussion of whether separate data pages for chemical compounds are appropriate. (I do have to weigh in and say that the current system of separate data pages does seem facially out of sync with the way Wikipedia more broadly handles information, and perhaps it should instead be considered how to show that information on each chemical compound's page in a cleaner manner than setting up a separate page that no one will ever see, but that's neither here nor there as far as speedy deletion goes.) I will shortly be restoring the deleted page to the version most recently edited by DePiep and would recommend you both resolve your concerns outside of the speedy deletion process. —Verrai 13:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No Verrai you did nothing wrong. Your judgement was OK. It's just Beetstra here planning future improvements. Anyway, put it into Draft space, as I already proposed. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caffeine (data page) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DePiep (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog,

So, I don't really know anyone besides you who knows this citation style, so I don't know who else to ask. I used your citation tool to auto-fill all of the journal article citations we included in 6 FDA submissions to request breakthrough device status (i.e., the medical device analog of a breakthrough therapy) for some of the test panels we're developing (sepsis, meningitis, pneumonia, UTI, infectious diarrhea, and septic arthritis).

The problem I have is that three of the citations I'm using are "books" with no apparent ISBN:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430749/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519537/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538176/

And, if I put the PMIDs of these books into your tool (example), it just returns something like the following:
{{cite journal | vauthors = Regunath H, Oba Y | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | date = | pmid = 28613500 | doi = | url = }}

What's the correct way to cite these in the Vancouver style? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Seppi. Unfortunately I do not have a way to generate book citations from data extracted from PubMed at the moment. Using BioPython, one can extract the data from PubMed for a book citation, for example:

However the Deberri's template filling tool assumes that a PMID/PMC is to a journal and not a book citation. It would take some coding to add the functionality to retrieve book citation from PubMed. Diberri's template tool is written in Perl, and my main scripting language is Python. I will see what I can do. In the meantime:

• Regunath H, Oba Y (August 2021). "Community-Acquired Pneumonia.". StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
  PMID 28613500
  .
• Belyayeva M, Jeong JM (July 2021). "Acute Pyelonephritis". StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
  PMID 30137822
  .
• Momodu II, Savaliya V (July 2021). "Septic Arthritis.". StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
  PMID 30844203
  .

Cheers, Boghog (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Boghog! I really appreciate your help with that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I saw you made adjustments to some citations I made on the Tobramycin and Avanafil articles. I was wondering if I was doing something wrong with my citations or if there is a MOS area that I was missing? Appreciate any feedback, and i can surely implement it on future edits I make. Thanks, --RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your edits and for your note. I am not sure how you are creating citations, but my guess is that you are using the

Research Gate. It is better to locate the citation in PubMed and feed the PMID into the ref toolbar. This will generally produce citations that are more complete (e.g., full author lists, etc.). Also, if you cite the same citation more than once, these should be combined into one through the use of named ref tags. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 06:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Oh alright I will feed the PMID next time when i create citations. I was actually manually entering every citation, not through the toolbar. I wasnt quite sure what the best way to do it was, so i assumed if i manually logged it in the data- it would be most accurate. Thanks for the tips. --RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at

Hi Boghog, is there any special tool that you use for consistent citation formating as vauthors= ...? I cannot find it and it is very troublesome to add the citations manually. Cerevisae (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cerevisae. Thanks for your message.

Vancouver style (i.e, uses |vauthors=) and it has been migrated to Wikimedia Foundation Toolforge server. It may be accessed here. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 12:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! :-)

Thanks! Cerevisae (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TTC37, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exosome.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for being the top contributor to an article related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstars! However most of my edits were simply tidying citations and with the exception of a few COVID drug articles, I have added relatively little content. However, I also see that you have awarded barnstars to a number of editors that are far more deserving than I and I join with you in thanking them for their contributions. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Pfam2pdb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enzyme inhibitor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus cavernosum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference clean-up on

