Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Genres

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been some recent changes to the genre field at Led Zeppelin, and I'd appreciate it if someone proficient in the field of genre sorting-outing could take a look. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The best place to ask for help with this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding COI in Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture article

Resolved

 – Discussion mv to user tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Farm65/Personal sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:Farm65/Personal sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am requesting editorial assistance in avoiding COI in this draft article that I have written on the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

I have attempted to adhere to standards of neutrality and notability, but I am also an employee of the Kerr Center, and so request independent review of the draft.

Many thanks! Farm65 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This article may need additional reliable 3rd party sources in in number, quality, and depth, in order to establish notability. Please see the requirements at WP:ORG and WP:RS. The article does not manifest any signs of Conflict of Interest but due to the number o of short paragraphs that begin with 'The Kerr Centre...' it reads like a brochure. The effort with an encyclopedia article is to write with more continuos prose rather than a list of promotional points. Check again that there is absolutely no close paraphrasing from any of the text of the Centre website. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll attempt to address these points and advise when done. Farm65 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've revised text to avoid the brochure effect and close paraphrasing of the Kerr Center site, and incorporated additional supporting citations - would appreciate another look at this point. Thanks! Farm65 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

New page curation: page with multiple issues

Resolved

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've come across Energy Healing - Alternative Cancer Treatments through new page curation, and beyond tagging I'm not sure what to do with it. It's promotional, but perhaps not so promotional as to merit a speedy deletion. The topic partly duplicates Energy medicine. Its notability is questionable. Should it be tagged with {{notability}}; tagged with {{Expert-subject}} and referred to WikiProject Alternative Medicine; PROD'd; sent to AfD; merged; redirected? Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest either AfD, or if your feeling bold, perhaps a summary redirect to Energy medicine followed by AfD if reverted. Its poorly written, and largely redundant to Energy medicine, but not so obvious that a full CSD A10 deletion seems called for. Monty₈₄₅ 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I just speedied it as a fork. I really don't think we can allow this. It has extraordinary medical claims without citation and without much indication this is entirely fringe. If anyone wants to argue with that, we can take it to AfD and debate it. SpinningSpark 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikitravel vs Wikivoyage??

Answered

 – This forum is for editing help. Questions like these are best posed on the Village Pump. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I had always assumed that Wikitravel was part of the Wiki portfolio. I was therefore surprised when Wikivoyage was announced. I was even more surprised to discover that the content on several randomly selected entries was almost identical.

Could you please clarify what is going on??

Personally, I would suggest that Wikivoyage is redundant & valuable time & resources might better be directed to other sectors

Dave Ansell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.158.79 (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikitravel has always been a separate website owned by an unaffiliated company. Unlike Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation-owned websites, it is supported by advertising revenue. Wikivoyage was founded when a large portion of the wikitravel editing community wanted to leave for a website with more Wikipedia-like governance. The content is identical because the copyrights allow it, and in the setting up of Wikivoyage much of Wikitravel was simply copied over. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi some questions about reference of the article : Disruptive Technologists

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

AFC of Disruptive Technologists

Hi, the reviewer wrote that the first two links of the reference is invalid and believes that it is written by the company. However,David Craig,the writer of the article, does not work for Disruptive Technologists, he is a freelance writer. Lauren Keyson does write freelance articles too, and also writes for NY Convergence, but she is not a team member or employee of NY Convergence. She is considered a "contributor." Will that make a difference in your decision? Thank you Lygmahan (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:N. It is more a question of the reliability of the sources and establishing the notability of the subject. NYConvergence is described as the blog of Trylon SMR, a PR company. Not really a suitable source for an encyclopaedia article. You also need to read carefully the comments of the reviewers at AFC - a good encyclopaedia article does not consist of telling the reader about the company's trademarks. SpinningSpark 18:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Page: Death of Jill Meagher"

Resolved

 – The deletion discussion was closed as 'keep'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am very disappointed to hear of your decision that this page does not meet Wikipedia's criterion of being notable enough to warrant its own page!

What you have just declared goes against all of your freedom of information claims and the respect of the rest of the world for their right to their history being represented online and therefore their place on Wikipedia.

I strongly urge you to re-consider our wish to declare our country's history online and the value of the ally that Australia is to the US and in our support to our mutual values of life such as democracy, freedom of speech, etc..

For the sake of a few megabytes on your server, surely you are not considering to alienate 9/10 of Australians who I assure you feel the same way as I do. For every email you receive, how many does it speak for??

I am one of your biggest fans and supporters. I hope to receive a reply.

Yours truly, Mr Alexey Souvorkin <email address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvorkin (talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has yet made any such decision, certainly not here at Editor Assistance. The article has been nominated for deletion, which means that the issue has to be debated. The discussion is still ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jill Meagher and you should make your comments there if they are to be effective. SpinningSpark 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WHY SO FEW IMDB RANKINGS ON FILM PAGES?

