Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 April 11

= April 11 =

Mis-information and classification
 -- 153tang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153tang (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP. --Majora (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Uploading new picture of logo for a company
Hi Wikipedia Help Desk,

I'm the Marketing/PR coordinator for Arc Productions - an animation studio in Toronto. We recently changed our logo and will be unveiling it to the studio and the public on Wednesday, April 13, 2016.

As a result, we'll also have to change the current logo we have on our Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_Productions

I have just signed up today to be a member of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I am not yet a "confirmed" member as 4 days have not passed and I have not made 10 edits on any Wikipedia articles. Seeing as our new logo will be unveiled in less than 4 days, is there another way that I can upload Arc Productions' new logo without being a fully "confirmed" member of Wikipedia? Please advise when you have a moment,

Thank you for your time, Best!

Lucas Ng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasjohnng (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You could post at Files for Upload with the necessary information. Or you could post a link to the new logo here, or on my talk page and I will see what I can do. --Majora (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any of those would be good, but whichever you do, request it after the new logo is released; so that the helper doesn't have to wait or worry about scooping you. —teb728 t c 04:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

rename request
Please rename Talk:Šarplaninac/Archive 7 to Talk:Šarplaninac/Archive 1. This appears to be the result of an incorrect call to the archiving bot. Thanks --76.14.40.2 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've moved the page, adjusted the counter on the base page, and requested deletion of the redirect page left at Talk:Šarplaninac/Archive 7 by the move.  Rwessel (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Asastikar sandbox, etc.
Hello Team,

Firstly, many thanks for your constant support and guidance.

I've had created an article in my sandbox few days ago, but am unable to make out, if it is under review for publishing or not.

Sharing link to the article...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asastikar/sandbox

Also, when I click my user name I come across the following message...

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

11:14, 6 April 2015 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Asastikar (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host)"

However, I am able to contribute to other wiki articles.

Please help me.

Thank you.

Asastikar 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asastikar (talk • contribs)


 * You have recently created/edited both User:Asastikar/sandbox and User talk:Asastikar/sandbox. Both pages still exist.  The former would be the normal location.  As to the deleted user page, it was deleted by admin, they would be best able to answer questions about what the specific problem was (since non-admins cannot see the deleted article), but the policy that was cited is: WP:NOTWEBHOST.  Rwessel (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have submitted your draft for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, this may take a while (over a week) as there is currently a backlog. Your userpage was deleted as an admin considered your use of it as a webhost: read WP:USERPAGE and feel free to recreate it following the guidelines found there. Your userpage being deleted doesn't affect your ability to contribute to Wikipedia generally, as you were not blocked. Finally, please sign your comments with ~, as this will automatically place your signature and a timestamp. Cheers — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 07:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Crh23 Many thanks for your assistance. Shall follow instructions. Asastikar 07:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asastikar (talk • contribs)


 * I've moved your sandbox draft into draft space for you (Draft:Wings_Hospitals, which is the preferred location for AfC submissions. I deleted the less developed version on the talk page. Talk pages are not for articles but for discussing how to improve the related article. Watch for feedback and good luck. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac That was very quick. Thank you much for guiding. I think I need to brush-up my knowledge in creating article/s here. I missed out on few important points, while creating this one. Asastikar 12:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asastikar (talk • contribs)

UFC 157
Hi. "UFC 157" should have its own article and not be a sub-article of "2013 in UFC." How do I make "UFC 157" a separate article? CaptRik responded to my question last time and I tried to contact him but he never responded. I do not know where he went. Please someone respond to this question and have a solution. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The answers to your two previous questions on this subject are at Help desk/Archives/2016 March 21 and at Help desk/Archives/2016 March 30. You will see that they both refer to Articles for deletion/UFC 157, which gives the reason that the previous version of  was deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What does it mean that the redirect is under page protection? Theepicwarrior (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the page was inappropriately recreated after the AFDs established that it should be only a redirect, an administrator has fully protected the page such that only administrators can edit it. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * How do I contact an administrator to edit the page? Theepicwarrior (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Put your edit request in a new section on the talk page and add   in that section (just after the new section header).  See template:edit fully-protected for additional information.  What page are we talking about?  UFC 157 does not appear to be protected.  Rwessel (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * have you tried editing it? It is protected (at least appears so to me), but lacks the protection template — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 10:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * is protected. The protection is the most recent entry in the page history.  Are you sure that you're not looking at the target of the redirect?  If Theepicwarrior is to make an edit request, he needs to explain what has changed since Articles for deletion/UFC 157 and the subsequent deletion review linked from it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why wasn't "UFC 157" originally created as a separate article? If it was, it would not be a problem. But since someone deleted it and put in under "2013 in UFC", it has become a problem and I have to fix it. Why would someone delete the original article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The (quite lengthy) deletion discussion is at Articles_for_deletion/UFC_157. Rwessel (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You obviously haven't read the answers which you were given to your two previous questions, and about which I reminded you in the first answer to your question in this section. You need to read now. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) So it is, my mistake, I must have bounced back to the target page without realizing it at some point, probably after looking at the talk page (where someone else has made the same error). And I notice that it was  who *had* placed a proper protected edit request on that page a couple of weeks ago, which was then rejected because of that error.  I have re-activated the edit request.  Rwessel (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Does that mean "UFC 157" can now have its own separate article instead of being a sub-article of "2013 in UFC"? Theepicwarrior (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no point asking questions if you don't read the replies. Read everything in this section, and the links in those replies. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi David. So I guess I cannot create a separate UFC 157 article. I read your comments and the deletion discussion. Why was the article deleted in the first place? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, read the deletion discussion. Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, one of the major issues raised in the old deletion discussion was that the criteria for notability for MMA was yet unclear. That seems better established now, but WP:MMAEVENT still seems to state that generally individual events are not normally notable, but it seems that very many (100+)  of the other "UFC nnn" event have their own articles despite that.  Rwessel (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Rwessel. Thank you for responding. So is there any way to reverse the deletion of UFC 157 and get it back as its own article? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Like David has already said, put an edit request on the talk page, and explain what changed since the deletion discussion (an d the subsequent deletion review). If you can get consensus that the old decision should be reversed, the protection will be removed.  Personally given the was things are happening in that genre of articles, I'd expect that wouldn't be too hard to achieve.  Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you saying it is highly probable that they will accept my request? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's a pretty good chance, as it appears that would be fairly in line with (my interpretation of) current practice. "Highly probable" is putting words in my mouth.  Rwessel (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for your help, Rwessel. Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

