Help desk
< September 26	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 27

Commons vs. Wikipedia

Need a little help understanding the relationship between Commons and Wikipedia.

When I click on the thumbnail for an image I previously uploaded to Commons, I get a page showing a larger version of the image (I have Media Viewer turned off). At the top of that page is a tab, "View on Wikimedia Commons". This implies that what I'm looking at is not on Commons. If it's not on Commons, where is it, and why is it there?

If you need an example, see the left image at Kaw Point. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is on Commons. You are viewing it on a page here at EN with the image inlaid into it. This way you can view the basics of the file without having to leave EN. Dismas|^(talk) 00:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaw_Point_Plaque_2014_Side_One.jpeg is the url of the "real" file page. For convenience, our software allows Commons images to be displayed at a "fake" file page at all Wikimedia wikis, for example https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Kaw_Point_Plaque_2014_Side_One.jpeg (English Wikipedia) or https://de.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Datei:Kaw_Point_Plaque_2014_Side_One.jpeg (German Wikivoyage). In all three cases the actual image file is the same one at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Kaw_Point_Plaque_2014_Side_One.jpeg (it's confusing that "wikipedia" is part of the url, ignore that). Commons images can be inserted in articles and other pages at all Wikimedia wikis. If a file is uploaded to the English Wikipedia then it only has a file page here and can only be inserted in pages here. Commons doesn't allow fair use images so they must be uploaded to the English Wikipedia for use in a specific article, for example File:20th century fox (2009).jpg for use in 20th Century Fox. See more at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking through redirect

Say, for example, I want to wikilink the word "tweeting", as in "sending messages using Twitter". tweeting redirects to Twitter. I could do this in at least two ways:

[[tweeting]]

[[Twitter|tweeting]]

The first method allows the link to immediately change if the redirect is changed. The second has the advantage of avoiding the overhead of the redirect. Which is preferred? Is there a rule of thumb that can be applied to all such cases, or is this an "it depends"? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some discussion in an editing guideline about this, WP:NOTBROKEN. GB fan 01:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I wanted. So, aside from a couple of obscure special cases that I probably don't need to commit memory resources to, Method 1 is much preferred. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only exception that I run into on a regular basis (and actually fix on a regular basis) is that Method 2 *should* be used in navigation templates (generally at the bottom of the article)Naraht (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where is The Federalist entry?

Why when I put in The Federalist -- which is a well-known online magazine -- do I get referred to the Federalist papers? Is this censorship? I contribute every year to Wikipedia and I send an email urging all my (many) friends to do the same. If I do not get a satisfactory answer from you about the lack of a page for The Federalist, I will be sure and tell all those friends (and everybody else I can corner)about this censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.249.109 (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Federalist does indeed redirect to Federalist Papers. Immediately below the title on that page is a note telling you about the redirect, and saying that for other uses you should go to Federalist (disambiguation). On that page you will see a link to Thefederalist.com, which I assume is the page you are asking about. So - no, no censorship, just a correct redirect to far-and-away the most common meaning for the title The Federalist - together with a correct and clear and at-the-top-of-the-page-where-noone-can-miss-it direction to a disambiguation page. Thank you for your donations. DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, 50.138.249.109, we generally try to be more friendly here, but starting the conversation in a contentious, accusatory, and even threatening tone sometimes yields other results. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry question

Sockpuppetry is the use of multiple accounts. When a "Check user" (if I remember correctly) checks the IPs, are they allowed to report the IP to the internet service provider if there is too much abuse? Just interested as I am new to Wikipedia and I want to learn how things work. Thanks! TChemB (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor nit. Using multiple accounts is not against the rules. You can have multiple accounts (such as for bots that you run) but it's when you start using them for malicious purposes (like posting several opinions for AFDs or trying to evade a block) that you are breaking the rules. Dismas|^(talk) 14:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information about sock puppetry can be found at WP:SOCK -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New user icon

I'm not sure what to call it, but the small picture directly to the left of your username has been changed recently, it seems. Could somebody point me out to any notice/announcement of this change? Thanks! Thekillerpenguin (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thekillerpenguin: See #Change of User icon a few threads up from here. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Army vs navy

When the article says the game is played in Baltimore in 2014 and 2016, why say all other games in between will be in Philadelphia? It's only one game. This article seems very Philly centric, also there is no link to M and T Bank Stadium in the paragraphs discussing venues, but every link for Lincoln financial field is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.25.108 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the talk page for the article in question. --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"That period" in Army–Navy Game#Future venues refers to the referenced 2009 announcement [1] about 2010–17 and not merely 2014–16. Maybe the sentence is originally from 2009 and could be reformulated today. M&T Bank Stadium is linked three paragraphs earlier at the end of the previous section, so it shouldn't be linked again per WP:REPEATLINK. Lincoln Financial Field is linked too many times in the article, but it isn't linked in the paragraph where you mention that M&T Bank Stadium isn't linked. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]