Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 April 18

= April 18 =

Referencing errors on Harry A. Hoffner
Reference help requested.

ON VE citation forms, what does "title" mean? Is it the title of the book, newpaper or magazine or the title of the article in one of those?Kdammers (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kdammers (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The title is what is linked when the source is online, so it is generally the article title . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

About the meaning of "Wasakaka"
Dear Wikipedia staff,

I love wikipedia, thank you for keeping us informed. Recently I found a mistake that I would like you to fix. It is the meaning of the word "Wasakaka". Wasakaka is a Venezuelan sauce, it is not from the Dominican Republic like it is stated in Wikipedida. It also says in the article that Wasakaka shares the same ingredients as the Venezuelan Chimichurri wich is wrong because Venezuelans don't have chimichurri at all. Chimichurri is from Argentina. I would recoment to check if the rest of the info in the article is correct.

Thank you so much, I really hope somebody reads this!

Best.

Maria Zurita (a Venezuelan)

Wasakaka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.207.18 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this? If so, feel free to edit the article yourself. You should also consider creating an account. Scarce2 (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Spanish Wikipedia article on this sauce is, as you might expect, better informed than the English version. It has two references which may be relevant (I can't tell, as I can't read Spanish). You can use non-English sources in English Wikipedia, if nothing in English is available. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref April 18
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechkaboy (talk • contribs)
 * The bot seems to have cleaned it up. It looks like you hit the "ref tool" button a couple of times and did not enter any data between the tags. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

When, if ever, should a reference or citation link to a file on Wikipedia?
This is a question I have, and one which I encountered during a recent discussion. The title says it all, but I'll elaborate:

What policies, if any, are there regarding the citing of a file on Wikipedia? For example, let's say we have the full document and transcript of a court hearing saved as a PDF file. This transcript is relevant to an article and the full transcript is either not readily available anywhere else, or runs the risk of link rot. Would it be appropriate to cite this transcript, assuming all relevant parameters are filled out, and link to the PDF file hosted on Wikipedia? If it would not be appropriate, why not? Are there certain policies prohibiting this, or certain concerns which may be relevant? If the PDF file is available elsewhere not on Wikipedia, but that exact same file is hosted on Wikipedia, which would take precedence? The external link, or the link to the file hosted on Wikipedia? The former runs the risk of link rot, whereas I doubt the same applies to the latter; however, there may be some other policies of which I am not aware, or concerns I have not considered. This is all assuming the PDF file is not under any sharing restrictions and is available for public use, of course. As an aside, the file in question doesn't have to be a PDF file, though this is the most likely type an editor would have to deal with.

If you check the short discussion I linked to above, you can see where I got this example from. Naturally, it doesn't apply to that particular instance since other issues (such as the file not being the full transcript) have rendered the file inferior to the one hosted externally, but as a matter of future policy, what should be done in these circumstances? Any elucidation on this matter would be appreciated by me and, perhaps, by future editors wondering the same.

