Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 January 1

= January 1 =

How to recruit others to help out
Is it possible to recruit other users in helping with a particular topic? If not, is there a way to get other's attention in order to get tasks done? I cannot possibly do it alone. I began this page: WikiProject New Jersey/Requested articles, but no one part of the NJ-project seems to be around and help contribute. Tinton5 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the interests of the users I'm afraid. You can try contacting individual members of WikiProject New Jersey or other users you think might be interested in the subject(s). Otherwise, you have no other choice but to start the article yourself. Over time, other contributors might become interested in improving it once the article already exists.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   12:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of watchers
Is there a way to find the number of watchers even if it is below 30. Or does it have to be 30 or more to view the count.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does have to be above 30. There are good reasons for not showing the number when it is lower than 30. I think developers can see it, but not anyone else.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  02:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: My Edits & Reverts
I need assistance and an opinion of Wikipedia editors as to wither my edits are constructive. Please look into my contribution history and note the edit summaries and explanations I have left in regards to my edits on several articles such as Jim Bob Duggar, Mario Lopez, Billy Bush and Maria Menounos. I'm trying to help make the article look more organized, with proper article bracket additions, sentencing and titling of persons in which the article is about. Recently, a couple of editors have reverted my edits, both on Twinkle and Huggle but my attempts to communicate with them about it have failed; and they have ended up removing them with no reason. If I am trying to make attempts to better the article but get met with resistance, despite the fact I'm following Wikipedia's MoS and common layout, how can I be productive on this thing at all? Thanks for your input. I'm following the guidelines as best as possible. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User:SQGibbon explains his reverts per WP:OVERLINKING. I do not agree as the words linked do not fit the criteria of non-obscure/non-ambiguous words specified in WP:OVERLINKING. User:Amsaim reverted your edits on the basis that your addition was "unsourced". I also do not agree as the lead section is a summary of the article. It does not require references for uncontroversial information already sourced in the body of the article per WP:CITELEAD. I suggest pointing out those two guidelines either in your edit summary, in the article talk pages, or in your attempts to communicate with them. Please be careful not to get drawn into an edit war though. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:OVERLINKING, the content in question on his revert was ...television presenter... -- this is an uncommon use of the American English word for ...host... both having the same meaning but different words in the titling in British English. At any rate, you have mentioned that it does not require references for uncontroversial information; I agree! This is in-fact what I'm attempting to explain to them, thanks for the confirmation <--- This is actually what initially started with the first editor who claimed my edits were 'unsourced' -- Also, In regards to the MoS, I was actually following and adding the exact same bracket additions to the titles used on a Featured Article -- I figured that featured articles were the best examples of correct linking, sentencing, grammar etc. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (P.S.: After looking it over again, WP:OVERLINKING states that linking of common occupations is not necessary. The subjects in question are celebrities and entertainment media figures, certainly NOT a common profession. Thanks again. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe "American", "author", "politician", and "actress" are all common English words/professions/geographic areas and therefore do not need to be linked as per WP:OVERLINK. SQGibbon (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They are words, obviously, but ...common occupation... -- they are not; being a T.V. host is certainly not a common profession. The crux is not being able to understand that IT IS a word, but the meaning of the word; the original intent of a blue link. See Mariah Carey for example, a featured article that uses blue links in the introduction. Thanks --97.100.176.192 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe what SQGibbon means (and this is correct), is that the meaning of the words is commonly understood by Englishers. Not that the occupations are common.  fredgandt  03:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe your reading of "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." is off. The guideline is not saying to avoid linking professions that a lot of people have (thus justifying linking professions that only a few people have (also, without doing a lot of research, what would even constitute a common profession?)) but to avoid linking the names of "common professions" of which "actor", "singer", and "politician" are clear examples of. People know what these professions are, linking to them clutters up the page which is what the guideline is designed to prevent. SQGibbon (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think SQGibbon has a very good point.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now if Mariah Carey was a Forensic entomologist, it might be worth linking!  fredgandt  03:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a level of degree a person who is cited as a celebrity, not a politician, can have in the profession they chose, which ultimately made them famous for it. For example, Jim Bob Duggar is a politician, yes... but his success is primarily noted on his celebrity status because of his show 19 Kids and Counting. I believe it is appropriate to blue link titles of an entertainment/media figure because of just that. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The guideline is clear and has been thoroughly explained to you now. If you think there should be an exception then you need to build consensus to have it added (you can start that process here.  Until then, please respect the community consensus view on Wikilinking and overlinking. SQGibbon (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking the article Jim Bob Duggar as an example, I see a tale of woe. Between the two revisions that make this diff there was a high degree of miscommunication in the edit summaries (alluded to by Obsidian Soul above), and some shameful reversions. The wikilinking (adding brackets) you were doing seemed fine to me. Not excessive at all. The tools some editors use (such as Twinkle), offer edit summary reasons (I believe). I don't think the reasons given were accurate or helpful in a few cases where your work was unnecessarily undone. The real problem started when you reverted work done by another editor, who added references to the lead, in what looks to have been an attempt to back your wikilinking up. That reversion thus made the previous claims that you were adding unsourced material kinda-sorta right. You actually reverted references that if left in place would have made your wikilinking more suitable.
 * Unfortunately, we are all human, and thus prone to error. We have to learn to get along the best we can. Disagreements may occur. Do the right thing, keep cool, carry on, be bold etc. etc. If things get out of hand, there are administrators ready and willing to get involved. Thankfully they are very competent people (on the whole), and can guide editors to reach satisfactory compromise (or issue bans if that fails).
 * Try and be more careful in future when reverting edits, as you may find the edits you revert contain details you really didn't want to remove.  fredgandt  02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I did undo an edit to an older revision, my mistake, and removed sources, and as WP:CITELEAD does not require sources I left it out again. Anyhow, thanks for the information and advice. I hope I can intake as much as possible if I need to edit again. :) --97.100.176.192 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to know a lot of policies and guidelines. More than me for sure. It is frustrating sometimes (work being battered), but the best advice I know of on Wikipedia is right there, under the edit window. "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.". this always reminds me of one policy/guide that seems to me to hit the nail on the head; WP:OWN. Do your best, try and collaborate, and mostly - let it go!  fredgandt  02:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

