Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 January 1

= January 1 =

Location map error
The article Perley Bridge is in the hidden maintenance category Category:Location maps with possible errors. If I look at the category page, it says "This category contains location maps that appear to contain some type of error, but are still able to render successfully. The sort key will contain the type of error that was detected." Where do I find the sort key containing the error message.

It also seems that the TOC for the category is messed-up. MB 02:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a challenge! After poking around in the behind-the-scenes code, I've expanded the description on the category page. The idea is that all the articles under the "M" heading have one kind of error, all those under the "N" heading have a different error, and so on. Perley Bridge was under the "M" heading; I've managed to fix the error by editing Module:Location map/data/Canada. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added some text to the heading of Category:Location maps with possible errors to explain the sort codes. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I now see that John had been changing the category description while I was adding my text separately, so I've merged my change into his. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It looks like the "M" errors have been reduced from around 1200 to a couple of dozen with your one change to that Module. I'm not sure what is behind these last ones.  The 800 "O" errors seem to be problems in the source articles that have to be fixed one by one.  I've done a couple so far.  I think the "D" problems will be fixed with the bot changes to use the Coord template.  That category was very confusing.  It would have been much better if all the errors were separate sub-categories like "D". MB 04:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That one edit cleared several hundred, and I've made a few similar edits to other maps. Yes, since the single category was too big to be displayed on one page, separate smaller categories would have been better. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

why is there no Wikipedia: #Edit2016
i myself look forward to the year in edit you do why did you side not do one for 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.0.47 (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You apparently refer to a 2016 version of the video commons:File:Wikipedia Edit 2015.webm, mentioned at Wikipedia Signpost/2015-12-16/In the media. There was also a 2014 version commons:File:Wikipedia Edit 2014.webm. Both were made by VGrigas (WMF). User:VGrigas (WMF)/Edit2016 says he had other projects and not enough time. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Mistake made on article;
I don't really know where to put this, but the article that states: 1959 – Cuban President Fulgencio Batista fled to the Dominican Republic as forces under Fidel Castro took control of Havana, marking the end of the Cuban Revolution. there's a mistake, Fidel Castro ended fulgencio Batista's dictatorship on the island, not the "end of the Cuban revolucion". It was the "Cuban revolution" that ousted Batista. Thanks.

Alex.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohibabros27 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This is about the Main page, which cites Cuban Revolution, correctly I believe. The Cuban revolution, which overthrew Batista, did indeed end when Batista fled, leaving Fidel Castro in power. Maproom (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit dispute re: Carrie Fisher & Sarah Lawrence College
Revert of my edit

Please see the article's talk page. I think my deletion was correct and appropriate; what do I do now other than just delete it again? Thanks in advance. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Without getting into the issue (I haven't even looked at your edit), I can say that deleting it again is never the answer to an edit dispute. According to our policies on dispute resolution, the next stage is to discuss it on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach concensus with the other parties, that policy tells you what are the next steps to follow. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

William Christopher passed away on December 31,2016
You forgot to add his death on the list of people that passed away in 2016 He starred in M*A*S*H along with Alan Alda Henry Morgan Lorretta Swit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlychips55 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . No, I didn't forget: I didn't know anything about it ;-). But added the information to Deaths in December 2016 nearly 15 hours ago: are you seeing this missing somewhere else? In future, if you see missing information in a Wikipedia article, you are welcome to add it yourself, preferably with a reliable published source. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably they were referring to the In The News section of the front page, where this has just been added. Sam Walton (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help understanding the comments editors are providing
I posted an article in my Sandbox and the comment says "it reads like an advertisement,' though they don't cite anything specific. And that I posted inappropriate external links. Can someone tell me exactly what part reads like an advertisement? I am trying to state the circumstances as best as I can based on the articles I've read about the company, and the only external link I had was the company's official website, which I've since removed. Although I am confused as other companies in the same industry have their official websites listed in external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptorsquad (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The tag concerned was added by you in . --David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Language like "how a local company failed to deliver, and a young group of locals were in the right place at the right time. The start of the company's activities in India -- according to him -- were both accidental and serendipitous in nature." has no place in an encyclopedia. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

