Help desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 29 >

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 28

Incomplete list of metro systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

On the above url, San Francisco, United States should have two headings. They got the one: BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit). They forgot the other: the "MUNI" SF's main subway, bus and tram municipal authority. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.247.192 (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at Talk:List of metro systems. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an article to be written on Tom van der Loo

Hello, I'm looking for a full page on Tom van der Loo who founded is own software company 'Holland Automation International' in the 1980's in The Netherlands, which grew internationally and made a big impact on the software world in that period. I'm doing a paper on this subject and have found many different articles on him in Dutch and English but not 1 page which compiles everything. Including when he sold HAI (holland automation international) and founded SEagull Software and was in the board. and what the companies there did.

I can provide the links to the articles that already exist, but I'm not a good writer and don't want to make mistakes on a Wikipedia page, so my question is: Is is it possible to ask someone else to write the article on Mister Tom van der Loo?

I've also found one old schoolbook with a 5 page interview with him, but can't find it on the internet, and also found an article in the Dutch magazine 'Quote' about him being one of the largest private ship owners in The Netherlands, but it's an old article.

Can anyone help me research and compile a well written wikipedia page?

Here are some links:

84.101.225.210 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place to ask this is at Wikipedia:Requested Articles Rojomoke (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page out of date

Wikipedia page on me is either a spoof or woefully outdated by 10 years, and my central scholarly interests are mis- or under-represented. You just have to google my name to see what areas I work in and things I publish. This is so embarrassing as you now give a short description of me in google search on right hand side. Why don't you display this as my OBITUARY? Either you delete Wikipedia entry on me or do something about getting it corrected. I have no interest in parading myself, but misinformation is as bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.180.4 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to assist you with this, but without knowing which of our 4 million articles you are talking about it is hard to do anything. GB fan 15:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Purushottama Bilimoria, as that's the only other article edited by this IP. However, the geolocation to California suggests otherwise. Rojomoke (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation is bad, but this site is maintained by volunteers, and issuing orders (Either you delete Wikipedia entry on me or do something about getting it corrected) isn't the best way to get volunteers to do something.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, Purushottama Bilimoria is a Visiting Professor at University of California - so I guess it could be him. Maproom (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discouraged ...

I am new to Wikipedia. I have attempted to write my first article. It was approved after long and detailed corrections ~ mainly with the help from several experienced reviewers and contributors ~ to whom I am grateful. However, since the article has been approved, I find that there is a large popularity of reviewers out there that seem to dominate their time with finding what's wrong with an article and placing it on disclaimer probation. I find this disheartening ~ many tell you what's wrong and walk away, without giving much aid or help in rectifying the problems they say were reasons for deletion. To the unexperienced reader using Wikipedia, seeing this disclaimer at the very beginning can be off-putting at best. It seems to discredit an otherwise truthful and factual article. Even though other reviewers (who added in its creation) have all approved of its tone and content. I want to write more articles, in the same fashion and field, but I am so discouraged with the reception from reviewers on Wikipedia that I wonder: is it worth my time and effort? everyone has an opinion, and they all say they are doing what they are doing for the good of the system ... using rules and regulations to backup what they feel is correct and good. (sigh) ... can't we just all get along? Thank you for your help in advance. Here is the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Robinson_%28composer%29 PS if you find something wrong, please don't place it up for deletion ... please work with me to fix it. I know that by bringing attention to my article, I am asking for more trouble, but I truly believe in the good of this system. Sincerely Impromp2Music (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article - the biggest problem I found was the "Further reading" lists which simply repeated the References list so I removed them. Most of the "problem tags" were imho unjustified so I took them out too. The only "major" issue remaining is the "External links" list is excessive - the IMDB links should go - IMDB is user edited so not reliable. Only the most important directly relevant websites should be in such a list - try to limit it to a maximum of 3 or 4 links. Roger (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to touch bases here. The Aaron Robinson (composer) article has not been placed on probation. Various issues with the article have simply been identified. Nobody has placed it for deletion. Impromp2Music, you've been offered quite a bit of help by other editors, but unfortunately, the help was offered by new and inexperienced editors. My apologies there. As stated before, it is important for you to review the guidelines yourself, rather than requesting that others simply do the work for you. Dodger67, please refrain from removing maintenance templates without addressing and fixing the issues identified. If you have a question with the issue, simply contact the editor for clarification. Note also that while IMDb may not be used to establish notability, the site is perfectly permissible as an external link. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The article you started isn't "on probation" (there is a concept of article probation here, but it refers to something different.) Anybody, you included, may apply a tag to any article, and anybody can query it if they feel it is unjustified or remove it once the issue has been properly resolved. Moving tagging to the talk page is unlikely to attract much support. Wikipedia articles vary hugely in quality; tags alert users to issues that should be taken into account when reading them, and would not be seen if they were on the talk page.

