Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 April 10

Help desk
< April 9	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 11 >

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.

April 10

different point of view between languages

Portuguese topics when in general subjects are not that good as in english, it is predictable as english is the most used. But sometimes it is wrong. I noticed that specially in subjects as Conspiracy Theories and GMO we are wrong. But if I edited there just translating from english to portuguese it will not be accepted. Can english point of view be mandatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.166.162 (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about differences between Portuguese-language Wikipedia articles and English-language ones, you need to understand that each Wikipedia language version is autonomous- here at English Wikipedia we have no control over what goes on at the Portuguese one and vice-versa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If the OP is saying that articles related to Portugal and Brazil are not as good as those about the United Kingdom, the United States, and other English-speaking countries, that is likely true because our editors find it easier to rely on English sources than Portuguese sources, and is something to which attention can reasonably be called. In that case, requesting the assistance of other editors to improve the articles about the Lusophone countries is, among other things, a purpose of Wikiprojects. I don't know what the OP means by "English point of view", but the objective of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view, which should (but this is difficult) reflect what has been written by reliable sources in English, Portuguese, and other languages. Sometimes authors in different languages do have systematically different points of view, and explaining them may help improve world understanding. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

http error 404 in my blog www.dekhochankya.blogspot.com

Bobby ajay sharma (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This ref has too many errors to respond to. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners and consult the documentation at Template:cite web, then return here if you have any questions or problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby ajay sharma (talk • contribs) 06:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What article? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are trying to cite a blog. Quite apart from the errors in the way you cited it, blogs are not reliable sources, and so are not acceptable as references in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Marcus Yves

[draft article redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamjames100 (talk • contribs)

Hello, @Liamjames100: i have redacted the draft article you placed on this page. This page is for asking questions about how Wikipedia works. Please specify what your question is so that we may try to help you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Photo location help

I've tried to find out the location on that this photo was taken, but have had no luck. It was probably the United States or Ireland, but I need to find out which. Can anyone else figure this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steverci (talk • contribs) 14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This page is for questions about how to use and edit Wikipedia. For questions like yours, I'd suggest Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, where editors have been known to take on investigative challenges such as this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Events organized by date

Dear editors: Is there a policy somewhere, or a Wikiproject which organizes how finely divided these event pages should be? For example, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/January 1914 has a month's worth of events. The mainspace title January 1914 redirects to 1914, but April 4, 2003 redirects to April 2003, so some months have articles. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

For which months have been done, see Category:Months in the 1900s. While there are some gaps, given that for example February 1910 has an an article, I'd approve January 1914.Naraht (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just as an aside, no one needs to approve the creation of any article (though any article which is not compliant with Wikipedia's minimum standards would be deleted. That being said, there's no problem creating the article so long as there is enough content to support it. Where the month articles are redirected to the year articles; that is done only because no one has yet created a specific month article with enough content. IF (and only if) you have enough material to create an article about the specific month, go do that. You don't need permission. However, one should NOT create such article merely so they wouldn't be redirects, solely because the other month articles exist. That would be a bad idea. But if the content is substantial, go do it. --Jayron32 16:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I resubmitted and tried to approve (I really think that it should be in mainspace). But January 1914 already exists as a redirect with no history other than creation. Can someone please remove it so I can approve this draft?Naraht (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: Done. I've deleted it so you can move the draft. In the future, @Anne Delong:, if you're confident that you can create a solid article on a Month like this, feel free to just overwrite the redirect. There's no need to do it as a draft. You are, of course, allowed to do so (especially if you appreciate the ability to have someone review your work before it goes "live"), but know that there is no requirement for it. --Jayron32 17:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron32 and Naraht. This wasn't an article that I created; I saw it in the db-13 deletion pile and thought it looked too good to delete. I just wanted to check if there was some kind of consensus about these date-related articles before overriding the previous decline at AfC, since I haven't worked with them before. I agree that approval of articles isn't required, but once they have been in AfC, accepting/approving them through the AfC script is an efficient way to get them into mainspace because it cleans out a lot of stuff that would otherwise have to be done manually, such as templates and maintenance categories. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

While I haven't seen a policy, it looks like there are months done as separate articles for various months going all the way back to 1900 (which seems to have a few). So Months in 20th and 21st centuries, I guess.Naraht (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of the African Union and Pan African Parliament

Hi there, I'm not sure where this would go so I thought I would say this here and if it needs moving that's okay. I was reading the articles on the African Union and Pan-African Parliament and noticed the lack of information about each especially in comparison with the European Union, etc. To me, improving coverage on Wikipedia about African issues is of paramount importance especially with regards to the emphasis that European history and culture has in the eyes of the Western world.

I have two prongs of my post:

1. Lack of information on the web Especially relating to the Parliament. I was wondering, how would this information be found if it is not on the web? Does anyone have some strategies to finding out things like this? Even basic information such as the members of the parliament and the way the people are elected, is difficult to find. Would directly contacting the organisation and asking for information count as original research?