Answered

Just wondered why the decision was made to publish Rotten Tomatoes ratings on almost all film pages, sometimes Metacritic, but hardly ever IMDB? I would have thought that IMDB was the most important rating to include? Jdavies555 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)--

I have moved this post here from the talk page. I believe the reason is that IMdB ratings are user generated, whereas Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregator of reviews in other publications. Rotten Tomatoes is not universally accepted by all editors as being a reliable source for this purpose. In my opinion, using Rotten Tomatoes is better than Wikipedia editors drawing their own POV opinion from an assessment of available reviews. SpinningSpark 18:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

From MOS:FILM#Reception: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Cheers. Doniago (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The same guideline also says "review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews". These are aggregates of reviews of professional critics, not user submitted reviews. A distinction needs to be drawn between the two. SpinningSpark 22:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

partial merge question

I am very new to Editing, and I have what I think is kind of a tricky problem.

I'm looking to two book articles: The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near. These articles contain a ton of predictions by the author. But then there is also a separate article containing predictions from all his books and from other sources (interviews, etc): Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil. There is a ton of duplication here, the predictions from each book appear both on the book pages and on the predictions page. Plus they have diverged significantly, so neither can considered complete or correct.

This doesn't seem to be an article merge issue. Because at the end of the day, I expect there will still be all 3 pages. There is content on the book pages besides predictions, and there are predictions on the predictions page from non-book sources. So it's hard to see anything being merged away completely.

So the first question is should the predictions really live on the book pages or in the combined prediction page? I'm sure the answer is it's up to the interested parties on those pages, but really there is not much activity there. I'm wondering if this has come up generically in other contexts? Better to push as much as possible to the shared/aggregate page, or better to keep it in the separate individual pages.

Second question is how to mechanically do the merge, considering there are a lot of conflicts and it's not clear how to resolve them all. Do we follow merge protocol even though this isn't a full article merge?

I have raised these questions on the talk pages, but there is not much activity. However I think it's worth doing, because I think this much duplication is really bad for readers and editors alike and it's only getting worse the more they diverge. Thanks. --Silas Ropac (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To answer your second question first, there is no reason why you should not follow the procedure at WP:MERGE to actually gain consensus and carry out a merge. You can always open a discussion on the talk page (which should be done anyway) to explain that you are only proposing a limited merge. A merge template on the article itself will often attract more comment than just the talk page, but if there is still no reaction you can go ahead and merge as you see fit.

I looked at the first book article you linked. Honestly, judging just by what is there now, there is no justification for that article to exist at all on notability grounds although a search for sources may turn up something more substantial. The article is entirely about the book's content, which it covers in far too much detail. There is no coverage of reviews, the book's impact or legacy. Of the three references given, one is the book itself which as a primary source does not count towards notability. The other two are blogs which in most cases are not considered reliable so also do not count. The second book has rather more references (but I have not reviewed them for reliability, I leave that to you) but suffers from exactly the same faults - a long discussion of content with no indication of why the book is notable.

In my opinion, both book articles could be entirely merged into the "predictions" article. But if it were me, I would carry out a thorough search for more sources first to satisfy myself that decent book articles could not be written. There is a notability guideline specifically for books at WP:BOOK. SpinningSpark 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I also wondered about the "too much detail" issue. I have seen many articles which seem to summarize the plot of books or TV shows in excessive detail. But that doesn't mean we should do it here. I will look at WP:BOOK for guidelines. With "predictions" I think it is tricky because if you leave some out, it generates a lot of discussion, are you hiding his bad predictions, or vice versa.

I think the predictions page deserves to exist. It grew of the author's his main page (Ray Kurzweil), and predictions are core to what he is all about. They come mostly from his books, but also from other sources.

As for whether the book pages should exist, once the predictions are moved, I think that is TBD. For the 2nd book The Singularity is Near it got a lot of coverage, I think it's just a matter of tracking it down and citing it correctly. For the 1st book less coverage for sure, but I will look into it.

I think the order of events is:

• follow WP:MERGE and eventually do the partial merge, leaving all pages for now
• fix up the newly minted predictions page. With duplication issue gone, I think there will more motivation and energy to improve this page, maybe thin it out some.
• look at the now smaller book pages, and either improve them or decide they go away

I guess two smaller followup questions are:

• WP:MERGE says don't put discussion on a page which is frequently archived. We just started archiving on these talk pages, with 90d period. Seems like 90d is long enough? Or else where would you put a discussion so it's permanent?
• As far as actually doing the merge. With these lists there's going to be essentially conflict for every line. I guess one editor just takes their best shot, then people can propose changes and fixes after the initial merge? Or else is there a precedent or reason for doing the merge on some subpage somewhere, and then swap it in only when it's settled down?

Thanks again. --Silas Ropac (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOOK is a good place to look for guidance on writing book articles, but actually that was not the guideline I meant to point to. I intended of course WP:NBOOK which defines the notability criteria for book articles. SpinningSpark 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Tech problem at Dean Foods talk page

There are talk posts that can been seen in edit mode but do not appear in normal read mode of the talk page. I can't figure out what's wrong. Can someone look at it please? Many thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit removed a character so all the following was interpreted as part of a non-displayed comment. I restored the character [1] but also had to handle two attempted signatures by other users. They were not expanded to real signatures at the time because they were inside the unclosed comment tag. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Invalid Citation / Falsely Cited

The Description section of the Holtzman Inkblot Test has a claim about the typical cost of the procedure and what it costs. The cited source is a medical dictionary entry that mentions neither the cost nor what it should cover. How should I deal with this? I thought there was a way to flag it as an invalid citation, but I couldn't find it. If I have posted this in the wrong place, please politely tell me and I will post elsewhere. --un4v41l48l3 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)