Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 November 3

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.

November 3

Incorrect information on Telaga Caste page

This is incorrect - In 2002, K. Srinivasulu describes Telaga as a "backward peasant caste".[7] Correction - Telaga caste was never categorized under Backward peasant caste after the formation of andhra pradesh state in 1956 though various efforts were made to include them under Backward category. So K. Srinivasulu is incorrect. Also , they are vaishnavites. What is there varna ? Are they kshatriyas/Kings/Warriors in olden times? Do we have any famous personalities ? What is the culture, food habits and occupations ? Do they carry caste title naidu or rao? Why are they compared to Reddy and Kamma naidu castes ? I guess both Telaga naidu and Kamma naidu fall under NAIDUS. Check out this link - http://naidumatrimony.com/ and click on Community drop down to see both Kamma and Telaga under one category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.38.244 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As previously advised here, please discuss at the article talk page. See also here. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect infromation

Hi the information on this story and how it evolved is incorrect. I edited it yesterday but it seems to have been returned to the story prior to that today. Can you please tell me how I can clarify how this story evolved and how it came to national prominence please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocooranator (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As noted here; Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL:

Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cocooranator: Ping --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I want to suggest a website as external links

Can I do that. I am not prmoting anything I just want to make people aware that they can learn spanish from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilinga (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bazilinga. The answer is, probably not. "Make people aware" is, actually, not one of the intended functions of Wikipedia. Please look at external links, and if you can think that the link you want to add meets one of the (rather restrictive) criteria, then you can add it. --ColinFine (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. There are several things that Wikipedia is NOT. Take a look at WP:NOT, and specifically at WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK to see what this means, and perhaps to find some good places on the web to put your links. -Arch dude (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this an Appropriate Article?

Hi, I am quite into my local history and was interested in creating an article on a song popular with the youth of the mid-20th century in my town. I am not sure if this is appropriate for an article, or even mentioning in a pre-existing article. If not, then is there another website similar to Wikipedia where this would be alright to post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tart Herb Hug (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Are their any publications (in press, for example) about that song? Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has specific definitions for Notability (WP:NOTABLE) and Verifiability (WP:V) based on Reliable sources (WP:RS). If your subject is notable and verifiable by our definitions and does not fall into any of the categories in "What Wikipedia is not" (WP:NOT), then it is worthy of an article. Please read those four policies. It's amazing what we think is worthy of an article. Even if it's not worthy of a standalone article, some things that are not notable but that are verifiable are still worth mentioning in related articles. -Arch dude (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

expanding Wikipedia article "Mackinac College"

I have written an expanded Wikipedia article "Mackinac College" with the help of nearly 50 people over the last 3 years. I need your advice/help on how to upload this article so that it replaces the current article.

Wikipedia's "Mackinac College" article has existed since approx. 2006. On Jan 30, 2014 I contacted Wikipedia administrator Jref and asked whether the article could be divided into 3 articles: Mission Point (Mackinac Island), Mackinac College, and Mackinac Island (Humbard). On Jan 31 I discovered that three new short articles had been created. The following month I uploaded expanded Mission Point (Mackinac Island) and Mackinac College (Humbard) articles.

I began uploading an expanded Mackinac College article at that time (2014). However, I and others were repeatedly obstructed by someone named REDPENOFDOOM. After some time I decided to work on the new Mackinac College article finding all available references possible, and then to finally upload it.

My new expanded Mackinac College article is now almost complete (I still need to 'condense' identical references). What process should I use to upload my new article?. Should I simply delete and replace the existing text, or should I take some other approach? I have a list of what is wrong with the current article which I can post in TALK. Also, I can send you my expanded text if you would like (I've verified that it works in Sandbox).Karin D. E. Everett (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not usually a good idea to rewrite an article offline, and, if you replace the existing article, then you are throwing away the work of those who have contributed there. I haven't seen your new article, or read the old one, so I can't comment on the best procedure, but discussion on the talk page of the article would be most appropriate. In particular, you might like to check with TheRedPenOfDoom who has edited the old article. Do you have some connection with the subject of the article? Dbfirs 23:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am deeply familiar with Mackinac College, having lived there 5 years, graduated from the college (1970), having hundreds of friends who were staff, faculty, and students from the college. The 50 people who I refer to are among those. Having attended MC Reunions, and at the most recent Reunion having the draft of my expanded article greeted with enthusiastic approval and gratitude. TheRedPenOfDoom only added false information with incorrect references; then deleted correct information; then added false information; then deleted correct information. This WAS discussed in TALK (see the now-old existing TALK).Karin D. E. Everett (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that you did try to discuss changes in the past. The problem seems to be that Wikipedia reports what is already published in WP:Reliable sources, not what people "know to be true". (I've had the same problem, so I have some sympathy.) I can't see your new version, so I can't judge whether it does or does not report what reliable independent sources say. We certainly don't want false information in Wikipedia, but if the information has been widely reported then we tend to record the fact that it has been reported, and balance this with references saying otherwise. Dbfirs 08:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Some unpleasant accusations here about the editing of TRPOD, who isn't very active at the moment. To suggest that he "only added false information with incorrect reference" is frankly just tosh, and an experienced editor making such comments would be roundly criticised, and deservedly sanctioned. Be warned that such accusations without pretty solid evidence are considered to be unnacceptable here. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Would seeing our new version of the Mackinac College article be helpful? I am happy to make it available for evaluation. If such an approach is appropriate, how would I do that? I can also provide a factual analysis of referencing problems in the existing content.

Clearly I am attempting to take a fully honest approach to uploading our new material. Please note Nasa-verve's description of my initial attempt to update the site: "Re-add material from User:Karin D. E. Everett. I looked through her sources User:TheRedPenOfDoom and they are very reliable and I am familiar with many of them."Karin D. E. Everett (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If you believe that the current article needs correcting or updating, you should try to get this done while respecting Wikipedia's guidelines (particularly WP:COI), by discussing the issues on its talk page. I have several times seen someone take the alternative approach "I don't like that article, so I'll create a new and better version, and then get the old one suppressed." I have never seen it succeed. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)