Hi Project Osprey. Thanks for your message. I look a quick look the section. The sources need to be updated with more recent reviews. In addition, the link with anxiety looks weak. Finally, while modulation of the ER-alpha, ER-beta, ERR-gamma, and GPER receptors is undeniable (BPA is a mixed agonist/antagonist at these receptors), the consequnces of that modulation is not as clear. I will work on this as I find time. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Also the section heading is mislabeled. I have changed it to pharmacodynamics. Boghog (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog, I edited the lead of Enzyme inhibitor to improve the flow and its intelligibility for laypeople, as per the FAR. I also touched up some minor misspellings and whatnot. I hope you like what you see! I'll do a more thorough pass through the whole article tomorrow, looking for areas we might consider improving. If you'd like, we can coordinate our edits. Do you still need a reference for the α/α' formulae? Warm hellos, Willow (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @WillowW: Thanks for your edits. A definite improvement! Great to see you back contributing again. We could collaborate by initially focusing on different sections. One thing that I was considering doing, given its relative importance, is to expand the drug section. Do you see any remaining signifant issues with the article? Concerning the α/α' formulae, I would be most grateful if you would locate the reference. I have done extensive searches, and I have unable to locate an appropriate citation. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unconventional myosin-VI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog,

Thank you for making constructive edits to my submission for a "Psychoplastogen" article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Psychoplastogen. I noticed though that you hyperlinked "David Olson" within the "See also" section to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Olson". This is the incorrect David but I am not sure how to remove the hyperlink. Can you review and remove it please? The David E. Olson that is being referenced in this "Psychoplastogen" article does not have a Wikipedia article/page yet. That is in fact an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:David_E._Olson&action=edit&redlink=1) I need to make edits to as it was deleted because too much time had elapsed without it being worked on. In the near future, I plan to request that it be restored so that I can made edits to it. I would also like to try and create Wikipedia articles for other pertinent entries within this exciting area, some of which are also included within the "See also" section on the "Psychoplastogen" article.

Thank you in advance for your time and help. HHA LTP — Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my error. The link should be changed to

Draft:Psychoplastogen#See_also. These should all be removed. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog,

Thank you for removing the hyperlink and providing additional feedback. Can you please remove the existing 5 red links from the "See also" section at

Draft:Psychoplastogen#See_also

) or advise me on how I can do it myself? On a side note, would it make sense to add these 5 related red links within the "External links" section at the bottom of the article or just keep them off the article entirely until any given one has a Wikipedia article, and then at such a time, they could be included back into the "See also" section?

Thanks again for your time. User:HHA LTP 00:04, 18 May 2022 (EST) HHA LTP (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. Deleting a link is just as easy as adding a link. In the edit window, just delete the red links and save, and the links will disappear. Another option if you think that Wikipedia articles will eventually be created for these links, is to comment out the links as I have done in this edit. Finally

external links section. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 04:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Makes complete sense! User:HHA LTP HHA LTP (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epigenetics of human development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human development.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Boghog,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 858 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated

Hello Boghog,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages.

WP:WPSCH/AG

has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13496 articles, as of 22:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at

WP:VPP

recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@

Hello Boghog,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The

tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here

.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog, I noticed that you reverted my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corbevax&diff=1104175979&oldid=1104161291) regarding the efficacy of the Corbevax vaccine with the edit summary stating “per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (review articles) are needed to support medical claims)”. I am confused why my edit was removed. While one of my sources was from Texas Children’s Hospital (who could be considered a primary source as they participated in the vaccine development), I also included a secondary source of The Guardian. The

Hi

WP:MEDRS compliant source. Boghog (talk

) 10:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Boghog and taking the time to help me understand this. I think I understand what you are saying about needing to be a peer-reviewed source to be an acceptable source under MEDRES. I did some more research and found this article (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2022.102482) is a peer-reviewed study that states Corbevax efficacy is over 90%, so traditionally, this would be a MEDRES complaint source from my understanding. However, in this case, the peer-reviewed article cites the New York Times as its source for the 90% claim. The New York Times, which is a generally reliable source, is not MEDRES. Would the 10.1016/j.dsx.2022.102482 article, since it was peer reviewed, be acceptable as a MEDRES source, or would the reference to The New York Times render the claim not MEDRES? I am also still confused about when you can use non-MEDRES, but reliable sources (like The Guardian) in an article involving medicine. How does one determine what claims require MEDRES in article and what claims just require a reliable source in an article that involves medicine? Thanks again for your help! Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

PMID 35427915 is not an ideal source to support the efficacy of Corbevax, but it at least puts the results in context with other COVID vaccines. Hence I think it is OK to use this source for now. It should however be replaced with more in-depth reviews when they become available. Concerning what sort of claims require a MEDRS compliant source, these are restricted to medical claims that directly affect the patient (does it work, what are the side effects, etc.). Other claims, such as cost, who developed it, the fact that clinical trials have been run, etc. are not medical claims, and hence only require a reliable source. I hope this makes sense. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 11:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the help and explanations. I will go ahead and add the claim of Corbevax 90% efficiency against the original strain to the article, but I will also keep an eye out for a better source (but I will leave out the 80% Delta variant efficiency claims since I cannot find a MEDRES source for that claim). Thanks again for your patience and taking the time to explain to me what constitutes MEDRES and when it needs to be used. Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog,

I notice that you made a small edit in the article by placing the title of the article at the start of the lead sentence. Thank you for that. Meanwhile I find the four of the references from 1-4, appear just below the lead section. I wonder how this has happened. I am not able to move it down along with the main Reference Heading. Pl. assist me.

