Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 September 4

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< September 3 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 5 >
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 4

edit

Need a Translation of Kanji

edit
  Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/language § Help Desk Query
 – ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions moved
♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji - Miyazaki The first part of the Kanji, the Surname, says Miyazaki but I don't know what the second part, the First Name, says. So far I've found three possibilities:

  • Miyazaki Shigesaburo
  • Miyazaki Shuichi
  • Miyazaki Takeshi

--Arima (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best venue for this would be wp:Reference desk/language, which specialises in er, Language questions!220.101 talk\Contribs03:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Miyazaki Shigesaburō. Oda Mari (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nested deletions

edit

Apologies if this is not the correct area for this comment but I could not find any other place to put this point- which in itself represents a comment on the structure of Wikipedia*.

A reference in a TV broadcast led me to make a Google query which directed me to Wikipedia. On arrival I found that the article had been deleted (WP:ONEEVENT) and subsumed into a different article (location of the event) - which had been deleted by someone else, on the grounds that the information was duplicated elsewhere, with a link to a third article (another individual apparently connected with the location in some way), which had in turn been deleted by a third person (under Wp:WP:ONEEVENT), so now no information on any of these headings exists anywhere under any obvious headword, and I still don't know what was going on...

I appreciate the need to delete/consolidate/restructure things but when a headword is deleted please can this be done in a way that avoids loss of information? Here the loss seems to have happened because someone decided that the article on the second individual should be kept and the article on the location deleted, rather than the other way about, then someone else decided that the second person wasn't noteworthy anyway - so there goes the information on the first person

  • The reason for looking things up - surely the purpose of any encyclopedia- is usually an attempt to rectify a lack of knowledge.

Given this lack of knowledge of a topic e (a) it's not easy to guess what other heading the (deleted (deleted (deleted))) information may be residing under, if it still exists at all. (b) being told that one can write one's own article on the missing topic is not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.239.47 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding! Acceptably amusing account. Leave a link here. We'll see what can be done. Leaving that, this is the way we operate. Sh#t happens.203.88.8.1 (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you should do is tell us what was the original article and what was the secondary article and what was the thirdary article (I just made up that word) and then we can look at the deleted content and see if it should be resurrected. Answer may be for exampe, that the information was unsourced and was contentious and about a living person and should not have been retained in any corner of the encyclopedia. Or it may be that the concatenation of the deletions really led to good content being lost, or something else, or in between. It's very hard to know in the hypothetical.--71.183.175.115 (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word you're looking for is tertiary. Dismas|(talk) 02:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Many inappropriate things are deleted from Wikipedia and shouldn't be kept in any article. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It's impossible to evaluate your case without knowing any of the page names or people. There can be more than one reason to delete a page so if a stated reason, for example that the information exists in another article, becomes wrong then it doesn't necessarily mean that the page should be restored. Google takes a varying amount of time to discover deletions and changes at Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia doesn't control Google's update schedule but you can click "cached" on a Google search page to see the page version indexed by Google. You can use Wikipedia's own search function to search names, locations or other things in Wikipedia, but this function also takes time to update for performance reasons. Deleted Wikipedia pages are only visible to administrators. This is partly for legal reasons like possible libel and copyright violations. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where Should I Post Full Articles to be Reviewed?

