Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 October 3

= October 3 =

Citation Service - Formatting Error
Dear Wikipedia-Community,

this is a ticket about a minor issue with the citation service that got rejected via email:

[...]

just wanted to let you know, that your citation service is having a formatting error in MLA- and Chicago-Style.

[Picture]

It seems the punctuation ('.' and ',') is switching place with " used after articles name.

[Picture]

-- Reproduction:

Visit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON or the article named "YAML" or assumingly any other article on wikipedia.

Click "Cite this page" on the left navigation panel:

[Picture]

[...]

I got redirected here. If screenshots required let me know.

Secretely, I guess it is rather a programmers task.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:ACC0:7B8:45DF:22C7:EE37:93ED (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No programmer needed. It can be edited at MediaWiki:Citethispage-content by any administrator account like me and it would immediately be live. I don't know the details of the styles and punctuation outside the quotation marks would appear more natural to me, but the examples at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html have the comma inside like us. If one style has a comma inside then I wouldn't be surprised if another has a period inside. Do you have a source for the suggested changes or was it just a guess? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, page 756, has an example of how to cite a Wikipedia article in an endnote:


 * 3. Wikipedia, s.v. "Stevie Nicks," last modified July 19, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevie_Nicks.

Jc3s5h (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That does some things differently from Special:CiteThisPage/Stevie Nicks but regarding the reported issue, it writes "Stevie Nicks," like us with the comma inside. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Since it looked less naturally to me I got confused. So I looked it up and you are right. I am sorry.

While figuring out I was wrong I found another article that stated to capitalize major words in title like: Benjoseph, John J. "On the Anticipation of New Metaphors," Cuyahoga Review 24 (1988): 6-10. (Source: http://ia.juniata.edu/citation/chicago_bib/chicago-periodicals.htm)

Rule: http://ia.juniata.edu/citation/chicago_bib/chicago-capitals.htm

Maybe anything on those URLs is interesting to you. Sorry for taking your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.223.251 (talk)


 * Wikipedia titles use sentence case like Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya, per WP:LOWERCASE. We don't have a reliable way to automatically identify major words in "Cite this page". We could make a list of minor words that would never be capitalized and then capitalize all other words, but it would often give bad results. I don't know how strict Chicago is but I think it's better to have meaningful capitalization chosen by the article editors than a computer-generated transformation of varying quality. And I don't think it would be worth editor time to specify how an article title should be capitalised in Chicago style. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, with respect to punctuation and quotation marks, there is no house style, nor do we follow any particular external style. Indeed a large number of us (reject totally the ridiculous idea that you include punctuation within quotation marks, unless it is actually part of the quotation, and) use logical punctuation.--ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Congressional term end dates
I noticed from the discussion above that Billmckern has changed the end date of Congressional terms from March 4 to the March 3 in probably hundreds of articles. I'm pretty sure there is a big misunderstanding on his part about what the end date means. March 4 means that the term ended when the clock struck midnight on the night of the 3rd/morning of the 4th. So it means the terms were to March 4, not through March 4. The only difference with the president is that his term ended 12 hours later, at noon. I've looked at many Wikipedia articles about the U.S. Congress from the 1st Congress forward and they all say that terms back then ended on March 4 (see the term duration in the infoboxes). But the editor has already changed the date in so many articles for members of Congress, and I assume will continue doing so until he gets to all of the ones that show a March 4 end date for the term instead of March 3. Czoal (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Czoal, since I do not have any knowledge of the topic I have started a central discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics and asked Billmckern to stop all editing until you have had the oportunity to discuss it and come to a consensus. Please post your views on that page and actively discuss this with eachother. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have commented in the discussion. Thanks for starting it. However, the primary issue is not the date change, but the fact that a lone editor unilaterally made a change to a massive number of articles without even starting a proper discussion, let alone getting consensus. The date issue is secondary, although I believe the editor is incorrect about that. That is why I have requested that he please revert himself in those hundreds of articles where he already made the change. Czoal (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility to edit
How can I be eligible to make additions or corrections to wiki Pedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.184.118 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome! Read this to get you started. Good luck. Czoal (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

wikitable problem... for an ancestor
Could s’dy be kind enough to help me in Véronique Sanson discography? Can’t manage (dunno how) to shorten the Album column to enable the Notes one to be wider. Both wikitables over are ok w/ the same syntax… but not this Compilations one aarggghgrrr! Thanks in advance ;-) --Bibliorock (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the forced width and line breaks in the Notes column.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C3%A9ronique_Sanson_discography&diff=683938117&oldid=654675608] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merci beaucoup, jeune homme ! yeah ;-) --Bibliorock (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Unflattering edit to our company
Good Morning,

Someone has been making unflattering edit to our company's venue pages. The latest change was made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O2_Apollo_Manchester