Thanks, Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valliappan Kannappan. Thanks for creating chiral inversion. The reason why the references were displayed right after the introduction is that I inserted a reference section there before you expanded the article. You introduced a second reference section at the end the article without deleting the now redundant section that I introduced. I fixed it by deleting the section that I had added. I hope that makes sense. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog,

Thank you so much for fixing that. Meanwhile I would like to know how to clean up sandbox. I have got two sandboxes. sandbox (created for Chiral analysis) and sandbox1(created for Chiral inversion). In the sandbox, I find a redirect symbol stating this page is a redirect. How do I fix this. Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valliappan, If you follow the link to

User:Valliappan Kannappan/sandbox1, it will automatically redirect to Chiral inversion. Just below the title, (Redirected from User:Valliappan Kannappan/sandbox1), click on the link and it will take you back to the sandbox which you can edit. Altrnatively, add "&redirect=no" to the URL to the sandbox, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Valliappan_Kannappan/sandbox1&redirect=no

Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Try this. 122.162.145.87 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for making those changes on the citations for the pneumococcal vaccine page. I try to always include author info since, if they went through the trouble of writing something, we can at least give them credit for it, but I definitely missed some.

I was a bit curious about the changes to the author listing style though. I use the gadget ProveIt to autoload citation data and I appreciate that it will auto load each individual author's full name (first and last, if available) as separate entries. I figured it was a good alternative to the vauthors parameter since it lets you link individual authors if they have their own articles. Is there a reason that combining them all under one parameter is better?

I was also curious about the removal of links for many of the journals being cited, like The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal or Infection and Immunology. They have wiki articles so I'm not sure why they shouldn't be included.

Last thing was the authors listed on the MSF articles, like Apostolia or Ekholm. I saw the names listed there but those were crediting the photographers who had taken the pictures used in the articles, not the articles' authors, so I'm not sure they should be listed. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jasonkwe, thanks for your questions. Concerning |vauthors=, the contents are a

COinS

etc. For example:

• {{cite journal | vauthors = Kim PS, Read SW, Fauci AS | author-link3 = Anthony Fauci | title = Therapy for Early COVID-19: A Critical Need | journal = JAMA | volume = 324 | issue = 21 | pages = 2149–2150 | date = December 2020 | pmid = 33175121 | doi = 10.1001/jama.2020.22813 | publisher = American Medical Association | s2cid = 226301949 | doi-access = free }} or even
• {{cite journal | vauthors = Kim PS, Read SW, [[Anthony Fauci|Fauci AS]] | title = Therapy for Early COVID-19: A Critical Need | journal = JAMA | volume = 324 | issue = 21 | pages = 2149–2150 | date = December 2020 | pmid = 33175121 | doi = 10.1001/jama.2020.22813 | publisher = American Medical Association | s2cid = 226301949 | doi-access = free }} renders as:
• Kim PS, Read SW,
  S2CID 226301949
  .

Other advantages of |vauthors= is that is far more compact (doesn't overwhelm the wiki text) and is guaranteed to be consistent. Any author data that does not conform to the Vancouver system will throw an error. In contrast |last=, |first= will accept any text including "!@#$%^&*" gibberish.

I removed |url= that are redundant to |URL=|doi=. The later tend to be more stable over time than the former. This also reduces the

MOS:SEAOFBLUE

.

You are right about the illustrators. They should be moved to |others=. Boghog (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Boghog Oohhhhhh, that's brilliant! I didn't realize that vauthors could parse them. The other reason I preferred listing out the full names was because I've been frustrated in the past when trying to specify who the author is when the author's initials are very generic, like Lee M. So I would hunt around trying to figure the author's identity and it'd be frustrating. ORCid has definitely helped with this but it isn't used for older papers. But....then again, I think that kinda answers my own question--on sites that may change and may even completely take down a page, it is useful to use full name because if the page goes down and nobody made an internet wayback archive of it, it's even more difficult to figure out who the author is (and if there's no archive made, then it's also harder to find a copy of the source elsewhere if you don't know the author's full name). So in those cases, using Wikipedia's default citation method which spells out the full name might be more useful. But for academic articles where there's invariably some doi, pmid, s2cid, or other identifier or record in the publisher's archives floating around somewhere, it might not be as necessary as the publisher will invariably list the author's full name and affiliation.