non-breaking hyphen
how do I make a non-breaking hyphen?

And I really wish this was the default.

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A non-breaking hyphen can be created by using the HTML code  or by copying this character: ‑. Goodvac (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See more about hyphens at Hyphen. I don't know what you want it for but WP:HYPHEN doesn't mention non-breaking hyphen. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I added it to the MOS. I had looked there and thought it odd that they did not list it.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Plunkitt of Tammany Hall
Riordon, William L., Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics, Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1993. (Originally published in 1905)

There is already a wiki page dedicated to George Washington Plunkitt, but I wanted to talk about this book- his speeches- do I create a new page or do I discuss this book on his page that is already there? (This citation appears on his page as a reference.) The book was required reading at the University of Texas while I was there, it gives real insight into that form of corruption. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaWelles (talk • contribs) 05:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The notability criteria for books are at WP:Notability (books): basically, if there has been significant discussion of the book (as opposed to the subject) in reliable sources, then it may have an article. I don't know the answer in this case, but if it is his speeches that are the focus of your interest, I would have thought a section in the page on him would be appropriate. You can then cite the book as a reference, either for the content of the speeches, or for discussion of the speeches provided this discussion is in the book. Be careful not to add original research or synthesis which is not in your sources. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I found this in the link you suggested:

"The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country."

I am certain the book is taught in Universities throughout the United States as an illustration of that time period and of that government model. Do I need official permission to create the page or can I just start whenever I want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaWelles (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're free to start the article, of course. It would be a good idea to start the article by clicking on User:DonnaWelles/Plunkitt of Tammany Hall; then other editors would likely take a look at it to make sure you are following the guidelines (see User talk:DonnaWelles where someone has left you a welcome message), especially those listed by User:ColinFine above. You could also click on Plunkitt of Tammany Hall but once you save it, you run the risk of a lot of criticism and maybe even deletion of the article. Good luck. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did what you said and did the UserName version. Thank you for your help. I hope it gets to be a real article. =)

