of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
January 1
Special character ⑆ in Unicode
⑆ is one of several characters used for magnetic ink character recognition, e.g. on US checks (cheques), and it's included in ISO 2033. The character appears in ABA routing transit number, with a note saying "if your computer can't display this image, click this link to see it" with a link going to a standard Unicode page. I've uploaded a screenshot of this image (see right) to replace the link, since almost everyone can see images, but I don't know how to categorise it at Commons: c:Category:Unicode is subdivided in ways that I don't understand, so I've just put it at the top level. Could someone move it into the appropriate subcategory, or at least let me know here where it should go? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: It should go it c:Category:Unicode 2440-245F Optical Character Recognition. I have not moved it there myself, because there is already an almost identical file in that category (File:OCR branch bank identification.svg). You may want to compare the files, and then decide if you think both should be kept, or something else. Sorry I couldn't be of more help --DannyS712 (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
File Viewer: Any opinion about this application?
This non-Microsoft application promises to open and analyze 300+ files. If it is true and there is no gimmick here, this application might be very useful. I want to know if it is not malware? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- VirusTotal is your friend. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
January 5
recovery of functionality
I have a Samsung Galaxy S6 phone, 3.5 years old. Recently its WiFi failed (with an unchanging message saying it was turning on, but it never did). Occasionally, when I turned on the phone, WiFi would reappear normally. It would work for a few days and then malfunction again. This pattern lasted for a few weeks. Then another problem happened: the microphone function failed.
A few weeks passed. Suddenly both functionalities were back. For a few days now both have worked as intended.
So what happened? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Can
anyone point me to some reviews of Herbert Schildt's C - The Complete Reference. See this link, for the background. General comments are welcome too:-) ∯WBGconverse 16:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Start with our article Herbert Schildt, and read the reviews contained in the references there.-gadfium 20:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- One of the worst, if not the very worst, books on C ever written. Avoid. One of the few things worse would be his C++ books. I'm curious as to why anyone would care, this many years after his books were published. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- this is a bit of a classic, but it's about a different book of his. Aecho6Ee (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
January 6
Question about computer monitor screen resolutions
I have a question about computer monitor screen resolutions. I don’t understand too much of the “technical” computer information, nor do I need/want to. I read the articles on display resolution and computer display standard. And I “get” that the numbers essentially refer to the height and width of the computer screen monitor (in pixels).
Here is my situation. I have a desktop computer. The screen resolution is 2560 x 1440. I have a laptop computer. The screen resolution is 1366 x 768. Sometimes, I go on websites to find different desktop backgrounds / wallpapers to download onto my computers. They are pictures and they usually come in many different resolutions.
If I do not find an “exact match” to my own specific computer resolutions, I assume that I can still download the picture. But, it won’t appear quite “right”. It will be of inferior quality. It will probably appear fuzzy or grainy or somehow undesirable. In other words, it will not be a nice, clean, crisp, high-quality appearance in picture.
So, my question: If I do not find an “exact match” to my own specific computer resolutions, should I not download pictures of different resolutions (due to the problem I just referred to, above)? Or are there some screen resolutions that are “good enough” and/or “close enough” to mine that the difference in appearance will be unnoticeable?
If so, what other resolutions can I use for my desktop computer (that has a screen resolution of 2560 x 1440)? And, what other resolutions can I use for my laptop computer (that has a screen resolution of 1366 x 768)?