Hmm....as the proveit gadget autoloads individual authors by first and last, it might be a bit of a pain to convert but ahh well, I'll see how it goes.

I'm not sure I track with respect to what you meant about |url= vs |URL= . Can you elaborate? Do you mean removing the url (which can become broken later on) and preferentially only include doi or other handles which are more reliable? I agree with that but I think wikipedia won't let you include archived links if you don't include a URL--and archived links have value in preserving the snapshot of what a page looked like at a particular time. And even for someone who's used to doi's, it's still weird for the title of the resource to not have a hyperlink and instead have to go click on the doi or other handle, so I can only imagine the confusion of lay users....blegh, seems like a no-win situation. I do see what you mean about SEAOFBLUE though. I'm.....still a little more partial toward linking the publications since both the little external link icon at the end of the hyperlink and the publication's italicization usually mark the distinction between the two. But it's a minor thing really.

I was also kinda curious about the digital handles that you had added. I've mainly used doi's so I'm familiar with them but I've never really used bibcode or s2cid or others. However, I figured that if it's a paper about medicine, then certain topic-specific handles like arXiv, which focuses more on math, physics, and other hard sciences, probably won't have it. So I was surprised by the bibcode that you had added for "Comprehensive vaccine design for commensal disease progression", since I had thought bibcode was more for astronomical stuff. I guess that although that's the way those handle systems trend, sometimes they do have a handle for something you might not expect?

Most papers won't list handles other than doi (and on pubmed sites, pmid and pmcid). So for arxiv, bibcode, biorxiv, citeseerx, jstor, ssrn, and s2cid, do you mainly just go to each one's lookup site (like citeseerx's or bibcode's) and search if they have a handle for a particular article? Although, for hdl, I'm not even sure there is a way to search for the hdl by the target (even after having read its wiki article). Seems like the hdl system is mostly used by WHO, UN, world bank, and other international organizations and, to make things easier for users, they usually include the hdl in the page's url? Not that it needs to be included in the url.

Sorry for the barrage of questions but they all kinda popped up as I was thinking more about it! Thanks again for the stuff you've already showed me. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC); edited 19:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. If you want to generate Vancouver style authors, you can use Wikipedia template filling tool. If you input a

In my reply above, I meant |url= is redundant with |doi=, not |URL=. Sorry for the confusion. Boghog (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Boghog Thanks, much appreciated! And I gotcha now about url and doi. I thought you might've meant that but wasn't sure. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog.

I just now moved an article titled "Chirality timeline". I thought everything was fine. After moving to live space I found the above notification. I am not sure how to resolve this. I would request you to help me.

Thanks ~~ Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. All you need to do is remove the {{user sandbox}} template after you move the article to main space. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

On behalf of the

Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk

) 02:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! But this was a group effort and I had plenty of help. I would especially like to thank Evolution and evolvability for the updated graphics and other edits, WillowW for making the lead more accessible, and the reviewers SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm for thier sharp eyes and helpful suggestions. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you possibly have time to handle a major citation clean-up project? See User:Dr Margaret Ashwell/sandbox and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Would someone please advise a new expert contributor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For fixing all of these citations. It looked like such an overwhelming amount of work, and now it's beautiful. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Not that difficult, but somewhat tedious. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog.

This is to let you know that I moved an article titled "Chirality timeline" sometime in September 2022. In fact you helped me to clean up the sand page. I find that the talk page, in red, not yet created. In general, who creates the talk page and is it done automatically. Just out of curiosity to know about this.