edit
  Resolved
 – User directed to contact the administrator that closed the previous AfDs, then possibly take the issue to WP:DRV. — GorillaWarfare talk 03:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm written an article for Russell Hantz, although previous articles about him have been deleted. This guy is very notable as he won Survivor's "Player of the Season" award in back to back seasons and is considered by many to be the best and most evil person to ever play the game. There are also many other less notable Survivor contestants with Wikipedia pages too. I don't want to make a post about him, just to have it deleted and not be able to do anything about it. Is there a place I can post the full article before I post it on his page? RandJshow (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it over, I can say that the #1 problem with your article is that it does not demonstrate notability. At Wikipedia, it is not enough that a subject's notability be asserted by merely describing their activities, it must be proven by clearly showing that someone outside of Wikipedia, and independant of the subject, has written extensively about it in reliable sources. To break it down another way, before it can survive, the article must clearly show, by use of cited references that people have written books, magazine articles, newspaper articles, etc. about him, and that those writings are considered reliable as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As it stands now, it looks like the only real info we have comes from the TV show itself, which is not sufficient to establish notability. Please note that, quite often, this is not your fault, and sometimes there can be nothing you can do about this. If there are no books or articles in existance about him, then he's just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 03:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a ton of magazine, newspaper, and internet articles about him. I just didn't originally list them all because I wanted to make sure the article itself was good enough before I spent time adding the references. However, my updated article has the references, so I'm wanting to know where I should post it for review. RandJshow (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three references is not what I would call "a ton", and three short ones at that. Having is name appear in an article is not the same thing as the article being about him. Have you thought about becoming a contributor at the [Survivor Wiki]? They would likely gladly look forward to your contributions, and they have a very different set of standards than does Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can post a note at WP:FEED with a link to the userspace draft and volunteers will look at the article and give their opinion of the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear RandJShow, kindly use the page User:RandJshow/sandbox for creating your article. Do please note, this is only a temporary sandbox for proving notability of your article, post which, the article may be moved to the mainspace or might be deleted, in case it doesn't qualify on Wikipedia's notability requirements. Once you believe you've edited the article completely, leave a note here or on my talk page and we'll take a look at it and guide you appropriately. Before you create the article, necessarily go through the following articles:

If there is any other way you need assistance, feel free to leave a message again. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 05:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2):This sounds familiar. We had a Russell Hantz article which was merged and redirected to Survivor: Samoa, then again in August to Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains. Here is a link to a version of the article that you might wish to compare with yours to see if it is for any reason more likely to be retained.

Thanks a lot for your help. The current problem with having Russell Hantz redirect to Survivors: Heroes vs. Villains is that readers will learn nothing about his appearance on Survivor: Samoa, arrest, or personal life. Hantz was hated by many, so is it possible his page was deleted from users that just didn't like him? If you look at this page, you can view a list of Survivor contestants with Wikipedia pages about them. Many of their pages have as much or less information than what the deleted Russell article had, so I'm not sure why it makes sense to delete his but keep theirs. RandJshow (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the other contestants articles or at your RH article either. But... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you with figuring out why other articles exist while yours does not (yet). Dismas|(talk) 06:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted the article on the Russell Hantz page. Everything posted came from the show or the 3 references I listed. If it needs more references or better quality of references, let me know. I'll improve the formatting of the page once it's approved. Also, the "h" in his last name needs to be capitalized in the title, but I'm not sure how to do that. Thanks.

RandJshow (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am gravely sorry about this (I know you worked very hard on the article), but as mentioned above, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (2nd nomination) (a mere month ago) lay in merging the content and redirecting. That's it. Russell Hantz was protected indefinitely, so you can do absolutely nothing about that. I suggest you find a more worthy topic about which to write. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? He can't still go through WP:DELREV? Dismas|(talk) 07:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely ridiculous. First of all, I asked about that protection yesterday and was told I may have a chance of getting my article posted. Can I at least try to appeal this again? He's probably the most famous Survivor contestant ever, so to allow other Survivor and reality show contestants their own Wikipedia page but not him makes no sense at all.

RandJshow (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a couple of suggestions above as to how to proceed. I suggested you leave a note at WP:FEED providing a link to the copy of the article in your userspace so that others can review the article and maybe provide feedback as to how to make it so that it doesn't get deleted or redirected again. Someone else recommended the WP:INCUBATOR. That is another place where other editors can comment on or improve the article before it makes it to the mainspace. Both suggestions will allow editors who are use to improving articles the chance to look at it, comment on it and improve on it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note on the WP:FEED. Is there any chance he'll get his own page by doing this or should I just give up? I REALLY think he deserves his own Wikipedia page and it makes no sense that he doesn't, but I don't want to waste a lot of time just to find out there's nothing I can do that will help since it's protected indefinitely.