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- If the difference in size ain't too big you'd hardly notice. By the way, why not just download it and see for yourself? You can always download a wallpaper with a bigger resolution which will be downsized and that usually doesn't affect the picture-quality, so... Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have tried. And the picture does not look "right". As I said above, the appearance is not nice, clean, crisp, high-quality. The problem is that there are many, many, many different resolutions (usually). So, with me not truly even understanding "resolution", I don't know where to begin. And I don't want to spend all day, downloading dozens of different resolutions in a "trial and error". I use this website a lot: [1]. You can see how many different resolutions (variations) each picture comes in. Select any random picture / background / wallpaper. Click it. Then, you will see "Choose Your Resolution" options. Each picture usually comes in about 40 or 50 different variations of resolution sizes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you have to go through "trial and error" only once. After you found a resolution that works, you know which one to choose next time! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have tried. And the picture does not look "right". As I said above, the appearance is not nice, clean, crisp, high-quality. The problem is that there are many, many, many different resolutions (usually). So, with me not truly even understanding "resolution", I don't know where to begin. And I don't want to spend all day, downloading dozens of different resolutions in a "trial and error". I use this website a lot: [1]. You can see how many different resolutions (variations) each picture comes in. Select any random picture / background / wallpaper. Click it. Then, you will see "Choose Your Resolution" options. Each picture usually comes in about 40 or 50 different variations of resolution sizes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- No. That's not true at all. Each individual picture comes in its own variety of resolutions. Every picture is different than every other picture (in their availability in various resolutions). So, it would be, for me, a non-stop "trial and error". For any picture that I like and want, I'd have to "trial and error" whichever resolutions are available for that picture. (Which may or may not match the resolutions I tried for a previous picture.) So, it would be a non-stop process of "trial and error" for each individual photo. If I found one resolution that I like, then I would simply use the resolution that I definitively know (i.e., 2560 x 1440 for my desktop and 1366 x 768 for my laptop). But, other pictures come in other resolutions. So, finding one "good" resolution does not solve my problem. It would only solve my problem for that one instance. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of this question would depend on the year you ask it. A few years ago, when flat displays (including laptops) first became popular, their resolutions were low and so this effect was much more notable. Nowadays a typical display has a couple of thousand pixels in each direction and so it's still detectable, but more subtle.
- When displays began as monochrome CRT tubes they were analogue. Any horizontal resolution, up to the maximum frequency limit, was displayed, no matter how many pixels. The vertical resolution though was quantised by the number of display lines.
- Colour screens were a little more complex as they used a dot mask and that had the effect of having pixels (although smaller than most pixels at that time). When large screens were used for precision work such as CAD, with fine detail, there was a period when monochrome screens were still favoured because they didn't have this coarseness of the dot mask. The Sony Trinitron was also popular because, although still a shadow mask, it wasn't so visible.
- With flat panels though, displays became digital and with individual pixels. The early large display ones around 2000 were large, but low numbers of pixels. When these show a higher res image then then need to use some sort of dither algorithm, which if done poorly can give a visible halftone or Moiré effect. You may well find that it looks better if you resize your image first to the best display size (using a photo editor like IrfanView) and then load that image into the wallpaper without needing to scale it. Although it's much less of an effect these days, it used to be that an image editor was just better at applying dither algorithms than a simple wallpaper loader was. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. But, I don't understand your posting. I am asking this question in the year 2019. No? I am not interested in how this problem would have been solved "x" years ago ... or "x" years into the future. I am interested to solve this problem now. Or, maybe I did not understand your post? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not interested in ...