2. Targeted effort to improve articles On Wikivoyage there is a monthly article or topic which is targeted for improvement. Is there anything like this on Wikipedia? Because I believe it could really help to address gaps in the coverage of the project.

Thanks very much for reading my post. Hshook (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1)books.google.com and news.google.com and scholar.google.com are specialized searches which would likely have some content useful for improving the articles. Otherwise: college libraries with poly sci books and periodicals.

2) on the talk page of articles is likely to be a banner for one or more Wikiproject. If you go to the Wikiproject page, you can find out how organized and active they are. Some have active "article improvement" activities and focuses where you can add suggestions. or its a Wiki so you can do it yourself! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Africa is the ideal venue for recruiting help. Both entities get extensive coverage in the media all over the continent, it's not hard to find. However you surely realise that the AU is not directly comparable to the EU, Europe is far more tightly integrated and "ruled from Brussels", has a common currency, free trade, etc., whereas the AU is a far looser organisation, thus the level of coverage will be far lower by definition, particularly in the case of the Pan African Parliament, it meets infrequently and has no actual legislative power, it's really just a "talk shop", unlike the European equivalent. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hshook. Contacting the organisation would be useful if they pointed you to some published references; but unpublished information they gave you would not be acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And we do recognize that there is a systemic bias within wikipedia where the fact that the overwhelming majority of editors are white, western, english-speaking males of a certain age and "geek savvy" nature, results in a wikipedia where the topics that receive the most thorough coverage tend to be those that appeal to white, western, english-speaking males of a certain age and "geek savvy" nature, and as you approach topics away from those poles, the coverage quantity and quality tends to drop off quickly.

If you have suggestions on how some of that bias could be mitigated, you can bring your thoughts to someplace like the village pump or User talk:Jimbo Wales -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Major biographical edit

For https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amata_Coleman_Radewagen

This page is for U.S. Congresswoman Amata Coleman Radewagen as shown on the page. I am a staffer and authorized representative relative to all media content. I wish to completely replace the existing content on this page with the official and authorized biography and picture of the Congresswoman. This bio will be slightly different than the one on the Congresswoman's official website at radewagen.house.gov. I previously posted the edit but it was replaced by Widipedia, probably because of lack of attribution. So, what I need help with is how to achieve a level of attribution acceptable to Wikipedia.Lvpapa (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is absolutely no way that will ever be acceptable. The article is about the congresswoman, it is absolutely definitely not for her. Short of intentional libel, subjects of articles are explicitly excluded from having any rights whatsoever to control or influence the content of the articles. Wikipedia articles are built principally on what third party independent reliable sources (such as mainstream press) say about the subject. As an editor with such an explicit conflict of interest best practice here on the English Wikipedia is that you restrict your activity to the Talk page of the article where you can post your suggestions for improving the article, then neutral editors can evaluate your proposals and accept, modify or reject them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there errors in the Congresswoman's biography? If so, you may discuss them at the article talk page, Talk:Amata Coleman Radewagen. If that fails, you can discuss them at the noticeboard for biographies of living persons. However, Roger is absolutely correct, and the Congresswoman does not get to write her own biography or have her own biography written. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem related to page patrol

Hi, I'm a regular new page patroller. I'm facing this problem while patrolling this new page User talk:Fatemi127 which is a soft redirect to an arabic Wikipedia page. I'm unable to understand why a user page is being shown on new pages feed? Also neither I nor anyone else is able to patrol it therefore it is stuck there for many days now and often pops up while we are reviewing the pages. Experienced users please have a look at the issue. Mr RD 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Due to a bug phab:T87645 there are actually two pages called User talk:Fatemi127. The other page is registered as being in mainspace and cannot be wikilinked. The page creation is [1]. I have reviewed it. It shows up in mainspace searches and should really be deleted but I'm not sure how to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried to delete the mainspace version but the User talk version was deleted instead so I restored it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Dave Fulton

I do thank you for the note on Visual FoxPro and its history. The mentioning of Dr. Dave Fulton and Tom Rettig in bringing the FoxPro to developers who needed a reference would have been nice. Their input to my company to stick with FoxPro as an excellent dbase with SQL development tool has allowed us to expand into EDI, Pharmaceutical, Hospital and Warehousing logistic software.

Jack
Systems Development Group
JHL Automation Systems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.68.59 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to make changes to the article Visual FoxPro, you are welcome to edit that article, it's the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, but it's seldom good idea to edit articles you are directly involved in (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), and keep in mind the importance Wikipedia places on verifiability. If you're not sure about making changes, the best place to suggest them would be at Talk:Visual FoxPro. I hope that helps. (I rearranged your note above a little so that it would read more clearly.)  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Top 10 eye specialty hospitals in India

which of the top 10 eye specialty hospitals in India ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shameer naz (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have that information, but you might try Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bossa_nova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesperhedegaard (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jesperhedegaard: It looks like you fixed it. Good job. Do you have another question?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)