Help desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 28 >

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 27

Pseudo headlines, semicolons and subheaders

I am a little confused. I was told not to use semi-colons due to the fact it can hinder accessibility for some users. I mainly do this under "Personnel" on album pages if they have different parts like "Production" or "Design". I am being told it should instead be a subheader, example: Joanne [see Personnel]. To me this is really excessive and gaudy. It says in WP: GOODHEAD bolding the subheader is still alright and less of a hindrance. Needing clarification and thank you for your help. --Jennica✿ ^Talk 03:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jennica, WP:GOODHEAD mentions clearly: "Do not make pseudo-headings using semicolon markup and try to avoid using bold markup." You should only use subheads. The only case where you should not use subheads and instead use the bold style is when the size of the table of contents is very big and you may wish to reduce the number of items it shows - and even then, the bold style should be used only if you are not able to use the {{TOC limit}} template within the article. In essence, don't use the bold style unless the TOC has become too big and you're not able to use the {{TOC limit}}. Thanks. Lourdes 07:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semicolons are also not valid in lists. There are only two acceptable list formats: bullets "*" used for unordered lists, and numbers "#" for lists where the sequence is significant. Other methods are invalid per WP:ACCESSIBILITY because screen readers cannot parse them properly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Transgender Articles

Resolved

1. In the Fallon Fox article, I added a reference saying she is the first open African American transgender mixed martial artist. Could someone fix that? I sort of messed up. Here's the reference: http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/women-up-black-women-rising-in-sports-photos-987#axzz4OGEWYZ00

@Swancat: Hi! I fixed it for you. It might be easier next time to just use the "cite web" button. :) --Jennica✿ ^Talk 07:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. In the Laverne Cox article shouldn't there be a year of birth? I keep seeing either 1972 or 1984 pop up. Which is the right year? Swancat (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swancat: Check the Laverne Cox talk page. There is no credible source on her birth date apparently--Jennica✿ ^Talk 07:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the Infobox?

I can't find it anywhere, but I thought Wikipedia had come to the conclusion that listing Religion in an Infobox would no longer occur, unless it was specifically notable? Yet, I see that it has popped back up again – for example, the Barack Obama page has Protestantism listed (I checked his page because I'd think it would serve as a model for other articles, given the amount of attention it receives). The reason I checked is because I saw that several Biography pages have their religions listed. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgebattle See WP:EGRS -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation at Template:Infobox person this RfC mandates that it should only be used if it is significant to the subject. Even so, the parameter should not be used for something like "Protestantism", because there is a separate parameter for denominations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion does seem specifically notable for Barack Obama. It's a major issue to many American voters, we have a section Barack Obama#Religious views and whole articles related to it: Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, Jeremiah Wright controversy. And he often refers publicly to his religion - maybe not by US Republican standards but we don't conceal his religion just because others flaunt theirs even more. PrimeHunter (talk)

@Finnusertop: Yea, I tried the Denomination parameter, and it didn't seem to work. Instead, I changed "Protestantism" in his infobox to "Christianity (Protestantism)". Some person reverted it, claiming redundancy. I reverted back, specifically because Protestantism is a schism, not a religion, and "Christianity (Protestantism)" lists the Religion + Schism. Someone reverted that again, suggesting the need to "be specific" (as if simply saying "Protestantism" were more specific than "Christianity (Protestantism)"???). Yea okay, well I don't want 3RR, and he said "be specific", so I got his specific Denominational identification (which is actually "Nondenominational"), and included the source. I don't frickin get the whole "denomination" thing – even when I was Christian, when people asked what religion I was, I just said "Christian". And when people asked "which denomination?", my response was always "nondenominational". Why the heck would Christians want to identify between schisms (Catholic/Protestant) or further divisions (denominations)? I've never understood that. Same thing with Muslims (Sunni/Shia). It's like, just frickin unify and recognize each other as believers of the same religion. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 17:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: I just assumed that the only people for whom religion would be specifically noted were religious advocates (pastors, imams, religious authors, and religious filmmakers, etc). ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 17:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protestantism is a denomination of Christianity, as you apparently are very well aware, just as all other religions have their denominations. And my personal opinion (which, BTW, is just as irrelevant here as yours is) is that the so-called "non-denominational" churches are just another denomination, pretending to be above and beyond the system of denominations. I've heard the same kind of thing being said by Catholic Christians, by Pentecostal Christians, etc., who all felt that THEIR denomination is no denomination but the only true Christian faith above all petty denominationalism.

Please also make sure you get the definition of the term "schism" right. A schism is an incident, not a denomination. You can call the splitting up of churches into different denominations a schism, but you can't call the churches themselves a schism.

As far as Mr. Obama is concerned, his religious affiliation certainly is of utmost importance, considering the rumors spread by some of his opponents that he wasn't born in the USA, that he is a Muslim, and whatever else they may happen to come up with. --Josy (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the premise of your latter point. We would not add "species: homo sapiens sapiens" to Hillary Clinton just because a few crackpots genuinely believe she is a reptilian, so rumors spread out of political interest are no base for an infobox entry. (Though, as PrimeHunter mentions, in Obama's case there are other and good reasons to mention religion) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan, "...just because a few crackpots genuinely believe she is a reptilian."

. Lourdes 16:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I see your point.

