Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 December 16

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = December 16 =

Map icons displaying incorrectly
At Spring training, there are two maps which display where Major League Baseball teams hold spring training, created using OSM Location map. Some of the marks are supposed to be File:Red pog.svg to indicate that only one team uses a particular stadium, and others are supposed to be File:Blue pog.svg to indicate that two teams use a stadium. There is a legend beneath each map indicating that red is for one team and blue is for two teams. However, all of the marks are showing up in red -- there are no blue marks for the stadiums that are supposed to have them. Can anyone advise what the problem might be? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The real problem is using only colours to provide map information, contrary to the requirements of MOS:COLOR. Bazza (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to dispute that, but as I didn't create these maps, I just want to know why there aren't any marks displaying as blue when they are supposed to be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Alessandra Mastronardi
Should I enter the full name or "Alessandra Mastronardi" as the title of the infobox? JackkBrown (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @JackkBrown What does Infobox person say? Bazza (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Some time ago I was told that one must write "River Po" (capitalised on "River") and "Po river" (lowercase on "river"), but how is it possible that "Valley" of "Po Valley" must be capitalised? JackkBrown (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it is a specific place referred to that way in reliable sources in English such as Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * People here can be wrong, but you were advised that "either "Po River valley" or "Po Valley" is acceptable" on 3 December. TSventon (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) Also, "Po River" seems correct to me and various others. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Jack, please. WP:PLACE. Remsense  留  14:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have always written "River Po" and "Po river", am I wrong? JackkBrown (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * personally I would write "River Po" and "Po river". Also, "River Po and River Adige", but "Po and Adige rivers". Some disagree. I don't think it's worth worrying about, it can always be altered if one day a consensus emerges. Maproom (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . "River Po" and "Po River" are equivalent &mdash; names of geographical features &mdash; so why would you capitalize them differently? The great majority of sources, including those other encyclopedia guys, capitalize it. "Po and Adige rivers" is a different situation. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been following Maproom's advice (for several months), so to avoid having to correct everything by hand again (it would not be possible to find all the changes out of 36,000 anyway), I am asking for the help of a bot. JackkBrown (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to edit page
Give me permisons Andreixs99 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * no Andreixs99 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andreixs99 You have made edit requests for the article Lionel Messi, which is the correct way to suggest edits when you can't make them directly. Your first language may not be English, so you should be careful to make your suggested change as clear as possible. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Say please. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

URL Hijacked
On the Krankies WiKi Page The Krankies

The URL to The Krankies official website has bee hijacked and now directs to a porn site. 51.9.57.241 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have replaced the link with an archived copy. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for replacing the link.
 * However the archived copy does not display well.
 * The actual Krankies web site is https://thekrankies.com/ 51.9.57.241 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Misogyny in crime article categories
The fact that and  exist, but  and  do not exist, is highly absurd and discriminatory. All articles of male rapists exist in these categories, while those of female rapists exist in subcategories without any valid reason. Either all articles of female rapists should moved to the main, or all articles of male rapists should be moved to. Both should exist at the same category level.

Another thing is that many women are wrongfully convicted of crimes, assault, sometimes even rape. In, the only such example is Nora Wall, a former Irish sister of the Sisters of Mercy who was wrongfully convicted of rape in June 1999, by Regina Walsh (born 8 January 1978) and Patricia Phelan (born 1973). Many more cases of wrongful convictions against women may be notable, yet still not included on Wikipedia.

