Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 26

= December 26 =

Referencing errors on Grand Pabos River
Reference help requested.

How can i fix this error? I dont know how! references are difficult Thanks, Simon Mer (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Help:Referencing for beginners
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the correct citation template for a standards document?
I'm currently using simply because it's generic, for   But it's not really a web page. Is there a more appropriate category? Or should I use as the most generic? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . You should see Help:Citation Style 1 for a list of appropriate templates. In my opinion, seems sensible.  Lourdes  09:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, yes, I had already looked there. But thanks for the suggestion; that's probably a good fit:
 * Erg... I may have spoken too soon. It actually says "(Technical report)" in the citation, which is at least misleading and probably wrong.  Not sure if I like that.  71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can see this in two ways. One, a report which gives the time and control code standards, in my opinion, is a technical report. Second way, the link comes under the super link called "Publications". You could otherwise used the template, which actually redirects to cite book, but at least within the article it would be cite publication. What do you feel?  Lourdes  11:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * H'm... is reasonable.  You're right that it is a sort of technical report, but "technical report" implies an unrefereed document similar to an arxiv preprint.  A standards document receives a much higher level of scrutiny and review, and within its domain of applicability is a very reliable source indeed. Anyway, thank you very much for your help!  It appears there really isn't anything specific to this application, so I'll keep on approximating.  71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The value assigned to url in the above examples links to a directory 'web' page so in that sense, is correct – if you are citing content on that directory page.  If you are citing the standard, then either  or  should work.  Here is a  example with cs1;  looks the same:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply! I linked to the page for two reasons.  First, because it has current validity information, and the standard in multiple formats which a reader might want to choose.  Second, because many groups prefer a link to a "landing page" which gives them credit rather than a deep link directly to the standards document, and that seems a reasonable consideration for making the standard publicly available.
 * One thing you're doing that seems odd to me... you're using section-url to link to the whole document. I usually prefer to use the url parameter when the link destination is the whole document, even if I'm citing a section.  What is the advantage of the way you're doing it?  (Thank you for teaching me how to add a page number in the fragment identifier; good to know!) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not the purpose of cs1|2 or any Wikipedia citation reference to give "credit" to anyone; the purpose is to help readers locate the reliable source that supports a statement in a Wikipedia article. Still, linking to a landing page, as you point out, has its benefits: language and file format options in this case.  A down side of that though, for a reader looking to verify a Wikipedia article, is that it is difficult to include in-source locator information in the citation that makes sense; in my example, page 6 of the pdf but there is no page six of the landing page.  Of course, a little thought on the part of the reader resolves that, but why make them do that?
 * I guess that I don't understand why you find the use of section-url to be 'odd'. In my example, section-url does link into the pdf document at the section "Structure of the time address and control bits" on page 6.  I know that some browsers don't support linking into a pdf document in this way but even for those that ignore the   at the end of section-url, when specifying a section of the document with section title-holding parameter, linking that title with section-url is better than using url.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By "odd" I mean that it seems to violate MOS:EGG. There's no reason you couldn't put the link in the url parameter and include a fragment parameter there.
 * Just looking at the documentation, it made sense to me that section-url was to be used when the link destination was only a section of a larger work, but making the overall title a link told the reader that the whole work could be found by following the link. There are times to use both, such as
 * But I assumed you had a reason for doing it that way, so I asked. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am confused. My example does not link the overall title (title is not linked).  Instead, my example links to the page on which the section title "Structure of the time address and control bits" exists.  Were I linking to the whole standard, perhaps because the Wikipedia article also used short cites like, I would generally not include section or chapter nor link to a specific section or chapter, and would have used url to hold the PDF's url but without  .  By doing it the way I did, the reader is taken to a place that has a section title that is clearly obvious.
 * I think that url should be used only for linking to the whole work when the whole work is intended or is the only option. Where the intent is to link into a conveniently subdivided work, as this standard is subdivided, then the appropriate subdivision should be named in the appropriate cs1|2 parameter and that parameter linked accordingly.  The reader can see at a glance that the link is not to the whole but to the subdivision.  I don't see this as a violation of MOS:EGG.
 * The same would also apply to your Melhorn & Sanders example. When I clicked the chapter title link, I expected to land at the start of the chapter, not some number of pages into the chapter.  I would not have been as surprised had the linked title been "6.5 Historical Notes and Further Findings".
 * I do not dispute that a link to the entire work or to a landing page for the entire work may be appropriate for both the ITU standard and Melhorn & Sanders examples, but I think that the section or chapter titles should be preferentially linked when it is possible to do so and those links should be to the start of the named section or chapter.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am confused. My example does not link the overall title (title is not linked).  Instead, my example links to the page on which the section title "Structure of the time address and control bits" exists.  Were I linking to the whole standard, perhaps because the Wikipedia article also used short cites like, I would generally not include section or chapter nor link to a specific section or chapter, and would have used url to hold the PDF's url but without  .  By doing it the way I did, the reader is taken to a place that has a section title that is clearly obvious.