RandJshow (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, RandJ, it was strongly suggested that you put the article up at WP:FEED days ago and you didn't. You marched right on past the recommendations by more experienced editors and replaced the redirect with your version of the article. An article that you were told would need more than the three references that you supplied even though you said that there were "a ton". And now, only after having the redirect protected indefinitely have you put the article up at WP:FEED. Please, next time, listen to what people are trying to tell you more carefully.
Indefinitely doesn't mean forever though. If you do supply evidence that he is notable, yes, there's a good chance that the article can be reinstated. But you'll have to demonstrate that evidence. Dismas|(talk) 08:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GBfan, I actually didn't start working on this until yesterday (not days ago), and you told me to do a Peer Review. After I did the Peer Review, they deleted it because that wasn't the correct place to post full articles. After that, I was told to post the article on Russell's page, so I did, but that was deleted right away. I was then told there's nothing I can do to post the article, but now you're saying there is.

Please, don't get mad at me for listening to people that are telling me to do the wrong thing.

RandJshow (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even then, at Peer Review, you were advised: I can tell you that the draft contains no (zero) references and needs them to prove notability. The article also reads like a fan club page now - it goes into way too much detail. (emphasis added by me) Dismas|(talk) 09:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I mentioned above the article in the Peer Review was that I wanted to know if this person seemed notable based on the content I wrote, and if so, I'll add the references later.

Also, the article was unbiased, so I don't know why that person said it was like a fan club page. I did however shorten it to make it easier to read.

Right now, I listed 3 references, not counting the fact that most of the information about him came from the 2 seasons he appeared on Survivor. If all I need to do is add more references to make him seem more notable, I can do that without a problem.

Let's not play the blame game anymore. I just want to get my article posted with as little trouble as possible.

RandJshow (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, there is not going to be any easy way to do this. You need to show that he is notable according to general notability or {biography specific guidelines. They way to do that is to add reliable sources to the draft in your userspace that show he has had significant coverage in multiple sources. When you think you have shown that he meets those notability guidelines then when other editors look at it, if they agree with you, it can be moved on top of the protected redirect. Once an article is deleted or redirected by WP:AFD it takes more work to get it recreated. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD had sufficient consensus to merge and redirect. It was almost unanimous, save for one keep vote. Chances of overturning the close are slim. Protector of Wiki (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the people who voted on merging saw the show and just hated him, because their reasons for it are ridiculous. They say he's done nothing notable outside of the last season he was on, even though he was on for 2 seasons and won Player of the Season both times, changed the future of Survivor, had an arrest that got a lot of coverage, and owns some successful companies. If they're going to use that reasoning, they might as well merge Obama with Presidents as he's done nothing notable outside of his presidency. They'll also need to spend time merging the thousands of other less notable reality show contestants to the show they were on.

If I'm going to spend more time on this, is there a chance I'll deal with people that may have their head screwed on straight? If not, can you have them spend time merging every Survivor contestant from this list with the season they were on?

RandJshow (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also made a post to the WP:Feed earlier, but haven't heard anything back about it. I don't see anybody else with a response from their requests either. Does anybody even provide help there or am I looking in the wrong place?

RandJshow (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: As an outside observer, I haven't read the full discussion) Please calm down. You're edging on WP:NPA. If you're going to write an article that has already been deleted, try to review the reasons for deletion (for example, non-notability, since Survivor is in general a non-notable show) and make sure to address those concerns when making the article. First try to develop your ideas for the article in your sandbox. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound more upset than I am. I just feel their reasoning is extremely unfair. Why allow thousands of other less notable reality show contestants their own page but not him? He has more Survivor fans than any other contestant on the show and many of them probably come on here to learn more about him but are unable to. How does it even hurt if he has his own page? Worst case scenario, the reader would learn about the 2 seasons he appeared on the show, but that's not the case. I've already spent a lot of time on the article, but I don't want to do everything I can to prove these people wrong on why he should have his own page, just to have to them come up with another ridiculous reason to delete his page.