Also, apologies if this is the wrong place to be posting this. If a more relevant place is available, I have no problem moving over to there. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In other (and fewer! ;) words, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:248128351-Darren-Wilson-Testimony.pdf acceptable usage? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I know Wikipedia does not host source material, so uploading the document here is not allowed, Wikisource is the apropriate venue for such material. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That file appears to be a blatant copyright violation. Its licensing as a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties is incorrect because the case and transcript is state and not federal (it's a Missouri Circuit Court). It is possible there's another reason it falls in the public domain – specific states for instance have statutes exempting certain types of documents from copyright protection, but the specific PD tag it's under is on its face invalid. So in this particular instance, you should not link to it (WP:ELNEVER), and the file should be nominated for deletion or a different, valid license tag added. Putting that aside, say there was no question about the PD status. You might have complaints on other grounds such as that it's a primary source being used for interpretive claims in a BLP. etc., but I see no reason why the simple fact that it's a file at the Commons is problematic at all. (I myself have uploaded portions of the U.S. Census and other PD docs and then cited them.) As for which to cite, I'd link both, maybe putting the link to the local in parentheses "(archived copy)" or something like that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a copy of my message at the other discussion.
 * "Re 'This exists' — This was uploaded by a Wikipedia editor and it may or may not be a true copy and shouldn't be used as a reliable source."
 * I would add that in this particular case, the item is not an obscure one and there are various linkable reliable sources, for example, and for archived copies of this reliable source, there is the Internet archive  . --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion with the questions I posed below, if you don't mind me asking? In this particular case, it's pretty obvious that it's not a good idea to use the file for a number of reasons. But what about in general? Or do you think it's more of a case-by-case issue, and thus could not be adequately summarized in a general policy or guideline? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nøkkenbuer, In general, such uploads should not be linked to as reliable sources. However, they might be used in some way if there is not free internet access to the reliable source that they come from, the authenticity of the copy is not questionable, and they don't violate Wikipedia policy in some way such as copyright infringement. A somewhat similar situation is when it's helpful to quote in citations the parts of books that are reliable sources that aren't accessible on the internet, but are available to the public. However, I think that linking to Wikipedia uploads as if they were reliable sources should not be acceptable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. Do you think it may be useful to add any such files, assuming they're in the clear, to an article's "External links" or "Further reading" section? It's not really an external link in the same sense as one to a site not run by the WMF, but it's the only place I could think to place it without omitting it altogether. Or is that what you'd recommend? Just not including it? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs)
 * As you noted, they aren't external links so they wouldn't fit there. I think the "Further reading" section may be for reliable sources, so they wouldn't fit there. If a reliable source is given for some material in an article, and the reliable source is difficult to access, then a note in the citation might be added that says something like, "a Wikipedia editor has uploaded  a copy to Wikipedia here [link] but it hasn't been authenticated."  Whether or not such a link should be provided, and what such a note should say, would depend on the particular case.  For the case of the Grand jury transcripts, there is no good reason to use an uploaded version since we have easy access to reliable sources that provide the transcripts and the Internet Archive provides archived copies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for your help. I think that pretty much covers it then: it is probably not a good idea to cite an uploaded file or copy of a file on Wikipedia/Commons, and it is preferable to an external source. If link rot is a concern, the Internet Archive (among other archives) is reliable enough to ensure that the file or source is retained. If the file or a copy of the file is available on Wikipedia/Commons, the only recommended place to cite it would be in a note, so long as there is a specification in the note that the file has not been authenticated (assuming it hasn't been)—and usually, one should do this only in conjunction with a proper citation from an external source. This depends on the particular case in question, however, so exceptions my occur. I hope I've understood you correctly. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , I honestly don't know what to do about it if it's copyrighted, or what procedures should be done. I didn't upload it (I don't even know how to!), but I can help remove it if necessary. Seeing as my knowledge in this area is close to nil, however, it's probably better if someone else handles it.