 * I think that url should be used only for linking to the whole work when the whole work is intended or is the only option. Where the intent is to link into a conveniently subdivided work, as this standard is subdivided, then the appropriate subdivision should be named in the appropriate cs1|2 parameter and that parameter linked accordingly.  The reader can see at a glance that the link is not to the whole but to the subdivision.  I don't see this as a violation of MOS:EGG.
 * The same would also apply to your Melhorn & Sanders example. When I clicked the chapter title link, I expected to land at the start of the chapter, not some number of pages into the chapter.  I would not have been as surprised had the linked title been "6.5 Historical Notes and Further Findings".
 * I do not dispute that a link to the entire work or to a landing page for the entire work may be appropriate for both the ITU standard and Melhorn & Sanders examples, but I think that the section or chapter titles should be preferentially linked when it is possible to do so and those links should be to the start of the named section or chapter.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute that a link to the entire work or to a landing page for the entire work may be appropriate for both the ITU standard and Melhorn & Sanders examples, but I think that the section or chapter titles should be preferentially linked when it is possible to do so and those links should be to the start of the named section or chapter.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Reid Technique?
Is Reid Technique (recently renamed from Reid technique) a proper name per WP:NCCAPS? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon quick glance it would appear that the original name, uncased, would be correct. As the only in the case of Trademark would that alternate casing, or in some select instances of commonname usage. But it seems that a majority of sources do not capitalize the word "Technique" and it should be moved back. You may want to open a WP:RM to solicit additional inputs prior to an actual move back. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Brand names, trademarks, company names, registered names are treated as proper nouns in standard English usage and should always be capitalised. Brand names and trade marks must be properly registered in most countries, so the usage depends on the brand' registration status. See: https://www.grammarly.com/handbook/mechanics/capitalization/15/capitalization-trademarks; http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp; http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BrandNames.html If one of the words in the brand name or trademark is being used in a generic sense (e.g. "It is a technique designed to measure xyz" then it is not capitalised, but when it forms part of a phrase that comprises the trademark or brand (e.g. "Reid Techique") then it must be capitalised for correct grammatical usage. BronHiggs (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does your research indicate that this is an official trademark or branding? But even if so, we don't utilize grammarly's or others style guide, but rather the Wikipedia Manual of Style specifically WP:TRADEMARK in these instances, which specifically says, that even in the case of trademarks: In this instance, the casing is slightly more often used without casing 'Technique' unless you can supply references otherwise. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * : I cannot answer the question as to whether the Reid Technique is a registered trademark or brand simply or quickly. I did a simple Google search, which returned more than 40,000 hits. Simply by scrolling through the top 20 hits (excluding Wikipedia), I note that "Reid Technique" appears far more frequently that "Reid techique". However, I am also persuaded to the view that the capitalised version is more correct by the quality of sources using 'Technique' which include business and popular magazines (e.g. Business Insider, The New Yorker) and publishing gateway services (Psychology Research Net). For my money, journalists and librarians are among the most well trained when it comes to correct spelling and grammatical usage. I can also foresee problems down the track - if additional content and references are added to the article, and in the fullness of time, the more grammatically correct usage begins to dominate, then this would require someone to go back to the article and change each reference to 'technique' all over again. Why create unnecessary complications, even though current WP policy may allow it? Sticking with the capitalised version appears to be eminently sensible, has a clear precedent and is totally in keeping with current usage and with grammatical correctness. BronHiggs (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * :Just thinking a bit more about the legal standing of the name. It occurred to me that the Reid Technique, which is an interrogation method, would probably not qualify for a trademark, but would very likely qualify for a service mark which is "a legally registered name or designation used in the manner of a trademark to distinguish an organization's services from those of its competitors." It's a trivial, technical point, and has no bearing on grammatical usage. However, I thought I should mention it to save anyone the bother of searching for a trademark. BronHiggs (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * After some further research into this, the longer term "The Reid Technique" is trademarked, and while generally, we don't really care all that much about trademark status, search results for the term result in very mixed and inconsistent usage. For example sometimes "The" is capitalized and other times not, the same is true for "Technique". Even in more academic sources, the usage is mixed. Then we have the page history where this has lived for over 10 years as Reid technique. While we don't regard "preference of the owner", since the usage is diverse, we might want to use the 'owners preference' as the normalizing standard. However I can see multiple views on this situation, so instead I'll open up a WP:RM to request a move of this page so we can seek broader consensus from others also experienced in article titling. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: This is now being discussed at Talk:Reid Technique, so I see no reason to have a duplicate discussion here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