All changes made from a user with this IP address: 86.175.228.102

I understand that this is an open forum, but the edits that are being made are unflattering and harmful to our brand. Can you please look into this issue please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Live Nation CSIRT (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arjayay has reverted a series of changes, returning the article to its pre-86.175.228.102 state. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that not everything in this encyclopedia is flattering to the subject of the article. We aren't concerned with things being flattering to your brand. If something is relevant and well sourced, it should remain. Vandalism on the other hand, is not tolerated. Dismas |(talk) 19:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess unflattering was the incorrect word to use. The poster incorrectly stated that the Academy Music Group's (AMG) relationship with Live Nation has change and will change further in January. The poster also stated that Live Nation Will sell Manchester Apollo to SMG and CTS Eventim. This false information may impact the business relationship and stock price of Live Nation, Academy Music Group (AMG), O2, SKY, SMG and CTS Eventim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LNEWicks (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * we don't want false information about your company on Wikipedia either. But if a reliable source says something is true and we don't see a correction later, even unflattering information can be in the article about the company.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Copying and pasting from NASA sources
Can I copy and paste from NASA sources? I know that their pictures are in the public domain. But is their text too? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NASA-created images and text are both under the same copyright rules regarding US government works, usually. Mind that the copied text needs to be attributed (because we don't like WP:PLAGIARISM either and to verify that it's indeed government-written) and needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you must be sure that the text or image is actually created by NASA and not by a contractor working for NASA. Works created by a contractor will usually be protected by copyright, and that copyright may be trasferred to NASA by contract. If there is a copyright notice, this is probably the situation. DES (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you and . Well, can you help me out with Garni Crater? I found that text within the article seems to be lifted from the NASA website: . Are we to be sure we can be allowed to do this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited the article to explicitly mark the text as a quotation. It is short enough that even were the source under copyright, this would IMO qualify as fair use. DES (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Should a Footnote be made for an article, if the source is another article on Wikipedia?
I am curious about this, about using a Footnote for citing a source that links to an article on Wikipedia. Something in me tells me that it sounds wrong and that people should be citing a proper source from elsewhere (website, book, and so forth), rather than from here. In other words, is this a really viable use of a Footnote for citing sources for an Article? I really want to know it is acceptable or not. GUtt01 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Something is correct, . You should never cite a Wikipedia article as a source in a footnote or other citation here. Instead link to it from the body of the article, or in a "See also" section. However, sources cites in the other article may  also be useful in the article in question, if they are checked first. See WP:CIR and WP:RS for more details. DES (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC) DES (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * this question was based on a discussion at Talk:QI (I think the user wanted a second opinion). The sources being asked about would include things like:  I think you might have been addressing sources which would say something like:   In other words, the question here is not about whether Wikipedia can be used as a source, but about whether it is okay to link Wikipedia articles within a source. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * then the use of the work "footnote" and indeed "source" was misleading, and i was mislead, but I assume this was a good-faith misunderstanding. It is of course, perfectly proper, and in some cases nearly required, to make appropriate wiki-links to related articles. What links are "appropriate" is a judgement call, and depends on the precise context. I will take a look at the discussion you linked. However, it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia articles as the main source linked in a ref tag. (There are cases where a wiki-link can appear in a ref tag. For example, in a citation to a news article, one should specify the name of the newspaper or other news source. If that source is itself notable and has a Wikipedia article, one can and should link to it, and the documentation for cite news mentions this.) DES (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

gun laws per country and associated gun violence statistics
I cannot find any data that identifies each nations gun laws/policies and gun violence statistics associated with that nation. Switzerland has every military aged man with a weapon in the home yet the homicide rate for the country is extremely low. There is a huge debate on gun rights and laws over the past few years in the united states spurred by an uptake of mass shootings. Politicians scream gun control but a lack of data exists to determine what law, if any more than are currently in existence would make a difference. A database that provided information as to countries with more liberal gun laws and policies versus countries with stricter gun laws and policies with the associated murder/homicide accident rates pertaining to firearms would give the people actual data to base a decision rather a politicians knee jerk reactions that will not fix the root cause of the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.16.215.103 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You might start with Overview of gun laws by nation, List of countries by intentional homicide rate and Gun violence. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Data is only useful if it it is comprehensive enough to provide guidance. For instance, you mention Switzerland. Yes, firearms are very common in the populace. However, in recent decades, the access to ammunition has been severely restricted. To-day, in Switzerland, if you wanted to use ones military issued firearm (which one keeps at home) as an offensive weapon, one would have use it to hit ones assailant over the head with it. However,  Switzerland has both a very good an fast reacting  police force (so one doesn't need a functional firearm for protection)  and the social creed is not American orientated to the point where the poor, are  so poor (with no means to better their circumstance) as too need to resort  to firearm crime in order to live and protect themselves from other crime gangs who are striving  to live the unattainable american dream that is denied to  them to  because they are poor and the only inspiration they have is to use a Samuel Colt Equalizer or modern day equivalent. Have  I missed any thing out? What did newton say.., Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. Firearms are just tools. In the unskilled hands of most  Americans, they appear ruddy dangerous and in the hands of the US law enforcement agencies they are fatal to whomever gets in the way. --Aspro (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

How to create an entry
Is it possible to create a page or a listing a definition of a word that I thought up ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CDB:1A00:6477:9C00:D4C1:CB3F (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC) (Stabila, I think you should get a full-time job in Wikipedia's Help Desk Department. You do a good job here. Czoal (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC))
 * Unless it has been featured in a wide range of reliable sources then no. Please read WP:MADEUP for more information. In addition, specific words usually don't get an entry here.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Stabila711 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NEO. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and please don't try to add protologisms to Wiktionary, either, until your word has been used by others, preferably in published print on at least three independent occasions.   D b f i r s   08:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)