Help desk
< December 5	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 7 >

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.

December 6

Book Cover image for infobox

I am putting together everything for an infobox on an article on a novel, The Road to Samarcand. I have looked at examples of other infoboxes of novels, and they often have likenesses of the covers. Would all of these pictures have been uploaded to Wikimediacommons, or is there another way to put images into infoboxes? I'm completely stuck about how to answer the licensing questions in order to upload the cover image, which I scanned, into Wikimediacommons. If anyone has experience with book covers in infoboxes, I would really appreciate some pointers. Thank you! Hammerdrill (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only free images can be uploaded to commons. Few if any book covers are free. So they have to be uploaded on English Wikipedia with a {{non-free book cover}} tag and a {{book cover fur}} non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 04:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I googled English Wikipedia (with several results), but I don't see a link for uploading. Maybe I missed it or didn't look in the right place. Can you please give me more details about finding where to upload the image of my book jacket? Thank you.Hammerdrill (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and Paste Symbols

How come I need to copy and paste the symbols instead of just clicking them like I used to? Eg.{{}} {{{}}} | [] [[]]--intraining ^{Jack In} 06:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), since it looks like nobody here has any theories beyond what Chamal and Mgm already suggested. For the record, I'm also using Firefox and have had none of the problems you mention, so I haven't the foggiest. Report back if you find an answer elsewhere! --Fullobeans (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. thanks for your response, I will let you know if I find an answer.--intraining ^{Jack In} 08:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many citations?

I would like to know how many citations is "too many"; what I mean is when it creates a problem like this:

...been profiled in Chinese media.^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]}.

(Article Linda Wang (actor), first few lines. Thanks! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 07:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a particular debated statement, I'd say 4 refs would be acceptable. Unless all these links to the same domain actually show news from different sources, I think only one should stay. Otherwise, about 3-4 seems right (personal opinion). I'd move the excess links to the article's talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People rewriting History

On most articles, I see people rewriting history. This is against WP:MOS. Why is this? 62.24.251.240 (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's difficult with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. History has many viewpoints, conflicting arguments, historiography and re-historiography, so there's never one viewpoint. It's ideal to keep articles in a neutral point of view, i.e. by discussing each historian's views with a balanced view on what happened (or what didn't). If you see history being rewritten, it's better to be bold and fix it yourself, or post to the talk page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by rewriting history? I'm confused because history has nothing to do with the MoS. Is this something about article history? But as Peter Symonds says, if it's about wrong information on history, then you can fix it with suitable references. But please note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Even if something here doesn't agree with our belief or viewpoint, if it's backed by reliable sources, it stays. If you're adding another viewpoint, make sure it is referenced and try to present all viewpoints in a neutral manner. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 10:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a new section: what NOT to put in edit summaries

I was direct here from Help talk:Edit summary.

Hi everybody,

Recently I've been experiencing that some editors put messages towards others in their edit summaries. I, in my most humble opinion, find that unnecessary, let alone if that is a personal attack or an offensive stance ([1], [2], [3]). I don't know how others feel about this, but maybe the guide lines should be updated. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are already forbidden, so I don't think it's particularly neccesary to ban them from edit summaries. However, there are other messages better left on user or article talk pages. If you can get a consensus that describes the kind of messages that shouldn't be in it, then I totally agree mentioning them in the policy is a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas how I might check what the consensus is on the subject? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this proposal should be made at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and see how it goes. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 10:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll drop a line there. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hiding" a template

I'm about to deliver a newsletter, but I think most members would like it better if it was "hidden" because it is kind of large. You can find it here. If someone could just change its normal state to hidden that would be great, because I don't know how to. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Help:Collapsing. Algebraist 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just deliver the link to people? If you're going to make them click on something to see the content, they could just as easily click on a link. --Teratornis (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, it takes away from the fact that its more of a publication, and I guess it could be vandalized? I don't mind delivering it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why should I donate to wikipedia? --Useless Bored Person (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am a useful and interested person, but have no money - so we would balance each other out. Seriously, it costs a lot of money to provide a website as busy as Wikipedia, and donations help keep it all going. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also foundation:Donate/Questions/en#Why should I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation? Note that donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is Wikipedia is primarily about having fun (those of us who get addicted to editing on Wikipedia do so because we find the structure of Wikipedia to be highly conducive to letting us attain the pleasurable sensation of Flow (psychology)). Thus you should donate to Wikipedia if you enjoy helping other people, and that happens to be the way you would like to help them. Obviously, some people enjoy helping people in other ways, and still others are sadists or sociopaths who enjoy hurting people instead of helping them. So whatever floats your boat. --Teratornis (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, er, that whole small thing about writing and building articles, too, of course. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming an account

If you rename, what happens? Do your contributions under the old name just disappear? Does your global account go down the tubes? Maybe there's a FAQ on this, sorry for not finding it. Thx! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about global accounts, but locally, as far as all the records go, you appear to have always been using your new name. Algebraist 22:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that old signatures are not records and they don't change when you change user name. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links in your sig will still work, though, because when you get renamed, your userpage and all subpages get moved, leaving a redirect where the old pages were. flaming lawyer^cnever for get 03:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help with footnotes/references

Can someone help me find very simple directions for using one reference for different facts, using that same reference, in different paragraphs. Thank you 71.87.55.138 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Footnotes#Multiple citations of the same reference or footnote. Algebraist 22:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]