How to use location map in Template: Infobox rail accident
I've had a look through the help desk archives but it seems that the syntax for creating location maps changes depending on thé infobox and template being used. Simply put, I'd like to add a red dot for the location map in Sunshine rail disaster that's inside the infobox. The coordinate information and the appropriate map is already there, so if someone could help me combine the two that would be great! Triptothecottage (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved coord inside the infobox, and that seems to have done the trick. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for the information of anyone hanging out here: as explained on this page, all relevant infoboxes are in the process of being changed to accept the coord template and use it to generate location maps. Soon the days will be gone when one needed to use dedicated latitude and longitude fields in infoboxes to produce the maps. Deor (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusion with notability and style
Iv'e been trying to post about a company called Incognito Worldwide who has been written up 3 times in 3 years; Startup of the Month, Top 5 Most Promising, and Top 20 Most Valuable. The decliner states that it seems promotional because the Awards are mentioned, yet when I go to Razorfish or Blue Fountain Media that is the template I used. So if that is improper why do those two do it? My frustration is that I can't seem to get any straight answers; they answer with generality -- it's not notable, etc. If someone could help me figure out how to get this published, I really did want to become very active on Wiki, but i'm loosing interest quickly after months of trying. The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Incognito_Worldwide_India. How is this format any different from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Fountain_Media ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptorsquad (talk • contribs) 11:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That draft has now been deleted so I cannot see what is in the article you created. However, awards themselves are not generally notable enough. Awards aren't the issue, buit rather they are insufficient to establish notability of a company for including. I myself have been the recipient of several industry awards, and even on the cover of an industry magazine, frequently cited in news publications, yet I nor my company have an article on Wikipedia because it doesn't meet the standards. Arguably someone else might actually be able to create an article on me for one of several reasons, but it would be inappropriate of me to go about doing it, and I believe it would not be notable enough... All that said to state that not every company, even if published, meets the WP:GNG requirements to be included. Also reference WP:CORP and WP:YFA for perhaps more assistance. However without being able to see what you wrote, all I can do is provide general support and guidance. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Request to move this page to the correct location. Thanks 1.186.41.86 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"line feed character"
I added a quote from a JSTOR article to Castro Barbosa, and it says, "line feed character". Does anyone know what this is and how to fix it please? There may be invisible characters as I copied and pasted the quotation from the PDF. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does the text at help link in the error message not answer this question? If not, what is lacking in the error help text?  The usual solution is to simply delete the offending character.  When you need the newline in the quote, replace it with .  In this case, it occurs at the end of the phrase: "The marcha was first".
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, where is it exactly please? And how do you see it?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hard to see invisible characters. That's why the error message lists the character position.  One way to find some things is to copy the parameter value into a sandbox space (or just a blank space on the page) and wrap it in  tags as I've done here then click Show preview:
 * Does this help? At the end of the phrase: "The marcha was first":

"O Teu Cabelo Nao Nega, Mulata" ["Your Hair Does Not Deny It, Mulata"] is one of the most famous carnival hits of all time. It is a marcha, a close relative of samba, and the mainstay of carnival in the era. [...] The marcha was first recorded in December, 1931, by the singer Castro Barbosa, and became the hit of the 1932s Carnival.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Phone missing
Please my phone got missing and I can't access anything for now so please put a stop to all online transaction of my account. [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.227.210 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5.3 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Penny James
I noticed that an article/biography page of Penny James no longer exists or was deleted on Wikipedia. I have known Penny for 50+ years, going back to when she was a professional model. Prior to that, she had won the Miss Colorado USA contest in 1962, and that is the only reference I have found on her within Wikipedia on the Miss Colorado USA Page. Can you please tell me why her article page has been deleted? Thank you in advance. 108.234.136.79 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, see Articles_for_deletion/Penny_James. Ruslik_ Zero 20:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

1st billboard hot 100 of 2017
What no billboard chart today But it will be tomorrow if I'm right. 2600:8803:7A00:19:A4A9:81AB:1969:F5B8 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)