Help desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 24

Metacritic question

Resolved

Someone is going behind me and reverting my edits and I need clarification. On albums like Joanne, in the 'Review scores' box, it shows the Metacritic aggregate score. I saw this and started noticing it on many album pages, and I added the MC score to pages that didn't have it. Someone reverted it and said it's "gratuitous" because it already talks about the metacritic score in the "Critical reception" section. I need clarification on this because I feel like it doesn't hurt anything it being in the review scores box -- especially for people who just want to quickly view the ratings at a glance. Please clarify and thank you. --Jennica^Talk 02:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jennica, while what you're referring to makes sense, you need to take this discussion up on the specific talk pages of the articles where you have been reverted and attempt to gain consensus on the issue. In case you end up having a dispute, use the steps charted out at dispute resolution. Lourdes 03:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lourdes: - I think it's past that. He already had a dispute with someone else and thinks his way is the correct way. I don't think it hurts anything having both listed on the page. Wish there was a rule regarding it :/ --Jennica^Talk 03:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no particular rule that I know of. As I mentioned, use the procedure listed out at dispute resolution. Sometimes, a faster (and riskier) method is calling an Rfc on the broader question of Metacritic scores. Lourdes 03:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lourdes: Sorry, what is RFC? Thanks for all your help btw. --Jennica^Talk 03:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jennica, here are some relevant discussions on Metacritic that have taken place on the RSN, a relevant place for discussions on reliability of sources. Request for comment is the method by which any editor can ask for eyes of other editors on various issues, which are listed out at the RFC page. Do read up the specific page and ping anyone here if you have trouble understanding. Thanks. Lourdes 03:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi, Lourdes. Sorry to intrude, but you are an admin I watch closely here and learn from greatly. Could you explain why it is "riskier" to use Rfc? and how does one "ping"? Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Hello Maineartists, I am not an admin here; am just an editor like you and others. Why I wrote it is riskier to use an Rfc is because in general, starting an Rfc makes the specific issue come to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community and not just to the editors interested in editing the specific article and having knowledge of the background of the specific article. This leads to diverse comments that may or may not follow editorial guidelines and may perhaps not lead to easy consensus development. In general, an Rfc should be used if the issue is specifically broad and might concern the wider community. And with respect to how to ping, read Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events, especially the sub section on Mentions. Write back if you need any other clarification. Thanks. Lourdes 04:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Lourdes and BTW you could have fooled me re: not-an-admin -- you should be! Maineartists (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

adding footnotes/inline references

Hi my article was published but with a note at the top saying it lacked inline references. I'm trying to add them but I don't really have a clue what I'm doing.

I've tried reading all the pages about footnotes, citations, etc but it just makes me more confused than ever.

So for example, I have a bird species that is only listed on one source: Adelie Penguin Pygoscelis adeliae Source: "Victoria bird checklist - Avibase - Bird Checklists of the World". Avibase.bsc-eoc.org. Retrieved 2016-10-23."

I would like to footnote it saying this is the only source of this species. How do I do that?

There are about three species that I need to do the same for, all listed by the same source. All the other birds are listed on at least two of the four reference webpages.

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janine Echidna Walkabout (talk • contribs) 07:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Echidna Walkabout, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. You seem to be on the right track, except that four are not actually in the text. If you want to use a ref multiple times, replace the initial <ref> with <ref name= penguin> or whatever you want to call it, then at the next occurrence use just <ref name= penguin/> Jimfbleak (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a look at eg List of birds of Thailand to see if that helps Jimfbleak (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For further information on how to use references more than once, see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal C.V.

I edit articles about the stock market from time to time. Is there a place where I can list my C.V. for those who want to know if I know what I'm talking about?

John R. McGinley, CMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcgoo (talk • contribs) 14:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal CV shouldn't matter at all since whatever changes you make should be able to be referenced to reliable sources. See WP:RS for info on reliable sources and WP:OR for Wikipedia's stance on adding what we call Original Research, i.e. what you just happen to know. †Dismas†|^(talk) 14:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, Jmcgoo, you're welcome to share information about yourself on your User page, as long as you comply with the policies in WP:UPYES. But expect people to judge your contributions by their own merits relative to Wikipedia's standards of verifiabililty and neutrality, rather than by reference to your personal history or experience. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious article

Hi everyone,
I am a bit unsure about how to proceed. I stumbled upon an article that has had the "no sources" tag on it practically from its beginnings in 2013, it's an orphan, and no one has apparently ever done anything on it after the first days of its creation.
The name of the company mentioned in the article struck me as a bit weird, and so I did a Google search trying to exclude Wikipedia, (cpb0mb aloha -wikipedia and "Aloha Music File" -wikipedia). Now the strange thing is that I get practically no Google hits for either of these. That makes me wonder not only about the notability but about the very existence of the article's subject.
Of course we wouldn't want a hoax in here. But since this is really outside of my field of expertise, I am a bit hesitant to suggest deletion.
What do you think? --84.190.84.207 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. While probably not a hoax, this article has very little content and no indication of notability, so it does look like a worthy candidate for deletion. Nomination can be found here. --McDoob AU93 15:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --84.190.84.207 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

84.190.84.207, I've speedy deleted it and closed the AfD (which already had two "delete"s and a "speedy delete" Jimfbleak (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"hegelp204" not defined?