- Then don't expect others to be interested in answering you. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. But, I don't understand your posting. I am asking this question in the year 2019. No? I am not interested in how this problem would have been solved "x" years ago ... or "x" years into the future. I am interested to solve this problem now. Or, maybe I did not understand your post? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Sorry, but ... Your post makes no sense. Why would I be interested to an answer (to my question) that would take place "x" years in the past ... or "x" years in the future? I believe it to be implicit that I am asking for, and expect, an answer that is germane to 2019. If I have problems with my computer in, say, the year 2057, I will worry about it then. Not now. Why would I post that today? Your post makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry. Just being honest. Are you saying that other editors "are not interested in" answers that are germane to 2019? Really? Geez. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- My advice is to download either the highest resolution they have or a resolution that is an exact multiple of your screen size -- if it is important try both and see which looks better -- then use image resizing software to make an image that is the exact size of your screen. See [ https://www.google.com/search?q=image+resizing+software ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. But, the problem is not the size of the original picture. The problem is the resolution of the original picture. So, typically -- no matter what the original picture has for a resolution -- when I download it, it will always "fill up" my entire monitor. There is no "blank" space left (on the top, bottom, left, or right) of my screen. The entire screen is filled with the new, downloaded picture. That is, the sizes (of the screen and of the downloaded image) correspond perfectly. But, the picture will be low-quality, grainy, not sharp, hazy, etc. Due to resolution. Not due to size. (I believe.) Also: You suggest using the highest resolution available. But, it may be that the highest resolution available is lower than my computer's resolution. So, I don't believe that that addresses the problem. Or does it? Perhaps I can take a picture that has a higher resolution than my computer ... and "down size" it, or whatever. But, I don't think that would work in reverse? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are wrong. the the sizes of the screen and of the downloaded image do not correspond perfectly. Your computer is scaling the image (and you can tell it to tile or center the image without scaling if that's what you want.) Image resizing software typically does a better job of scaling -- it looks better. And yes, my advice only works if the image is larger than your screen. If it is smaller and gets scaled up (by your computer on the fly or by image resizing software) it will lack detail. You can't get something from nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also note that "size" is typically given in pixels (or MB, but that is irrelevant here). "Resolution" is used in many different ways, but nowadays typically refers to the number of pixels per size unit (e.g. 326 pixels per inch for some of Apple's Retina displays). You ideally want an image that has as many pixels as your screen, or the same size. I don't know what software you use, but on both Macs and Linux machines, the default method to install background images has been good enough at scaling that I never saw artefacts if the original image was of good enough quality. You have a different problem if the ratio of width and height of the image are different from your screen's - in that case, rescaling will make everybody on the screen more skinny (or fat) than in the original image. To avoid this, you can crop the image to the same ratio as your screen. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are wrong. the the sizes of the screen and of the downloaded image do not correspond perfectly. Your computer is scaling the image (and you can tell it to tile or center the image without scaling if that's what you want.) Image resizing software typically does a better job of scaling -- it looks better. And yes, my advice only works if the image is larger than your screen. If it is smaller and gets scaled up (by your computer on the fly or by image resizing software) it will lack detail. You can't get something from nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Removed archiving by Legacypac (talk · contribs). This is not a Wikipedia article, it is a Reference desk. This is not encyclopedic content. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Recovering my deleted internet history
I was trying to find a website that I have recently visited, but I've deleted my internet browsing history. Is there any way of finding it again? I'm using internet explorer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.183.156 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- You can try something like https://www.foxtonforensics.com/browser-history-viewer/ but such tools usually work best if you don't continue using your computer -- various applications see the space freed up by your browser history delete and put stuff there, overwriting what you hope to recover. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above was closed by Legacypac (talk) citing WP:NOTHOWTO. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the closing of the above is not based upon policy. Look at the language of WP:SOAPBOX: It defines the scope as "This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages." or more generally "content hosted in Wikipedia" So it applies everywhere. Compare WP:NOTFORUM, which says "You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages... but please do not take discussion into articles." and "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance." Different scopes for different rules.
So what is the scope of WP:NOTHOWTO? "Wikipedia articles should not read like..." That policy does not say that you cannot ask or answer practical questions on your own talk page or on the reference desks. In fact, most of the content of the helpdesk would be forbidden if NOTHOWTO applied to all pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. It clearly does not apply here and I'm reverting the closure. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly most of the content on the ref desks violats WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFORUM. How is this question remotely fitting ""You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics" Legacypac (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
January 7
MongoDB: PA/EC or PC/EC?
See [2]. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Who uses this particular taxonomy, and how do they classify it? Our article cites this slide deck, but I've never even heard of its author or his affiliation. He cites this IEEE Xplore article, which doesn't even mention MongoDB.
- Absent any attribution to a reliable source, I would simply strike the line from the table. We shouldn't be independently trying to apply every software-categorization scheme ever invented to every software-package ever invented.
- Nimur (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)