Miscellaneous desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference 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 reference desk pages.

May 4[edit]

does Amazon Studios have a phone number[edit]

Does it? 50.68.237.196 (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(310) 573-2305, according to ZoomInfo. C'mon. It wasn't all that hard to find. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially given that the OP is a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are stacked on top of one another when it is copied into a Word document?[edit]

Hi, I’m having problems with my pages which I copy into a Word document (see attached for understanding of the problem). Although on the Wikipedia page, the images are drawn in a certain structure, when it is copied and pasted onto a Word document, each images with active links on the images gets stacked on top of one another, making the image indecipherable. Can you help?

Generally, images in word can appear on top of each other (or text) unless you format their layout with "In line with text". The exact commands to do this will vary depending on your version of word, but you might try right-clicking, Format Picture... and Layout tab.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Word is rather infamous for having terrible image control tools. Not to be defeatist, but in some cases you may save yourself a lot of time/aggravation by compositing the images and captions, etc. into a single larger image and working from that. You could also consider a differnt kind of product, such as Microsoft Publisher or other Desktop publishing program. Matt Deres (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One solution to the problem of images in Word is to copy each image into its own text box. Remove the box frame round the outside if you wish, and make it transparent if you want to place it very near to normal text. The separate images can then be positioned exactly where you want them. Dbfirs 14:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason to want to bother to do that unless you want text (e.g. a caption) associated with the image. The options presented on the layout tab allow you to set the way the picture is presented equally well.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's because people (including me) seem to struggle with the layout tab, especially if they want overlapping images. Dbfirs 20:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Word is kind of a pain in dealing with images. One way I have found that sort-of works is to insert an image, select the image, right-click, "Wrap Text" and "Square". Then you can move it around the page and deal with text pretty much the way you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decades articles[edit]

Why are the generations millennials etc listed as apart of decades articles? The generations millennials etc are they responsible for how decades age?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)#See_also — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 110.151.145.17 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-04T13:56:08 (UTC)

They're just in the "See also" section, as a related topic. WP:SEEALSO says 'Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense'. If you think they don't belong there, open a discussion on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their own articles are linked from various Decades' articles, rather than described in full there, because these notional (culturally defined) generations' somewhat vague and variable-length spans do not correspond neatly with the beginnings and ends of (calendrically defined) decades: rather each so-called generation usually begins in one decade and ends in another. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]