How long it takes for Google indexing
I wrote an article " Madhu Singhal". How long will it take to get the Google indexing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudipa Biswas (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You article is one of over 14 thousand in the queue at Special:NewPagesFeed awaiting review at New page patrol, which is now a requirement for the page to be indexed by Google. You oughtn't to have to wait more than three and a half months, and if you are lucky it might be sooner.  I see that Madhu Singhal has problems with referencing.  Two references haven't been defined, a third is a reference to Wikipedia, which is forbidden by WP:CIRCULAR, and the fourth is a bare url leading to a page on the website of the organisation which the subject founded, so there are no independent published reliable sources.  This would be grounds for a reviewer to propose deletion of the page.  Additionally the page is malformatted by including reference tags in section headings, contravening WP:Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What to do when no consensus is achieved?
I am wondering about a WP policy compliant and constructive way to handle a situation where it has not been possible to reach a consensus.

I have removed some aspects in an article which in my opinion were either off topic, violated WP:BIO or where misinterpretations of sources (WP:SYNTH). After the original author reverted my changes I went to the talk page and we engaged in an endless tit for tat without convincing each other. After that I started a RFC process to get other opinions. Regarding the crucial aspects (the WP:BIO violation and the WP:SYNTH) the two people who participated in the RFC agreed with my objections (in my eyes). The other editor, however, still does not agree and prevents me from removing the contested contents with the argument that I would need to reach consensus first for removing it. As I call for removing the content and the other editor calls for keeping the (in my eyes misleading) content there seems to be no option for an alternative wording or similar as a consensus.

I know that wikipedia is no democracy and it is clear to me that there may be different opinions than mine on what exactly is "off topic" and what exactly constitutes a good "encyclopedic" article (with no off topic stuff) but the general question bothers me as I see this strategy to boldy revert any edits by other editors and then repeat the same argument again and again in the discussion to prevent a consensus as quiet an effective way to keep questionable content in an article. Especially in an article which is seldomly frequented (there are only 2-3 active editors on the talk page).

How to proceed here constructively? With regards to the "only" off topic stuff I could also just leave it as is and move elsewhere but the WP:SYNTH stuff in my eyes leaves something wrong in the article if I would just leave it know as it is (which seems to be the suggestion of WP:CONSENSUS).

For reference and demonstration (not for WP:CANVASSING!), the article I am referring to is Murder of Maria Ladenburger. Thanks, LucLeTruc (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What I would generally suggest is to follow the steps listed out at wp:dispute resolution. The Rfc that you started is not worded well and would have given ambiguous responses. Apart from that, after reading the arguments on the page, my view is that there are experienced editors giving their opinions and not agreeing with you. Yes, some do agree with you on some points, but the concept of consensus is not to keep sparring till you get your way on what you think is right. I'm not commenting on whether your viewpoint is actually right or wrong; just that, if things aren't moving your way, Wikipedia is a big place and you can edit many more articles than get stuck on one article. Hope this helps. Lourdes  08:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. You are right, most of the arguments on the talk page between me and Gerry1214 and Xavieritzm boil down to the question about what is considered to be included in an encyclopedic article and what not and I do not want to claim that my opinion is the only right one there. I can live with just going elsewhere in the not so "serious" cases (i.e. with questions whether something is important for an article or "tabloid" reporting of irrelevant stuff). My question, however, is more general: I have experienced in several cases and with different editors that the strategy (at least that is how I percieve it), to always revert contested edits back to your own version and engage in endless discussions during which you fight for your version to stay in the article with the argument that there is no consensus for changing it is really successful in keeping your preferred version of contested formulation. At least if the other editor losses energy to keep on discussing. Mostly the question boils down to this: If there is no consensus for a certain information in an article after a long discussion, does the contested content stay in the article or is it to be removed? And in which state should the article stay during the discussion? Is there a clear guideline for this? Happy new year, LucLeTruc (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Slightly off topic: How would you have phrased the RFC to be more clear? Thanks, LucLeTruc (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is probably better discussed on the Talk page of Talk:WP:Consenus. I started a thread there. LucLeTruc (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again Luc. Thanks for the new year wishes. Año nuevo to you too. There is no clear guideline, except talk page discussions, for which content should stay (and which not) while discussions are on. Admins may sometimes fully protect the article, in case editing disputes get out of hand; and the version they choose might be right for one editor and wrong for another. Our disruptive editing and 3RR procedures control, to some extent, the possibilities of an edit war if the discussions and the reverts get a bit off. I would have phrased the Rfc one question at a time (in the sense, separate Rfcs for each question). Hope this helps. Lourdes  15:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)