RandJshow (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beg for mercy, Other crap exists. Frankly, voters at the AfD had solid reasoning to redirect the article. Russell Hantz is notable only for his participation at Survivor, allowing WP:ONEEVENT to apply. Once again I suggest you waste no more time on this arguing, because your effort is futile. You may continue making false allegations, but they aren't going to help your case. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either you all haven't seen the show or just hate his guts. He clearly wasn't just a participant, he won $100,000 award twice for being America's favorite player and changed the future of the show forever. There's probably tons of people coming on this site to learn more about him, but are unable to. All they can learn about him from his redirect is his season from Heroes vs. Villains, even though he was also on Samoa, so the WP:ONEEVENT shouldn't even apply. And that's not even counting his arrest that got a ton of coverage.

All I'm just trying to do is provide information to people who want to learn more about Russell Hantz. I didn't come hear to argue. If you all want to block information that much of the public would like to learn about, that's your right, but please don't lie and accuse me of making false allegations when I clearly haven't made any.

RandJshow (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not improve the article and show this guy is notable, instead of moaning about how unfair it is? And if you believe there are articles about "less notable reality show contestants", why not improve them too or propose them for deletion? Astronaut (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, but everyone here is either giving me bad advice or telling me there's absolutely nothing I can do.

I don't actually think other reality show contestants should have their pages deleted. I love learning about their personal lives. I just don't see how it makes sense how people who appear on a reality show once and don't even win anything can have a page about them, but not someone who makes it to the end of a show and wins the "Player of the Season" award and $100,000 twice.

RandJshow (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a false allegation that people either hate him or haven't seen the show. I never said I hate him. I love learning about their personal lives. Sure, but WP:ILIKEIT and WP:POPULARPAGE don't hold up at AfD. He . . . changed the future of the show forever. Speculation isn't helpful either. You may bring it up at WP:DRV, but the chances of having a standalone article are very, very slim. Best of luck, Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should note that Russell Hantz played 2 major roles in 2 major events (not just minor role in major event or vice versa) and a has a huge fan base, which should be enough to make him notable.

Is there 1 person I can contact that knows the best way I should handle this? I've already been given bad advice 3 times on where to post my article and it seems like everyone else is telling me to give up or trying to start an argument with me. All I want to do is get this article posted with as little trouble as possible.

RandJshow (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not base notability on number of fans. All I want to do is get this article posted with as little trouble as possible. Do you have a personal investment in this? If so, please reveal it per WP:COI. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked GorillaWarfare to comment here. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not base notability on number of fans. Wikipedia may need to change their Notability page for people because it clearly states that people in TV with a huge fan base can be considered notable.

My only personal investment in this is that I'm a huge fan and spent a lot of time writing the article. I personally don't know Russell.

RandJshow (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my bad. WP:ENT does cite a "large fan base" as evidence of notability. You should bring this up at WP:DRV if your heart is set in creating this article. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do I need contact the person that deleted the page because it sounds like several people were involved. Also, do you have any other advice to increase my chances of my article getting created?

RandJshow (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the DRV instructions, you need to contact Stifle and try to work out a satisfactory solution. If no solution is reached, take it to DRV. My advice is to use the guidance of the following pages to argue your point: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Arguments to make in deletion discussions, and List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Will do that now.

RandJshow (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News front-page suggestions

edit
  Resolved
 – ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naive question... but where do the discussions about the news section of the Main page go on? Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the discussion tab for the main page. In that big box at the top of the page it says to put suggestions for ITN at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Dismas|(talk) 04:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Facepalm Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We've all done it. Dismas|(talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific papers

edit

Is there a place for scientific papers such as Low dimensional chaos in stellar pulsations and Stellar pulsation theory – Regular versus irregular variability in Wikipedia, or do they violate the no original research policy? Astronaut (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are borderline. I've added improvement tags to them to see what happens. They need to be rewritten.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama picture

edit

Hi, I translated this article to put it in English WP and intend to use the same Jerusalem vomHospiz.jpg panorama picture in the same way. I tried several methods to let it show the same size without success. Can someone help? Regards, --Spartanbu (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try this markup: {{wide image|Panorma Jerusalem vomHospiz.jpg|750px|Jerusalem: A city of two nations with neighborhoods, buildings and holy sites of all three Abrahamic religions.}}. It displays the below image.
 