I know that such sexism may have been noted before, and it is quite a platitude to bring it up again rather than doing something to fix it. Any improvement in these categories needs sufficient consensus, and I'm looking forward to it. &mdash; CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 14:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See also this controversy. In my view, this is an unfortunate outcome of database-design-by-consensus, not of misogyny. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Further see also the editing guideline at WP:CATGENDER. TSventon (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:Rapists isn't supposed to have people at all except in subcategories. Rapists are categorized by country like Category:American rapists which is both for men and women, e.g. Pamela Smart. The people directly in Category:Rapists should be moved to the right country category which should be created if it doesn't already exist. In addition to (not instead of) the primary organization by country, there is Category:Female rapists for female rapists from any country. There is no corresponding Category:Male rapists which would probably contain more than 1000 people. I would oppose such a category. When we have "X by country" categories for something we rarely make "Female X" and "Male X" categories for all people. Category:Female rapists is an exception because it's so rare. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:Rapists says "This category consists of individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law as well as those who are considered by most historians to have committed the crime". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Such messages include subcategories. The parent category can contain general articles and lists of rapists but should not have individual biographies. There is nothing special about the eight people who are currently placed improperly in Category:Rapists itself versus the maybe 1000 who are properly categorized by country. Several of the eight have no country category yet but then it should be created. Maybe they were placed in the parent category by users who are not comfortable with creating categories. Category:Rapists by nationality already has several subcategories with a single article. That's allowed in systematic categories like this. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @PrimeHunter Is it a problem if there are over 1,000 things in a category? Couldn't you just have "American male rapists" and "American female rapists"? In most cases there would be no need for the female category, but one could be created if it were needed. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Commonality and rarity are relative terms and often different than how they are perceived to be.
 * The thing is that misogyny is not the only problem here. The design of these categories also has hidden racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
 * Rape cases of female victims and intersex victims (yes, they are relevant here) are more common than generally expected because many cases remain unreported, and some cases are even covered up or censored. The same thing can be said for rape cases involving female rapists, regardless of whether victims are male or female or intersex.
 * The same analogy can be applied to this controversy shared by . Women novelists and non-binary novelists are also novelists. Othering them does not help, rather it adds to the discrimination and systematically enforced invisibility of females and intersex people. Articles of novelists who are men should be moved to, just like . could be created too, considering notability of intersex novelists. One could say "their notability is often insufficient", but it is important to realize that intersex people's and LGBTQ+ people's notability is hindered by oppression and discrimination against them.
 * has correctly asserted that race and ethnicity are also factors that need to be considered here. This is particularly important in context of categories of people by profession. People of colour, of South American, Asian, African descent, and other underrepresented races and ethnicities are likely to be ignored in categories of people by profession, which is why a category for each race and ethnicity needs to be created.
 * WP:CATGENDER needs to be rewritten to treat females and intersex people equally to males, and also to treat LGBTQ+ people equally to all people. The statement "is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category" is discriminatory because balancing people on the same level is one of the main requirements for equality. The statement "historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male" reinforces the rarity of females and intersex people in political leaderships, demotivating them and reducing the possibility of political careers of those who are interested and capable of such leaderships. They can be more common than they are perceived to be. Articles of male political leaders should be moved to, on the same level as female political leaders and intersex political leaders ( has only 4 articles: Tony Briffa, Gopi Shankar Madurai, Betsy Driver, and Maria Nikiforova (an anarcho-terrorist, whose inclusion in the category seems acceptable, but the ignorance against intersex people who are genuinely good people is highly disappointing)). One could say that "there are no notable intersex people who are heads of government" but that is really just a demotivating empty statement which disregards the possibility that intersex people can be heads of government.
 * The male and female and intersex categorization of people by profession is highly complicated for transgender people. Biographical articles about trans women should definitely be included in categories of women, but may also be included in categories of males, in case of pre-operative trans women. Likewise, biographical articles about trans men should definitely be included in categories of men, but may also be included in categories of females, in case of pre-operative trans men. For those trans people who choose to have sex reassignment surgery, articles about such trans men can be moved to categories of males, and articles about such trans women can be moved to categories of females. It should be noted that trans men are men who born females and '''trans women are women who born males", hence the main requirements are that:
 * Articles about cis men should be in.
 * Articles about trans men should be in.
 * Articles about intersex men should be in.
 * Articles about non-binary men (both cis and trans) perhaps can be in categories of men, since they are men and not entirely non-binary.
 * Articles about cis women should be in.
 * Articles about trans women should be in.
 * Articles about intersex women should be in.
 * Articles about non-binary women (both cis and trans) perhaps can be in categories of women, since they are women and not entirely non-binary.
 * Articles about non-binary people should be in.
 * Articles about non-binary intersex people be in.
 * Regardless of rarity and commonality, either all biographical articles should be in the main categories, or the main categories should be only container categories, containing subcategories of all genders, sexes, sexualities, races, ethnicities, etc. in which the relevant articles should exist. I think the main purpose of ethnic and racial categorization is to find underrepresented genders, sexes, sexualities, races, ethnicities, in order to improve articles about them, but the only on the condition that the main categories should be only container categories without biographical articles though they may contain non-biographical articles. &mdash; CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 10:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is misogyny in the design of these categories. To say that there isn't, is highly absurd. Misogyny has existed since ancient times, long before these categories were created, so the "database-design-by-consensus" was a result of misogyny, and was actually biased consensus including very few females, if not none at all. &mdash; CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 06:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @CrafterNova I see there is also a category "people convicted of rape" with corresponding categories like "Brazilian people convicted of rape". I'm not sure of the distinction between "rapists" and "people convicted of rape". By that I mean that there are a few ways to distinguish between "rapists" and "people convicted of rape" that spring to mind, but it is not clear which is being used or if there was any thought given to defining the categories. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Counterfeit Purses the text you copied suggests that "Brazilian rapists" should contain "Brazilian people convicted of rape" plus Brazilian people "who are considered by most historians to have committed the crime". A spot check suggests that the content of "Brazilian rapists" is more random than that. TSventon (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @TSventon So "Brazilian people convicted of rape" is a subset of "Brazilian rapists"? That makes sense, although I'm not sure why you would want a separate, specific category. I was only pointing out the "people convicted of rape" category because it is not gendered, which was part of the initial complaint. There isn't a "women convicted of rape" category and a "men convicted of rape" category, just a "people" category. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Counterfeit Purses, Category:Brazilian rapists contains a subcategory Category:Brazilian people convicted of rape. Based on a spot check, the contents of "Brazilian people convicted of rape" seem to agree with the category name, so it is possibly more useful than the "Brazilian rapists" category, which in practice is less well defined. There could be a "women convicted of rape" category within the "people convicted of rape" and "Female rapists" categories, but as things stand it would be very small. We have "Female rapists" because most members of "Rapists" are male as explained in WP:CATGENDER. The guideline can be changed, the paragraph about sport was added here in 2011. TSventon (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all people convicted, of rape, are rapists. Many people are wrongfully convicted of rape. One could say "mostly males are wrongfully convicted rape" which is a misogynistic statement. Though rare, females are also wrongfully convicted of rape, such as Nora Wall, which is only one person. There have been many more cases of wrongful convictions against females which remain unreported due to less notability. Wrongful convictions against intersex people and LGBTQ+ people also happen, but are ignored, again due to less notability. The thing is, like rarity and commonality, notability is relative, depends on what is socially perceived to be notable, and perception of notability varies from one reliable source to another. Notability is not absolute, and cannot be measured as such. Content published by perennial reliable sources is generally notable, but the constraints here are:


