Miscellaneous desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference 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 reference desk pages.

January 18[edit]

Create a Page[edit]

My Grand father Dr.Velaga Venkatappaiah is a famous person in INDIAN LIBRARY MOVEMENT . He is Telugu Scholar and member of Telugu advisory Board in Sahitya akademi,New Delhi . He has expired recently .This news is published on all the newspapers even in INDIA TODAY magazine . If you need I can send the complete paper cuttings.His books are also listed in the catalogs of world famous libraries like LIBRARY OF CONGRESS and so on. I want create a Wikipedia page on him. Please help me with the procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's in all the papers in India, that should pass the notability requirement. But online references are preferred over paper ones. Do those newspapers have online editions ? StuRat (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu is blatantly, completely, and totally incorrect when he says "online references are preferred over paper ones". Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources gives no preference to online sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's cornerstone, bedrock, foundational policies states "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." No preference has ever been given at Wikipedia for online sources over offline sources, what matters is a source's reliability, not the manner in which it has been published. If sources are available both in print AND online, it is nice to include a link to the online version, but where a reliable source is available only offline, it is not considered less reliable merely because it is available only offline. Of course, the offline source can be unreliable (as could any online source); the reputation for reliability that a source has exists entirely independent of where it is published. Your offline sources may be unreliable as well, but they would not be unreliable merely because they only exist offline, nor would any source which exists online be automatically preferred. Any statement to that effect is simply not true. --Jayron 32 04:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said online sources are more reliable, just more available. I meant that we prefer to include links to them, where possible. You seem to have imagined the rest. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, he gets a glowing endorsement in Libraries in India's National Developmental Perspective: A Saga of Fifty Years since Independence by Mohamed Taher (p.324) and a table enumerating his work (75 books, 135 edited works etc), but no biographical information. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Google, Google Scholar, and a few other places seems to confirm that he would meet WP:ANYBIO, and probably WP:AUTHOR. He has authored plenty of books and was a key figure in the Indian Library movement, although I haven't found much discussion about his work. It may be just a language issue. Biographical and secondary/tertiary coverage seems to be available in Telugu (but I am not nearly proficient enough to be sure). For reference his name in Telugu is spelled వెలగా వెంకటప్పయ్య and he does have a page at te.wp here. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Translation for ways to get a translation of the Telugu article up and running here on the en.wp.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks William. I have created a brief stub article at Velaga Venkatappaiah with a request for translation template. Feel free to contribute. Alansplodge (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia biased?[edit]

For instance, some editors wield more influence and power than others. Who installs them and what mechanism is in place to prevent abuse. Not withstanding this, is the project fundamentally biased.

And why aren't Jimmy questions allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.76.217 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ask something about the projects founder, put it in a tangible form and I'm sure someone will address it here soon. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.45.66 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Q "Why did Jimmy cross the road" was removed because it was absurd. As for this Q, it seems OK to me. Yes, there are systemic biases in Wikipedia. A few I've seen:

1) Western bias: Since most editors are in the West, you will see more articles about the West or with a Western bias than about the rest of the world.

2) Expert bias: Since many people who edit articles consider themselves an expert on that topic, the articles end up being written by, and for, experts, being virtually unreadable by a general audience.

3) Hard science bias: There seem to be more articles on hard science than on the social sciences. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting article, with a US bias, on Wikipedia bias. Hack (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the unpublished working paper that article reports on, they count "bias" by counting the occurrence of certain terms that are used more by Democrats or by Republicans. For example, every mention of "economic growth" counts as bias toward the right, and every mention of "civil rights" counts as bias toward the left. While the Wikipedia articles had higher "bias" counts than Britannica's by this ridiculous metric, they were also longer, and the per-word "bias" count was lower in Wikipedia than Britannica, though "with little meaningful statistical difference". In spite of this both the HBR article and, amazingly, the paper itself lead off with a claim that Wikipedia is the more biased of the two. Way to be unbiased, guys.