collaborating and posting a completed article
Hello, A group of us are working on an article. However, we are unsure how to coordinate the authorship. Individual editors are working on different parts of the article. Does one person start the article and then the others post their contributions to it? Is there a way to collaborate on a new article before it is submitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Yes, that is the normal way that Wikipedia articles get written: somebody starts one, and then others contribute to it. I suggest you all read your first article, and then one of you uses the Article wizard to create it in draft space. That way, it doesn't matter if the first version has almost nothing in it: you can develop it together and when you think it is ready, submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

 * This would appear to relate to Oye! English exclamation. The citation is really a non-reference, but I have fixed it anyway. However, the page is up for CSD and is likely to be deleted. Eagleash (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: now deleted. Eagleash (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages and Fraternity Secrets...
An example: For Gamma Gamma Gamma Fraternity, an addition to the page itself saying that the Greek Letters stand for or were chosen because they stand for Gibble Gobble Greva if that does not have a reliable source. However, what would be the appropriate action if this was posted to the talk page of the article? In general users should not alter other users postings to the talk page, but I'm not sure if there is another policy which would apply if this was placed on the talk page for the deliberate exposure of Fraternity secrets?Naraht (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is no legal issue, there is no reason to remove the comments from the talk page, they will be archived if the page gets too big. If there is a legal issue, the page history needs to be wiped of the offending material, and contact should be made with the WMF using the contact information on contact us. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 15:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Some Greek Letter Organizations haven't even needed to have the talk page archived once, and this solution would seem to give the solution for members of Gamma Gamma Gamma of simply shoving large amounts of text onto the talk page in order to get it off the main talk page. I'm not honestly sure how contacting the WMF would be useful in this regard, even if the Fraternity were willing to show the ritual book to the WMF, by definition, as something private to the organization, it would not be under copyright. Note, this example could similarly be the publishing of the LDS Temple Ceremony. As long as the information published is close to the subject of the page, I'm just not sure what policy would apply?Naraht (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, WP:NOTCENSORED includes "Wikipedia will not remove information or images concerning an organization merely because that organization's rules or traditions forbid display of such information online. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of the organization." Many talk pages, on many subjects, include unsourced claims, and unless these are libelous, these are almost always left - most Semi-protected edit requests are refused for lack of a WP:RS. If the information is true then there is no ground to remove it (from a talk page), even though it is unsourced, but how do we know if it is true or not? As with any "secret society" the problem is of that society's making - if they were open, there would be no problem, but as they are not, we don't know if it correct or not. If they say it is correct or incorrect, we don't know if they are being honest, or just following their non-disclosure rules. Equally, the majority of sources are often primary, whether published by a more open society, or a copy of the handbook released by a disaffected member. IMHO, they have no-one to blame but themselves. - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Slightly different problem to the usual Fraternity/Sorority page request, that "secret" information must be removed, which (amusingly) infers that it is correct.
 * I was involved in the effort to keep the Greek Letters in the Infobox on Phi Gamma Delta that lead to that particular addition to WP:NOTCENSORED, but that policy does not seem oriented to talk pages. I'm wondering about the balance between WP:NOTCENSORED and (now that I've found it) WP:NOTFORUM.Naraht (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The guideline here is WP:TPOC. The comment doesn't fall under "libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies", so it would be inappropriate for another editor to remove it. Consensus would be needed for it's removal, which seems unlikely. Your best bet is to contact the editor in question and ask them to remove it themselves. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of that Guideline includes Off-topic posts: "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)"... Stating that Gamma Gamma Gamma was named due to standing for Gibble Gobble Greva would seem to fall into that category, especially if the editor already knew that that couldn't be placed in the article. (The other question is whether in the event that consensus is being worked for whether or not members of fraternities other that Gamma Gamma Gamma would count as having a COI)Naraht (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know the post you are referring to, but it doesn't sound like it's unambiguously off-topic to me, and your reason for deleting it potentially isn't in the spirit of the guideline (at least in my opinion). If you could link to the post, I'd be able to make a better assessment of the issue. If any other editors are reading this and have an opinion, I'd love to hear it. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 19:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I deliberately picked a fictional fraternity, as I'd rather not bring attention to either of the two historical (neither is currently active) situations on this. In one case, it went so far that the user made a WP:SPA with the user name the equivalent of user:GibbleGobbleGreva.Naraht (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Musical Password
How to set a password with music

