Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 November 9

= November 9 =

How to add a map that shows where a species of spider is found
I wish to add to Portia labiata a map that shows where this species is found. The range is: Sri Lanka, India, Burma (Myanmar), Malaysia, Singapore, Java, Sumatra and the Philippines.

I know there is an Open Source program, but using this needs using the UNIX UI, which IMO requires using a text based command interface. I have a disability that makes it difficult to type accurately (I use Google at lot to check my typing of normal text).

Are there other ways to created such a map, with the relevant countries hight lit (all with same colour) and with tool tips to let readers show the names of the relevant countries as the user clicks? File:The Philippines and ASEAN (orthographic projection).svg gives an example for one country.

The output should show only the Old World, as Portia labiata is not found in the Americas. --Philcha (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I have misunderstood, but that image you linked to doesn't seem to have tooltips as you describe. Are you sure that simply highlighting the countries is appropriate - surely the range of the spider doesn't exactly follow national borders?  Although I suppose more detailed information about the range might not be available in this case.  Perhaps you could find some similar images and ask the users that created them what software they used?  Also, it might help if you tell us what open source software you are talking about (if you know), as somebody might know of an alternative with a more suitable interface. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to check this thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains which talks about Sharemap ... on the face of it, it would seem to be able to create the map you're after, which could then be added to the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Witness
I don't know where to ask this so I just ask here, because I think this place maybe the best for it. I know 4 people who have witnessed a historical event in 1989 (I don't want to say which, since addressing the exact event is not important for the answers). These people describes the reactions of the participants differently than it is acknowledged mainstream (this is important, because if this will come to light, then the entire event would be altered). My question is, that how could I represent their opinion somewhere, from where it could be cited as a reliable source here. Because I know it is just nonsense if I ask them and write down their memories about the event and post it here.

Thanks for any answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talk • contribs)


 * Find a reporter for a respected newspaper, or a writer for a respected magazine, and pitch to them an article which is a retrospective on the famous event, with the newsworthy aspect that several actual witnesses remember it differently from the "official " history. Then get them to write the article and get it published. You might start by interviewing your witnesses and getting them to sign documents (affidavits) with the contrarian version. Maybe the official version was that the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake caused everyone in the US to cry, but a group in a bar laughed themselves silly when a televised World Series baseball game was interrupted, since their team had been eliminated from the series earlier. There might be some publication which would like to put that fact and the recollections of the persons involved in a "sidebar" when they memorialize the 25th anniversary in 2014. Then look at magazines which might publish it. If it were in the US, then the New York Times, the Atlantic Monthly, or Rolling Stone might be target publications. Find reporters who have covered similar stories, and make an appointment to present your documents to them. Most reporters and their editors love a "scoop," though "aberrant reactions" is pretty mild as scoops go. Perhaps you could find some academic writer working on a book chapter which covers the event, and your documents could be included there as narratives. Edison (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But beware that other editors may still oppose mention or significant mention per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and if you were involved in getting the new theory published then you have a Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer! Though it is not my interest to have these published, but the greater good (aka. I wouldn't receive any kind of gain). Probably it would end under the controversy section. But the important thing is that the part I am talking about in the event, was officially covered only from one person's point of view, the commander of the mentioned 4 people, you know at that time it was forbidden for these men to talk about this.--Mogzyx (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Worry less about what Wikipedia would do with it. If you want to document it, document it. Put it up somewhere. If it is something of interest and value, people will eventually notice it. If it gets respectable enough, it could end up on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia should be the last possible stage in your thinking about this — Wikipedia is not a place for new theories, it's a place for theories that are already out there. A theory doesn't start on Wikipedia, it ends there. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that eyewitnesses, even when absolutely certain about what they believe they saw, can be dead wrong. See eyewitness identification.  Textorus (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Finding a building
Second question. I have found a picture of a building here, but I was unable to track it down, even the author wasn't sure about it.

Here is what he said: "I snapped this from the tour bus as we drove by and have no other info. I think it is the ugliest pile I have ever seen. This was on the Bund side (not Pudong), probably a couple of miles from the Bund and generally on the south side of the city." I am not sure what is the Bund side or the Bund, and the map of the city was a bit confusing to me.

If anyone know anything about the exact location or the name if the building I would highly appreciate it.--Mogzyx (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know the answer, but for the sake of clarification, the city is Shanghai, and Pudong and the Bund are districts that face each other on opposite sides of the Huangpa river. Looie496 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I already searched the Bund on the map of Shanghai using satellite image, but I though it was the wrong place, because I haven't found it. Any more help would be appreciated from anyone. --Mogzyx (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Going by this photo,, your building seems to be on the left side. I think the short white building in the center front is the Shanghai Grand Theatre, and the taller building with dual-points farther back is Tomorrow Square, no? So, somewhere in that vicinity I think. That's as close as I could get. It doesn't appear to be a major landmark. Note that online mapping apps, including Google Maps, ACME Mapper, Bing, and everything else I've checked, show aerial imagery ("satellite") offset from normal "map" view by nearly a kilometer. I'm pretty sure the "map" view is the correct one, coordinate-wise. Many Wikipedia pages for places in China show coordinates clearly based on the offset satellite imagery. Unless I'm mistaken, these coordinates are off by about a km. The Shanghai Grand Theatre is an example--click its coordinate and view "satellite" (and zoom in) to see it pegged on the building. But switch to "map view" to find the pointer west of the actual place, right on a highway. Pfly (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your picture is a collage. This is what the theater area looks like in real life. The pyramidal building is not really in that area. --Itinerant1 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doh! Shows what I know about Shanghai (almost nothing). But I should have been able to tell it was a collage--obvious now that you mentioned it. Pfly (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. It fooled me too, I spent something like 10 min. looking at photos on Google maps and growing increasingly confused. It was only after seeing the photo above (dated 2010) that I saw the light.--Itinerant1 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't the top of that building where Gozer the Gozerian lives? -- Jayron  32  19:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the brightly lit building right of centre in File:Shanghaiviewpic1.jpg this image from our Pudong article. Nanonic (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC) No it's not.. sorry. Nanonic (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * AHA! Found it. It's the World Trade Tower, google for "World Trade Tower" shanghai for images. Nanonic (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep ... http://g.co/maps/uqk94 "couple of miles from the Bund" was a misdirection - it is in the Bund. And, now that we know where it is, we can see it in File:The Bund of Shanghai.jpg near the middle, and in File:Shanghai night bund skyscrapers.jpg in the top right corner.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys thanks a lot for the great work. I know that somebody doesn't like this building, and starngely I don't like modern buildings too, but this one look good.--Mogzyx (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