Jerusalem: A city of two nations with neighborhoods, buildings and holy sites of all three Abrahamic religions.
Astronaut (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Astronaut --Spartanbu (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New articles which were redirects

edit

Wikipedia seems to have problems detecting that a new article is a new article if it was converted from a redirect. They dont appear on NEW PAGES and last time i checked any new articles i converted from a redirect werent recorded against my user name in my user stats as being new articles created by me. Also is {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} (currently 6,918,486) accurate ? Does it allow for conversions from redirects to new articles ? --Penbat (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect is converted to an article, this is seen by the Wiki software as a straight forward edit - you are changing [[#REDIRECT xxxx]] to other text. As such, it does not become a new page - it is still the old page, but with new content. Also, as far as I am aware, the number of articles includes all "former redirects" - when #REDIRECT is removed, it is no longer an redirect but an article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case new articles converted from redirects, as they dont seem to appear on NEW PAGES, arnt subject to the scrutiny of new page patrol that new articles do. It seems like a good wheeze to set up a redirect then later replace it with some sort of garbage article (such as a hoax or spam or BLP violation) and there is a fair chance it wont get detected as garbage for a while at the very least.--Penbat (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks like redirect to article has just now very recently become detectable by Wiki software as i did one a few days ago and it included a "(Redirect becoming article)" edit summary see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institutional_abuse&action=history MediaWiki:Tag-Redirect becoming article-description--Penbat (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"intitle" and "lookfrom" Wikipedia search options for finding section titles ?

edit

I find the "intitle" and "lookfrom" Wikipedia search options (as in intitle:"search phrase" and lookfrom:"search phrase") to be very useful to find articles relating to a subject of interest.

However it would also be useful if i could look for section titles within articles using "intitle" and "lookfrom" rather than just article titles. I bet there are plenty of sections tucked away which would be of interest to me and i might llke to link to.

If it isnt possible with standard Wiki software, perhaps somebody could do a couple of searches for me on my behalf using specialist Wiki software.--Penbat (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably best discussed either at the Village Pump, or a "bug" reported at Wikimedia's bugzilla -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thx --Penbat (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAFE DRINKING WATER

edit

i WANT STANDARD/SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.101.118 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you tried the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. TNXMan 15:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

statistics support

edit

Can somebody help? Thx, Hæggis (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures sizes within body of an article

edit

Does the MOS or other policy say anything about the size of pictures in an article text? Pritish Nandy Communications is gaining quite a few pictures and besides making it look like a glossy advert, they break up the text. Should they be smaller? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement may be relevant. The guideline states that 'Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text', implying images should not be purely decorative. I think it would be acceptable to remove one or two from that article. Intelligentsium 18:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I reduce the size of pictures? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image syntax should be something like [[File:Imagename.jpg|thumb|XXXpx|An optional comment or caption.]] (not necessarily in that order), where 'XXX' is a number. By making 'XXX' smaller or larger, you can make the image smaller or larger, respectively. If there is no parameter 'XXX', you can add one at any point after the file name. Intelligentsium 21:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say the images should use the default size defined in the user's preferences, but they already do that (ie. there is "thumb" and "left"/"right" but no "...px" in the markup for the images). However, such copyrighted images as the movie posters should not be used simply to illustrate the article about the production company, I've removed them. Astronaut (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image documentation pages assert that the images are freely licensed with OTRS correspondence. The images don't appear to be confirmed/ticketed yet though, so probably shouldn't be used so freely, and aren't particularly relevant to the article. I agree with their removal. Intelligentsium 01:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
edit

When pulling up Wikipedia, the print is really HUGE!!! Other sites and windows I pull up are not like this, so I figure maybe it's a wikipedia issue?

If you have info on how to reduce the print on my laptop for your site, please tell me how.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.22.142 (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is most likely on your side; Wikipedia should not be displaying a large font. Have you tried scrolling your mouse wheel back whilst holding Ctrl? Intelligentsium 22:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can press Ctrl+0 to return to the normal font size, or Ctrl+- to decrease the font size. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that doesn't work, it may be a problem with your cache. See Wikipedia:Bypassing your cache. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2010_September_4&oldid=1146587169"