●●●●●●●●●●UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This was asked, twice, and answered here. Did you have a more specific question which was not addressed in the previous reponse?  Dismas |(talk) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "a password with music", ? And are you talking about setting a password for your Wikipedia account, or something else? --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, my Kiwipedia account.UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you place Wikipedia blue links in section headings of Wikipedia articles?
Is there any rule or policy regarding whether or not we should (or can) put Wikipedia links in the actual headings (or sub-headings) of articles? For example, let's say that the topic heading in a particular article is "Pizza". Should the article's heading be formatted simply as "Pizza", with the two equal signs on either side of it, like this ==Pizza== ? Or can it be formatted with the blue link, like this ==Pizza== ? Specifically, I am asking if links are "barred"/allowed from header titles? Or are discouraged/encouraged? What's the status? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Manual of style about headings MOS:HEAD says:
 * Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)
 * Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.
 * Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous.
 * Citations should not be placed within or on the same line as section and subsection headings.
 * Headings should not contain images; this includes flag icons.
 * Headings should not contain questions.
 * Avoid starting headings with numbers (other than years), because this can be confusing for readers with the "Auto-number headings" preference selected.
 * Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks.  So, it is a "should" situation.  (As opposed to a "must" situation.)   Meaning that sometimes, we can use links.  Sometimes, not.  It all depends on the given situation.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi To elaborate, no, you generally should not add links to headings in articles. As MOS:HEADINGS states above, "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." This means that there might be special cases where it might be appropriate, though those cases are rare (and I don't think I've ever seen it done before). What is usually a better option is using Template:Main article. For example, instead of using , you might instead do   followed by   ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 17:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not that uncommon on talk pages, but I can't ever recall seeing it done in the main article space. Is there a specific use (or contemplated use) that we can discuss?  Rwessel (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No specific article. Just a general question that came to mind. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's an accessibility issue; anything other than plain text in section headings causes problems for users and editors dependent on screen readers to access our articles. See WP:BADHEAD. Consequently it's strongly deprecated and "main article" template links are preferred. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:1RR
Would it be possible to request a 1RR sanction from an admin? I did ask about this last week—without reply. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 19:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since that's an unusual sanction, I'd assume that an admin wouldn't implement it unless there wasn't a better response, which seems like it would be rare. If you have a problem with a particular user and have made them aware of the issue you're having with them, make a post at WP:ANI. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea, because Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring can't be okay. – Be..anyone (talk)  19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer. I meant an 1RR for myself.--Neve–selbert 21:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1RR sanctions have to be manually enforced: as far as I know there is no automated tool for monitoring. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that an admin would want to give themselves the additional work for no real gain from their point of view. Is there a particular reason why you can't enforce this on yourself? Most people who follow a 1RR do so because that's how they think the encyclopedia should be run: they have decided to Revert only when necessary. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 07:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Women subcategories
Why is it that, for instance, Category:American physicians has the subcategory Category:American women physicians but not Category:American male physicians? I've noticed this on many category pages. Why are the subcategories even divided by gender? Margalob (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The answer to questions about "Why does Wikipedia have X but not Y", is usually "Because somebody created X but nobody created Y". Sometimes the answer is "Because a discussion decided that X was appropriate but Y was not", but as far as I know there hasn't been such a discussion in this case. Because Wikipedia is determined by consensus, it has many inconsistencies of this sort: sometimes they are deliberate, but often they are because nobody has thought of it.
 * If you think there should be a Category:American male physicians (red because this doesn't at present exist), you are welcome to argue the case. I suggest you make the argument at Category Talk:American physicians: you might get other people supporting you, and achieve consensus. I suspect that one reason for the asymmetry is that there are 1910 articles in Category:American physicians but only 222 articles in Category:American women physicians. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . The simple answer is that the category system isn't very good at labeling areas of interest, so we end up with categories like this. There was a long discussion of the same issue at Category:American novelists when someone moved the women out of American novelists and into American women novelists. Read about it at Category talk:American novelists/Archive 1 and Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24. It was even covered by the New York Times. The reason for keeping Category:American women novelists was that it is "a recognized field of study in the literature". The result was that women are not moved out of American novelists but can be in both categories. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)