creating a page for my company
Dear Sir

I would like to know how to create a page for my company and how it can be retrieved by google and how can i connect it to facebook. Do let me know as soon as possible

Thanks and Regards GaneshSantosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akulaganeshsantosh (talk • contribs) 07:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wish to advertise your company, then you should register a domain name and create a website. This can then be linked from a facebook identity.  Wikipedia is not the place to advertise, and you should not create an entry for your own company, but, if your company is notable, you may request that someone else creates an entry.  To be notable, your company must be mentioned in publications elsewhere.    D b f i r s   08:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Or even more specifically, read Notability (organizations and companies). If your company was suitable and did have an article created, then Google would pick it up within a day or two. Otherwise, as Dbfirs says, you need to create your own site (and I can only guess that your company would not be considered Notable or else it would already well and truly have its own website). Unlike Wikipedia pages, with sites that aren't linked from many other places as would be the case with a new site for your company, Google may take a long time to find it, and it would most likely rank low even after it did find it. For this reason there are ways to submit your site to Google once it has been created, and you can also pay for listings, etc so that you are more likely to be found in a search. In terms of Facebook, as long as you are an official representative of your company you can create a Facebook page at any time at no cost. Then simply link between there and your company website by adding the URL in the appropriate places. --jjron (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe Web hosting service will be a useful read? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Facebooks offer of new friends
I'm not enthralled with Facebook but I do use it. For the first time I checked out the "Find friends" link. Most of the people were relatives (friends of fiend/friends in common). As I scrolled down I saw a picture that looked familiar and on checking turned out to be another Wikipedia editor with whom I have no friends in common. Further down I found another Wikipedian, again we have have no friends in common, amd they don't have a Wikipedia and Facebook picture in common. After looking at all the Wikipedia and publicly available Facebook pages I saw there was nothing to link our Facebook pages and Wikipedia pages together. So how\why does Facebook know to offer me these people as friends? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to discussion the last time this came up. --Viennese Waltz 09:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have emailed them before, and have authorised facebook to use your e-mail provider's data about your contact list, they can easily find these people (most people give their primary email address when they register on Facebook, so they are uniquely identified). If you have not done both of the above, maybe you simply share common interests (you are in the same facebook interest group)? --Lgriot (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal theory on this phenomenon (I've experienced similar things) is that these people have searched for you on Facebook, maybe even before you joined, and that these searches are saved and then used for suggesting "people you might know". Jørgen (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It could also be a second or third-order connection: You don't have any friends in common, but you have a friend who has a friend who has a friend... etc. You wouldn't see this person on any friends lists of any of your friends, but far enough down the line, there's a connection, and there's probably some kind of weighted connections algorithm that weighs these things in.  If you have several paths as I describe above that get to the same person, Facebook must guess you may know them, even if you don't have any direct friend-to-friend connection.  -- Jayron  32  04:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * facebook places a cookie that remains active even when you log off. the cookie then keeps track of all pages you visit and reports back to facebook. chances are you and those people looked at or edited the same page on wikipedia. facebook knows this. you can avoid this by deleting all your cookies before you log on and after you log out of facebook. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all that replied. It would appear that Facebook found them from the email account associated with Wikipedia which for some reason I had shared with it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This section seems to be a good argument for (1) not using facebook at all; or (2) having a separate PC that's used for facebook and nothing else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Flooding of Liverpool
Can someone help me settle an argument, which is whether or not Liverpool (the one in the UK) will flood if the sea levels rise ? The people that I'm arguing with keep saying that because Liverpool is built on hilly land than Liverpool cannot flood or be flooded entirely. While I keep trying to tell them that if the sea levels rise high enough than Liverpool could be flood entirely. Scotius (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could read the Liverpool City Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment report. The simple answer is that Liverpool is a port; much of it is quite low-lying; it has flood defences, which may well need to be improved over time; and its highest point above sea level is at 230 ft (70 m) at Everton.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you and your friends may have different definitions of "flood" and "rise". No-one could argue with an assertion it would flood if they rose 200m. On the flip side, a heavy rain storm without sea level rise could be said to "flood" Liverpool. The language you're using is imprecise. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool and NW England and most of Scotland are actually gradually rising above the sea due to post-glacial rebound. In contrast, SE England is sinking even without global warming; this is why the greatest threat from rising sea levels in the UK is to London, East Anglia, and the south coast. Here is a newspaper article discussing a 2009 geological study which suggests the land rise will counter the effects of the current sea level rise. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)