In summary, Wikipedia has a barely statistically significant lower density of certain politically charged phrases in articles about political subjects, and apparently this has something to do with bias and not with, say, Britannica articles being edited for concision. -- BenRG (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Systemic bias.—Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As with all 'bias' questions, one has to specify 'compared to what'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that the OP here was blocked and is now evading the block by IP-hopping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this little essay I once wrote: Wikipedia:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle --Dweller (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and the commentary I wrote about it in the corresponding talk page! SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I've noticed over they years about complaints about content bias in Wikipedia is that most people believe that their own viewpoints are balanced. That means that they expect to see an equal number of views represented to either side of their own position. If someone is actually extremely biassed off to one end of the spectrum of views, then when they look at a truly unbiassed report, they see far more views to one side of their own than the other - and this appears to them as bias. For that reason, the more passionate you are about some position, the more likely you are to see bias wherever you look. This is a tough perception to eradicate.

I'm not sure that the mindless counting of articles about (say) science versus social studies really tells you anything about bias. Perhaps there is simply more to be said about the sciences than about social studies? If you simply switch to a finer-grained counting mechanism, maybe you find that social sciences articles outweigh physics and social sciences outweigh geology....does that mean that we have too many social studies articles? It doesn't really make sense to do that.

For sure you can't determine a political bias by counting 'hot button' phrases...after all if every occurrence of the words "economic growth" were followed by phrases like "...is not important to the future of America"...then you'd have a very different kind of bias than if they were followed by "...is much more important than dealing with global warming". So that's clearly a bullshit metric.

I think our OP's idea of "power" and "influence" are broken. The 'levels' of the Wikipedia heirarchy (editor, admin, bureaucrat, ArbCom member, board member, Jimmy) are not layers of control. If you obey the guidelines, rules and core principles of Wikipedia, then (as a mere editor) you have exactly as much freedom to say and do what you like as any other person here. Admins and Bureaucrats aren't "influencers" - they don't have anything whatever to do with content. As a mere editor, I frequently discuss content with admins and such - and in no case that I can recall did any of them every use their power for anything other than enforcing the policies that mere editors have agreed upon. If anything, an admin is a servant of the general membership - someone who evaluates evidence of evil-doing and applies whatever sanctions the general membership has agreed upon. Admins don't have "power" - they have "responsibilities". Once in a while they come to believe that they have power over editors and/or content - and are generally relieved of their adminship in short order.

There is, I believe, a certain sense of 'meritocracy' here - where people who do good work get a degree of respect. But it's a tenuous thing and definitely not something you can rely upon. A well thought-out, carefully phrased statement can easily turn a debate, whether the person who offers that argument is "a Most Pluperfect Labutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, and Bookmark"...or a complete newbie. Our rules about "consensus" specifically say that a numerical advantage doesn't trump a set of good arguments....that fact does indeed confer a degree of power to some editors, but it's distributed on the basis of case-by-case thoughtfulness and intelligence - not some kind of institutionalized rank, or of the badge one wears as an Admin or Bureaucrat.

For sure we have our biasses though. Undoubtedly, the English language Wikipedia is utterly dominated by American editors - and very frequently they forget that we're writing for an international audience. This is unfortunate - but it's only going to be counteracted by people from other English-speaking countries getting in here and fixing it. It's not a deliberate thing - it's just human nature.

Some of the most vociferous accusations of bias come from people who's views are in contradiction with mainstream science. Check out the talk page for something like Homeopathy and you'll find immense arguments from people who believe that Homeopathy really works and regard our statement that it's complete hogwash to be "biassed". The unfortunate thing for them is that we have rules about neutrality that impose a strong leaning towards what mainstream science says. If scientific papers, peer reviewed and in mainstream journals say that it's hogwash...then that's pretty much what we're going to say. Sure, we could appease the Homeopathy crowd by putting in their screeds of writings about the wonders of homeopathy - but then this wouldn't be Wikipedia. Our rules are (in part) what makes us the 5th most popular website in the world. There are plenty of other online encyclopedias that don't have such restrictions - and they hover around the 10,000th most popular level.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Vietnamese supercentenarian still alive?[edit]