a simple thank you!!
I just received a welcome message from DThomsen8, but I can't figure out how to reply directly to her/him. I'm sorry if this isn't the forum. I'm new and still stumbling my way through....but while I'm here, I just want to thank all of you who work full-time for Wikipedia. I LOVE Wikipedia, I use it all the time, and I'm an avid supporter in all ways. So, to DThomsen8, whoever you are, I hope this reaches you, and thank you for your message. Happy New Year to all!! Johngalt2788 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngalt288 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Very kind words. Very few people who edit Wikipedia actually work here. We are nearly all volunteers like you. The only editors who do work here, are employees of Wikimedia Foundation. They are the non-profit organization that run Wikipedia and develop the software it runs on.
 * I've let Dthomsen8 know that you've responded to his/her welcome here.
 * We contact specific users by leaving messages on their talk pages. Yours is here, mine is here, and Dthomsen8's is here. If anyone leaves a message on your talk page, you'll see a banner at the top of the page, alerting you to it. You can also get email notifications via a personal preference.  f<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">red</i>g<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">andt</i>  05:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're off to a good start here, and I hope you enjoy it. And excellent choice in reading too!! The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 07:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Indicating "sic" in reference title
When a reference has a misspelling, but that misspelling is part of the reference such as in a web page title, how do I indicate that? For example, on the page Tim_Donnelly_(politician), reference 16. The cited web page has suprise instead of surprise. I would like to indicate that so that readers know the error is in the source and it should not be corrected. Where in the reference (if at all), should I place the (sic)? RudolfRed (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a requirement, but you can place it in the  field within the citation template if it uses one or simply next to the word within the   and   tags. e.g.




 * Will show up as:




 * However, the example reference you gave is to a forum discussion, hence, unsurprisingly, the misspelling. It's not considered a reliable source and should be removed. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   06:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the template. For this case I'd use  . It's a little more work, but makes it 100% clear even to automated text processors that only the one word "suprise" is dubious. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See also typo. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for the help. RudolfRed (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Feature request: displaying mathematical equations as png images with solid background


I would like to request the feature that mathematical equations be stored as png files with a solid white background.

Currently, equations in Wikipedia are already stored as png files, but the images have no background.

The Stylish plugin for Firefox allows one to customize themes with user-defined-css.

While browsing with a dark theme, equations in Wikipedia are essentially invisible, as they display with black text on a black background.

For example, while browsing with a dark theme, equations are visible here ...

http://plus.maths.org/content/chaos-numberland-secret-life-continued-fractions

With a dark theme, equations are invisible here ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction

I'm am not suggesting to use MathML or to change how images of equations are generated with Tex.

I simply request that the generated images of equations have a solid white background.

Cheers, Leonard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardnemoi (talk • contribs) 08:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Leonardnemoi. I think a better forum for your post above is Village pump (proposals). This page is geared towards asking and receiving answers to questions about how to use Wikipedia. By the way, when you add content to talk pages and administrative forums such as this one (as opposed to edits to articles), you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png located above the edit window. When you save, this will automatically format to your signature with a time stamp.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems like an accessibility problem to me, so I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. &mdash; Sebastian 00:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo switching option
I'm looking for some help regarding the photo switch feature currently used at the India article (see the demographics section and sports section), which randomly rotates selected images all utilised for one section. I'm interested in using this feature for another article and would apparently like to how this template works and how frequently the images rotate. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the source for a quick ref which needs to be explained. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But don't expect to see a new picture every time you visit the page. Pages are cached to reduce the load on the servers, and a new picture is only chosen when the page is purged or needs to be rebuilt when an edit is made. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So this was not about broswer side cache? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Obviously if a browser has cached the HTML of a page, the picture won't change. But if even you bypass your browser cache with F5 or Ctrl-F5, you still won't see a new picture. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Thanks. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

userboxes
how do you create a user box 10:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar45596524 (talk • contribs)
 * Everything you wanted to know about userboxes  f<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">red</i>g<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">andt</i>  10:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And more specifically: Userboxes/Design and construct.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Android App
Dear Wikipedia,

Wikipedia is the website I visit more frequently, than my email account. I wish an Android App was available from Wikipedia itself, so that accessing it from android phones was easier.