I notice that "Hegelp204" says in Fin-de-Siècle Splendor that it's not defined but a text search I used shows that Hegelp204 should be defined. I don't understand what's going on WhisperToMe (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You had inserted an unterminated comment, so the rest of that paragraph was treated as part of that comment. Cured by this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Prime Minister (Denmark)

I need some advice on what to do about the article Deputy Prime Minister (Denmark). The content is false in its entirety. No such office exists or has existed, at least not in recent decades. And the "inaugural holder" is far from the first to be informally called "vicestatsminister". More details at Talk:Deputy_Prime_Minister_(Denmark).

It is very hard to find references for non-existence. Searching the official web page of the prime minster's office for "vicestatsminister" gets three hits. One is about a deputy prime minister of Sweden, and two are from press conferences where an asker has used the word.

Without references, I do not want to rewrite the page. Should I nominate it for deletion?

--Klausok (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant that the office is either vacant or has been discontinued. Because notability is not temporary, we do not delete the article on Pope every time the position is vacant when a new one is being selected. Neither do we delete the article on the Emperor of Rome although the office has obviously been discontinued.

I suggest you deal with article content instead of question the existence (or content "in its entirety") of the article. You can remove any unsourced information in the article, whether true, false, or unclear. You can also rephrase the wording to make clear what the article already says: the position is not currently in use. You can also add relevant, reliably sourced, information about what the position of a vicestatsminister was like in history. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The office is not vacant, it never existed. I can see how what I wrote above could be misunderstood. As far as I know, Denmark never had a deputy prime minister. But the title "statsminister" has been used before, and I don't know the details about the 18th century Danish government, so there is a slight posibility that it existed then. What I am certain of is that it has not existed in the time frame described in the article, or for several decades before. --Klausok (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. According to danish WP, it´s an informal title, used in press and parliament. [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I manage to find references, I could change the article to: "The minister who is second in the order of precedence, and who therefore will stand in for the prime minister if needed, is sometimes informally called 'vicestatsminister'." But would that be notable?--Klausok (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klausok, Finnusertop This [2] may be an acceptable citiation, it actually talks about the "position" itself (not just calling a particular person VS). It seems it´s media-shorthand for second-mightiest-minister, and thus not very notable per WP-logic. An AFD-nomination would not be unreasonable. Perhaps merge to Deputy prime minister as "Vicestatsminister is an informal title"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source [3]. Click the "besv" link. Seems to support "informal". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just what I needed. I will use that to rewrite the article. We can decide if we want it deleted later.Klausok (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Blanc

The cause of death is wrong on your page about Mel Blanc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Blanc He died of a fat embolism after breaking his leg falling out of bed, while he was in the hospital. youtu.be/JRlmb0xAtBs?t=1h2m

~~The article doesn't say what the direct cause of death was... Unless I'm missing it somewhere other than the Death section.~~ †Dismas†|^(talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the infobox... †Dismas†|^(talk) 23:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the overwhelming claims pointing to "cardiovascular disease / stroke" online, these were the only sources I could find to the contrary that were not blogs or message boards: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. You can change it if you want, but it might draw contention; considering what he was really in the hospital for and the fall merely "pushed him over the edge". Maineartists (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your article says "Blanc's health then took a turn for the worse and doctors found that he had advanced coronary artery disease". This leads people to believe that his is the cause of death. If you watch the video I posted, his son tells the direct cause of death. He died as a result of hospital negligence. They left his hospital bed rail down and he fell, braking his femur. A fat embolism from that break went to his brain and killed him within 48 hours. I would at least put something in the article about it being the fat embolism, from the fall, causing a stroke that killed him. It even says that in some of the articles you referred to.

Ballarat Grammar School

Please help us - the date of the Herald-Sun article in ref number 11 is all wrong. Srbernadette (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Thanking you in advance[reply]

Done, I've fixed it but it should be obvious that 'October 42010' (per this edit) is not a valid date. Not for 40,000 years anyway. Eagleash (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]