 * heterosexual cisgender male domination in the companies and organizations that are considered reliable sources and publish such content, and
 * discrimination and oppression against women, intersex people, and LGBTQ+ people.
 * The need of segregation, on basis of race, of articles about criminals, is quite unclear to me. Categorization of biographical articles of people by professions is understandable, because one purpose can be to find articles of people having underrepresented genders, sexes, sexualities, races, ethnicities, etc. in particular professions in order to improve those articles. I think that improving articles about criminals should be necessary only to the extent of increasing representation of their victims, to improve articles about the victims, and to make their voices be heard. The rest — I think that the notion of articles about criminals somehow being "biographies" is futile. These articles should be written as deterrents to decrease crime rates, not to condone crimes. &mdash; CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 11:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @CrafterNova You're right. Not all people convicted of rape are rapists, since some of the convictions are later overturned. I'm not sure how saying that "mostly males are wrongfully convicted of rape" (which I don't think anyone here said) is misogynistic, but feel free to explain it to me on my talk page.
 * You should probably start a discussion somewhere more central. Perhaps Village pump (proposals)? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I consider it misogynistic, and it is difficult for me to understand anyone else's counter-reasoning. It is a sexist statement because gender, sex, and sexuality of any wrongfully convicted individual do not matter, rather what matters is justice for all regardless of these factors.
 * I will start discussion at Village pump (policy), and I hope consensus is reached for improvement in policies, starting with WP:CATGENDER. The problem is that many of these statements will have to be repeated there, and I think that, in order to comply with WP:CROSSPOST, continuing this discussion will require a very concise summary of the status quo, one that I'm finding cumbersome to create, so I need help with that.
 * Also, we definitely need more opinions, especially those of women and LGBTQ+ people, because they are oppressed. Their voices need to be heard, and they deserve the right to participate in policymaking, since it is a multilateral process. Can we try and ping more such editors to diversify the discussion? &mdash; CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 05:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I think that the notion of articles about criminals somehow being "biographies" is futile. These articles should be written as deterrents to decrease crime rates, not to condone crimes." I don't get this at all. They don't condone crimes, they simply tell that people committed them, and that they happened. Even criminals have the right to not have misinformation spread about them, regardless of the terrible things they've done. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, what's this statement for in ? It seems quite derogatory. says "This category consists of individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law as well as those who are considered by most historians to have committed the crime." and not "men have committed rape". Categories should not begin with such derogatory statements. Reduction of misogyny on Wikipedia has still such a long way to go. &mdash; CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 14:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The description in Category:Female rapists was missing a word. I have changed it to "Women who have committed rape". It's a statement about which articles belong in the category and is not supposed to be a statement about women. Category:Rapists is not gender-specific so it says "individuals" and should not say "men". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sanity check
Is this edit vandalism? Every other climate table I've seen on Wikipedia has standard width, and I gave the explanation that this is why I standardized the width of this one. No entries in this table are any wider than on other tables that contain temperatures below -10 degrees.

I asked for an explanation for what makes this edit wrong after I created my account and the same person reverted me without explanation claiming my edit is just vandalism. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page, ping the other editor and give the explanation above. They may not have understood your first edit summary "Why does this page alone have to stand out?" TSventon (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW: This editor told me that my edits are useless and to leave Wikipedia and went through my edits to find this and revert this after I made an edit request on Talk:Android version history. I already left a notice over there that this is my account now and I'm the person who made the edit request while unregistered. But I'll try the longer explanation. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , Android version history is semi-protected, so it is likely that it has a history of controversy, and that it will often be safer to ask for further discussion rather than accepting an edit request. Wikipedia is supposed to be be based on WP:Reliable sources so it is more useful to make changes supported by a RS rather than just by your own knowledge. TSventon (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand that. The problem there is that I gave few examples of why the page should have a {technical} template and I received that "answer" and was followed around. I don't care what happens with the Android page any more. IvicaInsomniac (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Rule of thumb: if you have to ask whether an edit is vandalism or something else...
 * ...it's probably not vandalism. Cremastra (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)