Please help..

Thanks, Parampreet Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parampreetss (talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You can point your browser to http://en.m.wikipedia.org and then bookmark it. Then if you'd like faster access than going to your browser and choosing the bookmark, you can:


 * 1) Long press on an empty space on your phone's home screen
 * 2) From the menu that comes up, select Shortcuts
 * 3) From the next menu, select Bookmarks
 * 4) Choose the Wikipedia bookmark and place it anywhere on your home screen
 * There doesn't need to be an app. Dismas |(talk) 11:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Offensive comment
Dear Sir/Madam:

I was reading the article at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_12

In that article, I came across the biased, offensive comment that was clearly added by someone with an axe -- including a personal axe -- to grind. In my opinion, the entire comment should be deleted.

Thank you,

Lou Sheehan

"Friedman has argued extensively that the government's refusal to release documents under FOIA somehow "proves" that they are covering up a "UFO Investigation". A little thought immediately reveals that this conclusion is not warranted at all. There could be many other cogent reasons why specific information cannot and should not be released - having nothing whatever to do with the existence of UFO's. Again, Friedman, if he has the background he claims, should not make such fundamentally erroneous conclusions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.84.186 (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the material since it appears to be original research and because it is unsourced and challenged here (see WP:BURDEN). Just as a sidenote, the article needs a top down rewrite.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Donations 4
I have had no ends of trouble with Wikipedia. I have attempted to create pages, only to have people in the community take them down, siting that I was not putting the correct information up. It was an abusive and horrible situation, trying to add content to this site. And now, if I do come on, I am bombarded with posts on how I should donate. What would those donations do? Would they pay for a help desk so someone could actually help me make a page correctly? Would it allow you to pay some people who's job it was to scan new pages, so the power to delete them wasn't in the hands of 'egos with computers'? It's offensive to see you ask for money, and you give so little help to the people you are asking for money from. I will ABSOLUTELY donate, if things like this help center go away, and you begin paying for real amenities for your users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.153.212 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are speaking here to thousands of volunteers who individually have no more influence than you do on the policies of Wikipedia. For information about where donations go, see Fundraising. The Village Pump is the best place to discuss policies on Wikipedia, but fundraising is the purview of the Wikimedia Foundation, so you might find FAQ more helpful.
 * As to your particular experience: if the people who reverted your edits were abusive, that is not acceptable; but Wikipedia's policies are more restrictive than many people realise. If necessary there is a procedure for conflict resolution. I cannot see what edits you have attempted to make (your IP address shows only edits to this page), so there's not really anything more I can say about your experience. --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, have you attempted to understand why your previous pages were taken down? If the rationale was that you were not putting the correct information up, then maybe you really were not putting the correct information up.


 * There are usually very good reasons as to why some pages get deleted, since pages aren't deleted that easily on Wikipedia. Users will always try to salvage even the most badly written articles if the article deserves it. The problem is - not all articles deserve it. The most common reason is usually because the newly created page is a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote a non-notable product, service, company, person, etc. See What Wikipedia is not. If your deleted articles fall within any of those categories, then the deletion is justified and no amount of money you throw at WMF will change the fact that it is NOT okay for those to be in here (WMF does not control content of the Wikipedias anyway). That misplaced sense of entitlement is just as offensive to the thousands of volunteers in here giving you access to knowledge for free. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   17:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also check WP:CREATE --Neo139 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this is a perfect example of the non helpful, and combative nature of the people who volunteer their time here. This kind of stuff: "If your deleted articles fall within any of those categories, then the deletion is justified and no amount of money you throw at WMF will change the fact that it is NOT okay for those to be in here" and "First of all, have you attempted to understand why your previous pages were taken down? If the rationale was that you were not putting the correct information up, then maybe you really were not putting the correct information up." are not helpful, they are inflammatory. I have a real issue, and a real complaint, and there is no way for me to voice it. I dont know why it says I have no edits./ I worked on Pierre Clavleaux Davis' page, if that helps. And I thank the people who tried to say something helpful. Everyone else, though, just lets me know why I try to use other sites for reference, and I REALLY dont want to have to get involved with adding content here anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.153.212 (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/71.199.153.212 shows the IP address you edited from here has no other registered edits while not logged in. Your other edits must have been from another IP adress or when you were logged in. There has not been an article called Pierre Clavleaux Davis and I couldn't guess which page you meant by searching. Without seeing your edits it's impossible to evaluate and comment on them. Instead Obsidi♠n Soul tried to speculate about what might have happened. I see that upset you and I will refrain from it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Brooks (Eastenders actress)
Hi

The entry refers to her death on 31 December 2011 in Bermuda.