 * As for your comments on whether to link to files on Wikipedia (or Wikisource): is it safe to assume that, so long as the citation is filled out with the appropriate publisher and title, it is safe to cite a file (including a PDF file) that is hosted on Wikipedia or Wikisource? Or would you advise against it? As for placing the file link in the archive parameter, do you think this would be preferable over, say, using archive.org to retrieve an archived copy of the file? This is assuming your answer to the first question is "yes", of course, since "no" would mean that even using it in the archive is probably not a good idea. Naturally, I don't think this implies that we should start using Wikipedia or Wikisource to archive PDF files (which is probably a really bad idea); but if one is available, would this be preferable to an archived copy per archive.org? There's always the possibility of adding both archives, but at that point it may be redundant. I hope I'm making sense, by the way. I feel my questions are worded a bit awkwardly, though I'm not sure how to improve them. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can make anything and turn it into a pdf. There being no "chain of custody" from reliable sources, a PDF document on Wikipedia or Wikisource or any other user generated platform is not a reliable source.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you recommend not linking it at all, then, even if the contents of the file are confirmed to be a facsimile of the file found elsewhere? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This idea that the source is the link, and that there must be a a chain of title is all wrongly focused. We allow sourcing without any links at all. The source is not the link but the published document. The citation should provide information about that original source and where it is located; any link to a local upload is just a convenience link. The citation at issue thus would properly list the transcript as the source, and the court information tells us where the original source is published and can be retrieved. The local upload, that convenience link (were it not a copyvio which should not be linked ever), makes verifiability easier, but we would accept the published source even if we had no way to link to it, so long as it was actually published and retrievable – even if we had to go to the court or the library or the hall of records, as the case may be, to do so. This also, of course, means that if the source is not actually published anywhere and someone wanted to publish it for the first time through an upload here or to the Commons, we would and should be having an entirely other conversation, where some of the concerns expressed above would be far more germane. I see the counterargument – that by having a more easily accessible version uploaded locally, we might allow the unscrupulous to attempt to mask the fact that they changed the original source by making it easier to see it, and thus making it less likely anyone would bother to check the original that they might if we provided no link. At some point we have to shed paranoia for pragmatism: we get great benefit out of such convenience links against the vanishingly few times someone will enter upon such a scheme, when the original is always actually available to check against through real world legwork.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (I added an since I thought your response was meant to be threaded. If it isn't, then feel free to remove it.) So, in your opinion, it's fine to link to the file being hosted on Commons, so long as the file is an identical copy of the file found elsewhere? If so, would you recommend any additional conditions or concerns we should consider when doing so, such as checking to see if the copy is legitimate, or adding it only as an archive or in the External Link/Further Reading section? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A transcript of a court hearing is not published and thus does not constitute a reliable source anyway. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance, but how else would the information then get out? By being leaked or released without publication? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. We do not use the the common vernacular meaning of published, when we say "published" for purposes of Wikipedia sourcing. We define it as (quoting from WP:V) "made available to the public in some form" – and footnoted "This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see." If the transcript is part of the court docket it is "published".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Maureen Carter (Author)
Hello there. Over two months ago I submitted a page for inclusion about Maureen Carter, the English crime writer. It seemed fairly innocuous, factual and workmanlike - and you said you'd get back to me within 30 days to confirm it was suitable for inclusion. As it IS so innocuous I could see no reason why it shouldn't be included - but all this time later I have still heard nothing, and no entry for Ms Carter has been forthcoming. Anyone there know why ?