There might be other considerations too. Like: If he were a muslim (note that I am not saying he is, or that I endorse those conspiracy theories), well - so what? It doesn't reflect on his abilities as a president. So why emphasize that he is no muslim just to satisfy those conspiracy theorists who will believe whatever nonsense they wish anyway? --Josy (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locking an article

Is it possible to have an article about the organisation for which I work "locked" so no-one but ourselves can edit it? Someone keeps adding inaccurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAhlSHADH (talk • contribs) 11:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not - nobody OWNs any article. It is not "your" page, it is Wikipedia's page about your organization, and the last people who should decide what is, or is not, in an article are those with a conflict of interest, like you have, who, in most circumstances, should not be editing the article at all.
If the article is genuinely being vandalized, then the editor can be warned, and eventually blocked, or the page semi-protected; however, provided they are adding information with citations to reliable sources, so the information can be verifiable it should remain. The article must present a neutral point of view even if, or perhaps especially if, what is being added is information that the organization does not want included. - Arjayay (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, WAhlSHADH, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody, or any organisation, says or wants to say about themselves. It is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have published about that subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name incorrectly quoted

Hi there

For Time Team episode 109 - Whitestaunton Manor my name has been quoted incorrectly. It should be Freya Bowles (not Bold) thank you. Please could you change this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Team_(series_11)

Best regards Freya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.228.196 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Though, as this is a wiki you could have done it yourself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please change our location

we have the Museum of Miniatures and are now located in Nanton, Alberta. you have us located in Cardston, Alberta. we moved to nanton about 8 years ago. could you please change our address in your article. thanks, carol wittman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.193.218 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello. the page is purely promotional and seems to have been primarily made by someone associated with your organization. Instead of requesting an administrator to delete it, I have redirected it to Denver Museum of Miniatures, Dolls and Toys for now. Lourdes 16:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an independent third party ref. Yet the OP appears correct. About Carol and Roy – Museum of Miniatures P.S. Denvour is not in Canada (well -not last time I looked). --Aspro (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Denver redirect (wrong country) . Anyway, coming back to user: Lourdes's point. The entry is not - as it stands- an encyclopedic article as yet and therefore should be deleted. This doesn't mean that a new article can't be created to replace it, if it follows WP guidelines. The OP might like to read: Wikipedia:Your_first_article in order to prevent its deletion. --Aspro (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP is referring to List of museums in Alberta which, until I changed it about a minute ago, stated the Museum was in Cardston - Arjayay (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro, our CSD policy mentions, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be...redirected elsewhere" I have redirected the article to the page Arjayay refers to. Given the absolutely promotional nature of the said article, please don't revert to that page again. Lourdes 17:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes You directed to a completely different org. thousands of miles away and in a different country. If you redirect an article then please get at least one of the 3 right, otherwise it leaves a messy and confused trail for other editors to follow. I didn't notice either, you placing a welcome on a newbies page- to give guidance. So please don't redirect in future without doing the most basic of checks and welcoming a newbie.--Aspro (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Aspro. I generally don't place welcome messages on IPs leaving their requests for help here, as I try and support their queries here quite comprehensively. Thanks for leaving a note on the IP's talk page, but given that the IP has a clear COI with the article, I think that your encouraging the IP to recreate the article might not be appropriate, unless you inform the IP of our COI guidelines. Please do do that. Finally, the term Museum of Miniatures is quite a generic term and can't possibly be termed as belonging to a country, especially when there's not even one reliable source that supports the contention. I do believe that you made a mistake by reverting a redirect to a blatantly promotional version (which goes against the tenets of Wikipedia). I do reiterate, and please take it in the right context, that the next time, you might consider correcting the redirect to an appropriate page, or suggesting such a target to editors like me, who believe in working with other editors like you productively, than such reverts. Please do ping me on my talk page if you need any further assistance or support. Thanks. Lourdes 18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a page contains blatantly promotional text, it is more often that not a copyright violation, as this was.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to find article

I put an article on Wikipedia and it was rejected. Too much about myself. How do I find the article,and how can I edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Burgio (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To find articles which you have edited, click on the "Contributions" list at the top of any page. This will take you to Special:Contributions/Michael Burgio. You need to read the advice which you were given, both on the draft and on your user talk page, & follow the wikilinks provided. It particular you need to read WP:Autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors

I believe that some editors wrongly accused me of uncounstructive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vroy0001 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vroy0001. You have not just been told of unconstructive edits, but also warned about possible vandalism and of an imminent block for attempting edits that seem promotional. My personal opinion is that none of your edits was vandalism or blatantly promotional, even including the one where you have been warned by a vandalism reverting bot. It is quite possible that due to the newness of your account and due to the fact that you did not use any reliable sources to support your additions, some of your edits may have been seen in a negative context. Why don't you go through the following pages and then attempt to edit?:

If you need further help, write back here again. Lourdes 01:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving noticeboard topic

Regardless the outcome, might a few editorial eyes just take a quick look at this topic here: Simple inclusion of a notable recurring character? For all the work done, a single editor is requiring a consensus for inclusion, and there has been no response thus far - worried the discussion will be archived. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Maineartists (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised there has been no response – I have made several attempts to understand the discussion you link to, without success. I have no wish to jump into a fight while I don't know what it's about. (And how does one "promptly ignore" something?) Maproom (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I appreciate that. Actually, there isn't a fight. An editor who is very close to The Jeffersons page is requiring a consensus for an inclusion of the character "Charlie the Bartender" at the same level as Jay Hammer "Allan Willis" and Ned Wertimer "Ralph the Doorman": ... recurring 11 seasons in the main cast infobox under Wertimer, mentioned in the article, and listed in the infobox alongside Wertimer and Hammer. That's all. You suggested expansion for notability of the Wells article - which I did - to bring it up to an equal level with the other two. My claims on the Noticeboard were to prove equality of importance within the series that also allowed inclusion for the other but not Wells. The only goal is to gain consensus for the editor so that when someone tries to include Wells, it will not be rv'd again. That's all. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what went wrong. The link you gave has "2016-10-22-07-35-a1" appended to it, and took me to the bottom of the page, where I read a far less coherent discussion, about Malleus Maleficarum. Maproom (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]