Please remember that this article isn't "yours", and try not to take tags personally. Nobody is obliged to fix problems rather than simply pointing them out, although fixing them is regarded as good practice. The best way to banish a tag is either to discuss it with the tagging editor and reach consensus that it can be removed, or to fix the problem it highlights.

Getting a draft to mainspace via the optional review process is an achievement, but mainspace is the beginning of the development process for that article, not the end. Starting articles and getting them to stick is actually really hard, particularly for new users, which is why the review process exists and can seem so arduous. Improving existing articles can be a good way of becoming more familiar with policy and procedure as you learn your way around here and develop your editing skills. Good luck and happy editing. - Ka renjc 17:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifications. I am puzzled as to why two very important references were removed from the article? Whoever went in and completely reconstructed the article seems to have made it less credible now than when it was first approved. The very publication "New Grove" book on composers was the reference for many of what is now being asked for citations: where he was born, who he studied with, performed on and off Broadway (which is odd that a citation is needed, when in the very next sentence, it states that he conducted, orchestrated and arranged the Broadway show "Islands" ... a reliable source that was referenced in the book "John Wulp" a biography about Broadway Producer John Wulp ... but was for some reason, removed) ... Mr. Robinson is not known for writing the book "Does God Sing" ... he is not an author first. This was not in the original article. The subject heading is: Aaron Robinson (composer). He is a composer ... these are not corrections by whoever went in and so quickly re-wrote this article. To state Mr Robinson is known for writing a book, and is "additionally known" for other things is untrue. Whoever wrote that is mistaken. It is wrong. If they had referenced the two publications that were previous included, they would have known this. The book was just released in 2012 but Mr Robinson has been a conductor and composer for 25 years. The reason the book was written, documenting his life in music. At some point, readers must trust an article's creator who has done their research and placed true facts within an article that is referenced in other sources. Now however, the reader has no reference points. The reviewer who went in and deleted so many things and changed so many facts, has actually made this subject less notable. To have removed the New Grove book on composers is detrimental to this article. It proves and backs so many statements. To ask: "by whom?" regarding the organist comment, one must also go back in and question "by whom" when a statement such as: "He is known for writing the book ..." (citation is needed for this statement) ~ furthermore, why is "disambiguation" needed for conductor? when the book states clearly that he is a composer and conductor ... his recordings listed support "recording artist" and of course "author" for the book he wrote. Who went in and made these changes? ... and why? Why so hastily? It took me weeks upon weeks to construct this ... and in mere minutes, someone went in and changed the entire notability of this subject. I just went in and saw that the statement "and can be seen in the PBS documentary On This Island.[2][3]" is referenced by the book "John Wulp" ~ first, this run on sentence has nothing to do with the previous statement regarding early jazz and ragtime. It is a poorly constructed sentence ... and the reference is completely wrong. The book does not reference a reliable source for the PBS documentary ON THIS ISLAND. Who went in and did this? and why? I just can't understand it ... they completely made a mess of this article and now it is unreliable in so many ways. Why? I thank you for trying to clean-up what you thought was wrong to begin with, but in doing so, you've made this article incorrect and wrong. Impromp2Music (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Grove reference was removed from the lede sentence, since it only served to provide a citation for the fact that the subject is a composer. The lead section serves to summarize the article content and clearly state why the subject is significant and/or important. We then establish notability through the sources provided. The New Grove reference was not actually used to support any other content and when attempting to access the book for verification and possible usage for other content, it was inaccessible. If you can offer a full citation (including pages) for the requested sources using the book, please feel free to do so. The Wulp reference was there and used with the Wulp content within the article below. I have moved the citation back. You state above the the subject is not known for writing the book Does God Sing, but make this claim in the article. A bit puzzling. Did he actually not write the book? According to my search for a full citation, the claim was accurate. Is the subject not known for things other than writing a book? The request for disambiguation is due to the word conductor. Take a look at that link. We need to disambiguate the word. Keep in mind that not all readers use English as a primary language. The statement that the subject is "Considered to be one of the world's great orchestral organists" needs clarification. This lacks a neutral point of view. The statement that the subject is known for writing a book, is based on his published works, which is supported in the corresponding "Published works" section below. The statement "and can be seen in the PBS documentary On This Island.[2][3]" was cited as such in the lead section, because this is how you had it cited in the section below. I moved the statement to the lead section, because it helps to support notability. My bad. You ask why these changes were done so "hastily". I suppose it is due to the inaccurate (and unfortunate) guidance you have received by other less experienced and new editors than yourself. I certainly apologize that you have received mixed messages from the community. That said, I find it ironic that you would request article cleanup and assistance from so many editors in various different places, only to complain when a seasoned editor finally decides to help you by doing just that. Again, my bad. In all regards, while the article requires additional citations, as noted, it is now in compliance with the encyclopedia's guidelines. You're welcome. Cindy(talk to me) 21:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page. Your rationales for what should be in the article belong there, where you can try to reach consensus about its content with other editors working on it. The Help Desk can explain policies and explain practicalities, but it's not here to arbitrate on the content of articles. But I can address a couple of points not clarified yet.