Thanks, Morriss Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.237.205 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Because you are not logged into Wikipedia with an account and instead are using an IP address, you didn't get the notification about the article. This is a common occurrence, most internet providers give users a new IP address at the start of each session, we've even seen them change by-the-minute during discussions on this page. I'd urge you to register to avoid problems like this (its also has a host of other benefits). The article was declined on 21 February 2015, the notification was posted to this user page. A brief scan of it makes it look like it was declined due to lack of reliable sources that define the author's notability. - X201 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it is true of "most" Internet providers. I've always had the same IP address at home.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Draft:African University of Creative Arts
Reference help requested.

Please I am trying to include the "governing board" to the Data fields in Infobox University template but I can't seem to be able to do it. I've tried to edit it but it doesn't show on the Infobox. What do I do? This is the link I'm trying to edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_university

Thanks, Bola.coker (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, I had to revert your change to Template:Infobox university/doc for now. You can suggest "new" fields at Template talk:Infobox university, if needed. Most high-usage templates are edit-protected and should only be changed (by template editors or admins) after discussion and consensus on the template's talkpage. Before you suggest a new field, please check if you could put the information into already existing infobox fields (to avoid adding more and more fields to an already large infobox), or you could ask editors of other university articles at WT:UNI for advice. GermanJoe (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Thank you. Am I able to change the "free_label" on the Template:Infobox university/doc to "governing_board"? Is this allowed? If so how do I do it? --Bola.coker (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , that works from a technical point of view (just tested: the display seems OK). But I am not editing university-related articles usually, members of WT:UNI may have better suggestions based on their experience (and may be able to give you other university-related tips for your draft if needed). GermanJoe (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That was misleading, sorry. I have simply made the change in your draft now (not in the template itself) to clarify the usage. Please check if it's OK. Regards. GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with music sample
I have loaded, and used a number of music samples at Wikipedia with very few problems. Recently, I have been having issues with File:Ayers Rock - Lady Montego wiki.ogg, in that the play control buttons do not appear within the music sample box in the article on some platforms. This has caused a lot of head scratching (dangerous at my age). The only thing I can think of is that there is a filename conflict because my filename is too similar to filenames employed by other internet entities such as I tunes. Could an editor with the appropriate rights, please change the filename by removing the dash and a space, so that the name becomes "Ayers Rock Lady Montego wiki.ogg"? Could they also let me know when they have done that, or change the code at Ayers Rock (band), please? The music sample is located in this sub-section: Ayers Rock (band). Many thanks in advance. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a hyphen in a title could cause an error like this, and it actually sounds like this could be a client-side issue. What platforms are you having issues with? Could you give us some more details (operating system, browser, is JavaScript enabled or disabled?). By the way, 1.2 MB is absurdly high for a 20-second sound clip on Wikipedia (files of copyrighted content need to be lower quality to meet fair use guidelines). Scarce2 (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Scarce2, I have uploaded a file of lower quality to address your concerns, and I have learnt something that I can use going forward. Very briefly, the original file I uploaded was called :File:Ayers Rock - Lady Montego edit.ogg, and there was, at that time, a definite filename conflict because the music sample box simply didn't appear on the page for Android, Mac, and I pad. That file has been deleted. At this stage, what I need to know is that the current Lady Montego sample plays on the Apple platforms, and the play/volume/edit controls appear within the box for the same. Thankyou, for your reply, above. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about 'Not here' template tags
I have a question: when is it OK to place a Not around tag on an editor's Talk page, especially if said editor is also an Admin? I'm asking this question because I've come across a few Admins in the last week or so who haven't shown any editing activity in the last 3–6 months, and I'm wondering if/when it is OK to put a Not around tag on their Talk pages... TIA! --IJBall (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The guidance on the page says "a considerable time", and there's some discussion of what that means at Template talk:Not here. I'd suggest trying what seems right to you.  SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   19:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I decided that 6 months is likely reasonable as "a considerable time", so I went ahead and added the 'Not here' tag to the Talk page of the Admin I was thinking of. If adding that is erroneous, I am sure it will simply be removed or reverted... --IJBall (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I cite these references?
I don't know how to cite these two references because they are "abridged" from other sources.Source 1Source 2 Also, how would I cite this (the unabridged source for the first of the two earlier links):Source 3? Sorry if this is not the proper place to ask, but I could not think of any better place to ask. Dustin ( talk ) 19:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, you only cite sources you've actually read - so unless you have read the original report, you need to cite the web pages you link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, but that does not answer my question of what to put between the  tags (how do I display what I want with citation templates?). I would at least like to know how to cite the first two pages I linked (Source 1 and Source 2).  Dustin  ( talk ) 20:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And should Dustin wants to cite more, s/he can refer to Template:Cite web for more examples and explanation of wikicode citations. Whilst baffling at first - it is simple, once you get your head around it.--Aspro (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't answer the question of the mechanics of how to cite something unless you tell us what article you want to add the citations to. Per WP:CITEVAR Wikipedia does not have a house citation style; you should use the same style that already is in use in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but I can't recall seeing an article that had any detectable consistent style (except for one where I did all the work to maintain the style). For the most part, each editor has their own style that they use in all articles, and their stuff is generally left alone because other editors rarely have the time to fix it. At least that's been my experience, and perhaps we're looking at different segments of mainspace. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we have answered the question and the OP is welcome to come back should they need further clarification.
 * I agree with Mandruss that we should strive to maintain constancy -across the whole of Wikipedia but I disagree with Jc3s5h that we should go along with the style that  went before in an article – it might have been contributed by a naïve editor. Wikipedia is work in progress and there is always room for improvement. --Aspro (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is located at Draft:2009–15 Oklahoma earthquake swarms. I can't say that will be the final title after I move it to mainspace (I'm not sure when that will be), but there you go. The only real form of consistency I can think of that would make any difference is that my draft is using MDY date format (because Oklahoma is one of the 50 United States, where MDY predominates). All that aside, at least for now, I have used the wikicode provided by Mandruss. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * since you started and wrote the draft article, you get to pick the citation style. You apparently have chosen Citation Style 1. You didn't have to; there are many other styles you could have chosen, such as Citation or APA style. But the suggestions above by other editors also use Citation Style 1, so they should work for you. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I get you. I haven't edited anything that wasn't CS1, thus I misunderstood what you meant by "style". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition to an existing page
Please help me make an addition to an existing page. I was rejected now I need help? my user name is shumbard Shumbard (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are trying to do. Did the answer to your question at the Teahouse help?. I don't see any place in your edit history where you have tried to edit an article. Creating a new article is unnecessary because we already have the article Adaptive behavior. Let us know how we can help.  SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I see you managed to add the text to Adaptive behavior. I have corrected the problem with the misplaced end-ref; and have removed the unnecessary { and }. (If you choose to use one of the citation templates, such as cite journal, you need double curly braces at the start and end, but if you choose not to and just write out the citation, then you don't need any). I am not convinced that your addition belongs in the lead paragraph, as opposed to elsewhere in the article; and I found it hard to read because for me it was a garden path sentence, because "Conceding" can be used as a subordinating conjunction as well as a noun. But I will leave it to people more interested in the article to make improvements. --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)