I have a hard time believing its true but hey if it is then fine, BUT, the link for more information goes to a non-existant page.

Are you sure its not a wind up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petestar1969 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It seems to have been deleted as vandalism - and the source website given wouldn't have been acceptable even if the link was valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia
How does one get a wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.24.131.126 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your question? What is it that you want?  RudolfRed (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want an instruction about how to create a wiki, then I recommend you this site. Regards.-- ♫GoP♫ <sub style="color:red;">T <sup style="color:red;">C <sub style="color:red;">N 19:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If on the other hand you are asking how to create an article in Wikipedia about you (that is, an article in the particular wiki out of thousands which is called Wikipedia), then the answer is that you don't. Please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing out of the many possible things this could mean: If you mean you want to create a Wikipedia account, you can go to Special:UserLogin/signup. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert E Lee Museum, in Biloxi, MS
How can I find who the current caretaker is for the Robert E Lee Musemum, in Biloxi, MS.? I can be contacted by email at :   Thank you, Clair  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol_move_vote.svg Have you tried the 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.  GB fan 18:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Blue dots show up only on thumbnail image??
Linnaeus first classified these plants as part of Datura with his 1753 description of Datura arborea. Then in 1805, C.H. Persoon transferred them into a separate genus, Brugmansia, named for Sebald Justinus Brugmans. For another 168 years, various authors placed them back and forth between the genera of Brugmansia and Datura, until in 1973, with his detailed comparison of morphological differences, T.E. Lockwood settled them as separate genera, where they have stayed unchallenged since.

Currently, there are 7 recognized species:
 * Brugmansia arborea (L.) Lagerh. (Andes - Ecuador to northern Chile)
 * Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. (Andes - Venezuela to Colombia)
 * Brugmansia insignis (Rodr.) Lagerh. (Eastern Andes foothills - Colombia to Bolivia)
 * Brugmansia sanguinea (Ruiz & Pav.) D.Don (Andes - Colombia to northern Chile)
 * Brugmansia suaveolens (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Bercht. & J.Presl (Southeast Brazil)
 * Brugmansia versicolor Lagerh. (Ecuador)
 * Brugmansia vulcanicola (A.S.Barclay) R.E.Schult. (Andes - Colombia to Ecuador)

These species are then divided into two natural, genetically isolated groups. Brugmansia section Brugmansia (the warm-growing group) includes the species aurea, insignis, sauveolens, and versicolor. Brugmansia section Sphaerocarpium (the cold group) includes the species arborea, sanguinea, and vulcanicola.

Two of these species were challenged by Lockwood in his 1973 doctoral thesis. First, Brugmansia vulcanicola was said to be a subspecies of B. sanguinea, but this was refuted by Lockwood's former mentor, R.E. Schultes in 1977. Second, Lockwood proposed that the species B. insignis was instead a hybrid of the combination (B. suaveolens x B. versicolor) x B. suaveolens. This was later disproved by crossbreeding experiments done by the Preissels, published in 1997.