At some point, readers must trust an article's creator ... No. All Wikipedia content must be independently verifiable; nothing can be taken on trust and references must be shown. And there is no "creator" of an article; there are only contributors and every article is forever a work in progress.
... less credible now than when it was first approved. The article hasn't been "approved"; only accepted as passing the threshold for inclusion. There is no implication that the content you wrote was definitive.
The reviewer who went in ... The article is no longer in any review process and no "reviewers" are editing it. Any user can now edit this article.
Who went in and made these changes? To see all edits to an article, click on the "view history" tab at top right. To contact the editor who made an edit, leave a message on their user talk page. - Ka renjc 21:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about music, but I had a look at that article. It began "Aaron Robinson (born December 11, 1970) is an American composer, conductor,^{[disambiguation needed]} ...". I removed the disambiguation tag - it's hardly likely that he is a composer and tram conductor. So I am inclined to think that some of the criticism of the article is unreasonable. Maproom (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Berry Lowrie

The picture you have alleged to be Henry Berry Lowrie is not he. It is my great-great-grandfather Quinn Godwin. Quinn's baby son, Uncle John Godwin, had that picture for close to 80 years. He loaned it to his nephew, Lonnie Revels, Jr., in the 1970s and Lonnie never gave it back. He used it in a brochure about Henry Berry, wrongly calling it Henry Berry. It is ironic that Henry Berry, an Indian, is falsely portrayed by a white man, even though the white man was married to two Indian women, Sally Hammans and Mary Sampson. Please correct this huge mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.87.214 (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have is that the picture's page commons:File:Henry Berry Lowrie.jpg says that it comes from "the biography page about him and his work by the city of Alexandria, VA.", and indeed this shows the picture and identifies it as Lowrie. This means that we have an apparently reliable source (a .gov website) that identifies it as Lowrie, and you, whom we know nothing about, identifying it as Godwin. I'm not trying to impugn your veracity, but as it stands a reader has no way of knowing if you are correct, or if you (g-g-grandchild of Godwin) even exist! Have you got some other published evidence - another photo of either Godwin or Lowrie for example? Otherwise I'm afraid that the criterion for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and the identification should stand. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox error

Can someone help me to fix this location template error in this article?

Zebrnjak

Dont know what needs to be done... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done The parameters were wrong - lat_min instead of latm, lon_min instead of longm, etc. See Template:Infobox monument. Apteva (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Apteva... I was looking at the wrong Infobox instructions... :( --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mischa Barton Movie Addition

28Oct12 Toronto, Canada

Hi! Everyone, I do not know how to add information to a site So maybe one of you can do it for me. Mischa Barton was in a movie called; 'Paranoid' with Jessica Alba. circa 2004. This movie is not listed in her works. She did a great job playing a 'deaf-mute'. Thanks! Regards, Richard C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.178.181 (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click the edit tab at the top of the page. Apteva (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that page is semi-protected, so the way to suggest changes is at the talk page, using the {{edit-semiprotected}} template. Apteva (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid is listed in the filmography at Mischa Barton#Filmography Apteva (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 October 28

Contents