Thanks, ~~

Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valliappan. There is no requirement that a talk page be created, although as you imply, the red tab looks annoying. Anyone can create a talk page, but generally content is needed. A project banner is a good start. I have taken the liberty of creating the

chemistry}} project banner. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 04:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Boghog,

Thanks for you time and the nice gesture of creating a talk page by adding project banner for "Chirality timeline". Cheers.~~ Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited L-ornithine N5 monooxygenase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cofactor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Boghog I noticed you edited the myotis davidii page and I wanted to thank you and also ask for your help. That was my first edit and I am still trying to make a fix for the map to include the new locations data but I'm struggling with it. Owennotarower (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hej Owennotarower. Thanks for your message. Concering updating geo lcation maps, I assume that you are referring to

Village pump (technical) for suggestions. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 19:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Boghog, the above article was recently reviewed (I asked for a 7 day hold but I haven't gotten one... it was failed), I'm going to add the suggestions the reviewer suggested plus a few more (which I would have done during a hold) would you review it after Im done, (it doesn't have to be in a week , maybe in a few weeks) I'm asking you because I noticed you contributed to the article[2]..., thank you Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and how do you do this so quickly :) Graham Beards (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. I have written a python script based on mwparserfromhell that parses cite templates and Bio.Entrez which captures citation data from PubMed. The code is a bit of a mess, and I have intending to rewrite it from scratch someday, but haven't found the time yet. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

-David Gacggt (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I expanded the author list from 3 to 6 for all of the further reading citations. Please also note that the

Vancouver style authors state "List the first six authors followed by et al."^[1]

The |display-authors=6 setting is consistent with the ICMJE recommendation which many biomedical journals follow.

Why is essential to see the senior author? The purpose of a Wikipedia citation is not to hype the authors, but to support a statement. All of the citations contain at least one external link to the full author list and author affiliations. For a general auidence not familar with who is working in the field, the title is probably more meaningful than the authors, and a long author list starts to obscure the title. Some citations contain ridiculously long author lists that start too overwhelm the rest of the citation. There should be some reasonable cut off. Boghog (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:CITEVAR violation but this conversation will get you nowhere. Unfortunately I have some experience with this and have suffered long lasting retaliation – purportedly at his direction but not really – from other users merely for telling Boghog that. Many users have tried and failed to obtain any small compromise from him. I suggest caution. Invasive Spices (talk

) 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Boghog. I am responding to the changes you made to the Trauma -and violence-informed article. If I understand correctly, you made article-wide changes to the citation format. At least one of the changes was to eliminate the first name of the cited author, and you used code to group various authors. Is that code available in the standard citation tool? Is that format widely recommended by the Wiki style manual? The citation tool indicates a preference for using first and last names. It seems to me that it is helpful for readers to know the first and last name, especially for an article like this which is designed for people new to the ideas and who will need to read original source material. However, the citation tool also does not give an alternative for first1 last1, only first last, which I don't understand.ConflictScience (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem changing it back. Selectively restored a few of the other edits here. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:CITEVAR violation but this conversation will get you nowhere. Unfortunately I have some experience with this and have suffered long lasting retaliation – purportedly at his direction but not really – from other users merely for telling Boghog that. Many users have tried and failed to obtain any small compromise from him. I suggest caution. Invasive Spices (talk

) 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I am reasonable person that responds to reasonable requests. Boghog (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I am just trying to learn how to best write in a good Wiki style, and do it in an easy way. It looks like the various authors tag (is that the right term?) has to be manually done. Or is it done using Vancouver author field? Either way, I have a lot of cites to add and the way I've learned in First1 Last1, and that's fairly easy for me to us, and so I would like to continue using it and I want the future cites to be consistent. I will say that it looks like Boghog has a rather remarkable set of code to be able to go through and make all those changes in one action. So, I thank you Boghog for showing me what could be done and for writing that impressive bit of code. Cheers to you both.ConflictScience (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Boghog, thank you! It looks like you went back and fixed a lot of cites that I had not done well and you let me keep the first1 last1 author format. You edits are very helpful. I'm sorry I don't know how to make better cites and that I caused you to have to spend time on this. My recent realization is that the citation generator tool works better if I give it the doi URL. Is there a better way to generate clean citations the first time around? ConflictScience (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi ConflictScience.

WP:REFTOOLS is useful, but it has a few problems with for example dates, redundant URLs that duplicate other identifiers, prefixing PMC IDs with PMD, etc. Unfortunately the maintainers are stubborn and unwilling to implement these fixes. (They have counter arguments, but I and some other disagree) Concerning one type of URL that starts with https://https:doi.org, if one extracts the doi from the URL and uses that as input into the ref toolbar, it will generate a {{|para|doi}} without the redundant |url=. If if the source if freely avaiable, then add |title-link=doi to the citation and the title will be linked to the doi. In general, title should not be linked if the source if not free. Boghog (talk

) 06:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:TCACycle WP78 offset has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)