I read an article about Vietnamese supercentenarian Sai Vu who lives in Arlington and was reported to be 110 years old in 2013. Since that I haven't found report about her 111th birthday so I ask is she passed away and if she is then when? 62.72.228.251 (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's not on the Gerontology Research Group's list of verified living supercentenarians or those who died in 2013 or 2014.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple IDs[edit]

Read a ghost sign[edit]

Can someone try to read the lower ghost sign in File:City Laundromat, BF, southern side ghost sign.jpg? The upper one reads "Craighead Grocery", but I'm not sure on the lower one. It may say "Royal" something, and I'm hoping it's some well-known regional or national brand. The location's in western Pennsylvania, USA; I don't know the date of the sign or the building. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 'Royal Blue' to me - possibly a trademark? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes it seems like Royal Blue. Perhaps in reference to Royal Blue (train), the geography more or less works. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Craighead Grocery" is the whole of the top sign; it look as if there's another character after the D. I first thought it might be "Craighead's", but the best preserved part is the bottom of the letter and it doesn't look the bottom of an S. I wonder if it's an ampersand and we're seeing "Craighead &", and the sign formerly continued onto the next section of wall. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Royal Blue', I think there may be more to it than the railroad - there seem to be a lot of links between the colour 'royal blue' and the state [2] - I think the background to the state flag may itself be royal blue, though I can't find an authoritative source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Blue" was a Colt trademark for gun bluing - much more likely to be sold in a small tow store than anything about a train. Collect (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since we're nowhere near the Royal Blue's route: if you take the Pennsylvania Turnpike, you've got a 340 mile drive from here to Philadelphia, while train service here was the P&LE. I hope soon to be able to consult city directories and Sanborns for this building, but I've not yet had the opportunity. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Royal Blue Café Cheese, (whatever "café cheese" is) and Selz Royal Blue Shoes. I found quite a few mural advertisements for Selz shoes; see this, this, this and this for example. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Car models[edit]

What models are the cars in File:City Laundromat, BF, southwestern angle distant.jpg and File:City Laundromat, BF, northeast distant.jpg? "Southwestern" left is a Chevrolet (Malibu? I'm not sure on the inscription), and right I don't know. "Northeast" left is an Oldsmobile (I can't read the inscription), and right is some sort of Chevrolet. I'm trying to identify these for the purposes of Commons categorisation, so if possible please suggest the Commons categories where these should go. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First pic shows a Chevrolet Malibu and a Pontiac Aztek. The cars in the 2nd pic seem to be an Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and a Chevrolet Cavalier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfmarenostrum (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond ore v. kimberlite[edit]

After a lot of Googling I still can't figure out if these two terms are synonymous or if diamonds come from diamond ore which comes out of kimberlite. Does anyone know if there is a distinction?

Muzzleflash (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't have been a helluva lot of Googling, really, could it? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and we have an article on Kimberlite, too, but I think the problem is that there is no such thing as "diamond ore" in the sense that "ore" is used of many metals. Other rocks that often contain diamonds are lamproite types. Dbfirs 21:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't clear about the relationship between kimberlite and diamond ore. The terms kimberlite and diamond ore do not appear in the same paragraph. Muzzleflash (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses the words "diamond ore" to mean just "rock that might contain diamonds". How could we improve the wording? Dbfirs 23:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberlites (and lamproites) are igneous rocks that do not contain diamonds as part of their primary mineralogy and many do not contain any. Diamonds may be entrained by the magma as xenocrysts, as it moves upwards through the lower part of the lithosphere, which is in the stability field for diamond (i.e. at high enough pressure >150 km depth). This explains why diamonds are much older than the rocks in which they are found - see e.g. this review. A kimberlite only becomes a 'diamond ore' if it contains diamonds and they are sufficient in number to be economic to mine. Mikenorton (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]