Miscellaneous desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

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

April 12

Bear in the woods

Is there anywhere on Google Street View in Canada (or elsewhere) that one can see a bear (or any other large mammal)? THanks81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Me[reply]

Here's a moose. Here's a bear. I just typed <name of animal> in street view and looked at the results. Matt Deres (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats great thanks, Kerile Lake looks beautiful, shall we go? Who will join me for the summer? BTW, is this what I think it is? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kurile+Lake/@51.4117311,157.043486,2a,75y,22.5h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1silvCauBWIhjLvuJBHbhQSA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DilvCauBWIhjLvuJBHbhQSA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D22.5%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x58ddb59c42ed8859:0x6acbb866c7f5adee!8m2!3d51.45!4d157.12 Cannabis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you look for "cannabis" in Google Images, I think you'll find that that's not it. Also, if you look for "weeds that look like cannabis" you'll find plenty of copycat plants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two elephants at the Perth Zoo. Better images might be had at other zoos. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a Boitjie! Perth Zoo was a real treasure trove, thanks. I also saw a Dingo; Emu; Kangaroo; Numbat; Ibiss and a Kingfisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's ibis. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I claim fat fingers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a reference

I have a concern over the rule to cite a reference. I understand the relevance of this fully however; If Einstein had edited the article on M=MC2 of Newton edited the article on Gravity would they need to cite a reference? They would be the leading expert on the topic. Surely there must be exceptions. 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Me[reply]

See On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. We have no way to verify that anyone is who they say that they are. What we can do, however, is verify what is cited in published sources. If an expert is widely published in reliable sources, then finding sources about their work should be trivial to do. If a person claims they are an expert, but no one has ever written about their work independently, nor have they ever had their own work published anywhere reliable for us to read ourselves, what kind of an expert are they? --Jayron 32 16:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see site and cite.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~You shouldn't edit others' comments.~~ ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those confused about Shantavira's comment, see [1] where the OP modified their spelling after it had been replied to, without noting it here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: It would have been better to phrase your comment not to imply that Shantavira edited someone else's contribution (which he didn't).

@Nil Einne: I doubt there's a requirement for a fanfare when an editor corrects a spelling error in her own comment. 92.19.170.250 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I misinterpreted something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP Newton and Einstein would be WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia's guidelines point to WP:SECONDARY sourcing for its articles. MarnetteD|Talk 18:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get rid of a red “warning” on an article?

Three warnings popped up on a page I have been working on for years. It reads:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "mapsize2" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "image_map2" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "map_caption2" (this message is shown only in preview).

How do I get rid of these warnings to make the page look neater? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98a:280:32ed:b575:b69b:7dca:c05d (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This question was also asked here Wikipedia:Teahouse#How do I get rid of a red “warning” on an article?. MarnetteD|Talk 23:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple. The warning is telling you that those parameters are invalid. Possibly because they were never part of the template and someone has added them to the article, or much more likely because they have been removed in a revision to the template. You can safely remove the parameters, and any entries shown for them, and save the article in the normal way. It would be wise to go to the template and check that the problem is not a typo in each parameter. Akld guy (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the problem is not restricted to just this article. See the posts here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template errors being shown on page when they should be "shown only in preview" for further info. MarnetteD|Talk 00:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]