I have recently uploaded an image, and included it in a major rewrite of Brugmansia. In the Brugmansia article it shows up as having 7 blue dots on the left side of the image, but when you click the image to see the main file, the dots are not there. They only show up for a left placement of the image in the article. I can't make the blue dots appear on this page with the same code. Anyone know what those are? Many thanks! --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see blue dots, here or in the article.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Taxonomy" section has an unordered list of seven items, which have bullets like this: Monobook-bullet.png . I think on your display they somehow got moved to the left of the image. Goodvac (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're a genius of the obvious, thank you! Can't believe I didn't see that. Now any recommendation on how I can make the bullets work properly? --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, Tom. I don't see the bullets on the left, so I think it's specific to your window size. I know there's probably some CSS code or a template that can prevent that from happening, but I'll have to do some research. is an experienced coder, so he may be able to help. Goodvac (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've duplicated the section above to make the dots/bullets show up the left side of the picture (for me). I'm using IE9 on Windows7. Anyone else see them on the left of the image? --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Again IE9 on Windows 7. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. I've put the list of species in a left margined div (html box). Makes little difference to users not seeing the bullets out of place, but the question is...Does it help at all for those who do see the error?
 * If Internet explorer is involved, I assume it might have something to do with the dreaded "compatibility mode" (everything seems to break in that mode). Try looking at an old revision of the page (before my div experiment), and switch your IE to "standards mode" (button on the top toolbar). That might help (anyone who knows to do that).
 * All of this is currently me guessing Face-wink.svg  f<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">red</i>g<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">andt</i>  20:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! That seemed to fix it, I like your solution. I edited it a bit further to indent a little more, so the bullets aren't hanging out in the margin (margin between the text & image). Does it still look ok on your browsers? --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The indent looks too large for me (Vector/Chrome/XP) but it's not so bad i would complain. If it means that other users don't see dots in totally the wrong place, successful hack!  f<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">red</i>g<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">andt</i>  22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I moved the image to the taxobox per Manual of Style/Images and rearranged the sections a bit. It's never a good idea to place an image on the left side of a bulleted list imo, especially given that the taxobox is on the other side, sandwiching the text into a very narrow column. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Obsidian for the italics fixes in the article, but I'm sorry I really don't like your change of my picture placement. Putting it in the Taxbox makes it much too large, IMO. It also disassociates it with the Taxonomy section which makes it look just awkwardly tacked on as a second addition for the overall article. I scoured the internet to find a free picture that lent an old-world feeling to the Taxonomy section, to go with the 1700's and 1800's info, and that feel is lost with your placement. I agree that the MOS technically says we shouldn't sandwich text between an image and a infobox, but I had thought this a reasonable exception because only 4 lines of text run into the box, whereas most of that section is naturally narrow in width because of the list of species. I thought overall it was a nice fit, asthetically pleasing, and at least in the spirit of the MOS guidelines. Plus it preserves the old-world feel to Taxonomy section and allows shrinking the image thumbnail to a better size. What would you think of a compromise, perhaps just removing the bullets all together and otherwise restoring the image to the size I had on left? In that particular list, since each line is already a link, the individual points are already highlighted as distinct from the text, and I think loosing the bullets would be no loss. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Imho, it's not about the bullets, it's the actual placement of the picture beside a list. Like placing pictures on the left of quoted paragraphs or a series of closely spaced section headers, it disrupts the indent which (at least in my opinion, heh) is a bit messy. Does it need to be placed there? Can the taxonomy section be moved down perhaps? Past the taxobox? But no problem of course, feel free to move it back to the position you prefer.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   05:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. A bulleted list of species is best imo, especially since it includes the authorities which I think can't really be placed inline in normal text. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   05:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this before. Best to keep the bullets and right justify the image.TCO (Reviews needed) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeking article feedback
I know notability and verifiability have been passed, but I'm still seeking feedback on the rest of it.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Stats on Unregistered Editors
I know somewhere I have seen a Signpost article or some publication state something of the form:
 * "[x]% of (English) Wikipedia edits are made by unregistered editors, and their contributions account for [y]% of all Wikipedia content"

I've done some thorough searching, but haven't had a bit of luck in tracking down these numbers. Anyone remember the source? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Also, could someone help me with the statement: "Of all Wikipedias contributors, [z]% were unregistered". Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Statistics has various links. One of them is http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm. The "Tables" link for the English Wikipedia leads to http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#anonymous says about the English Wikipedia: "All together 93,577,041 article edits were made by anonymous users, out of a total of 303,882,826 article edits (31%)". The bottom says "Data processed up to Wednesday November 30, 2011". Some of the total is bots but there are also stats about that. It's hard to say how much content is made by different edits. I don't have information about that but I think there has been attempts to estimate it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)