Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 June 19

= June 19 =

Why does the formatting of tables and charts have a bold border after every eleventh entry?
I was reading an article (List of oldest living people) and I noticed that the formatting of the tables/charts was rather odd. So, I posted a question about it at that article's Talk Page (here: Talk:List of oldest living people). I thought that that was some special formatting that went along with that specific article. Then, a few hours later, I happened to be reading another article (List of Wikipedians by number of edits). And, again, I noticed the same odd formatting. So, I am now assuming that there is some special formatting in the actual "template" or "computer code" that creates these Wikipedia charts and tables. So, can someone explain to me why there are heavier-colored outline borders after every 11th entry. This seems quite bizarre. If Wikipedia wants to format the table for easier readability, it would seem they would demarcate every tenth line or entry, not every eleventh. Does anyone know what's going on with this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any such bold lines - after 10, 11 or any other number. This may be a browser or screen issue, do the lines stay under the same entries when you scroll up and down? (I'm using IE11 on Windows 7 and Vector skin) - Arjayay (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see a problems either (IE11, Win7 Ultimate+SP1). Possibly there's some issue in your browser with rendering lines 'between pixels'...? Have you tried to play with a page zoom? Does the bold appearence of lines change when you enlarge the view? --CiaPan (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a tablet computer problem, I've seen oddities on my tablet; table lines sometimes disappear, sometimes they're too think. - X201 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * When I use Mozilla Firefox, I have this problem. When I use Internet Explorer, I do not.  The border lines under every eleventh entry are slightly darker (more bold) than the other entries.  (They are very noticeable.)  This happens consistently under entry number 11, 22, 33, 44, etc.  When I do a "sort" by clicking the up/down arrows at the top of a column (and all the entries switch places according to the sort), the same problem exists: the dark line still appears after every eleventh entry.  So, is there a way to fix this problem (in Mozilla Firefox)?  Also, why would this change happen out of the blue?  This never happened in Mozilla before yesterday.  Then, all of the sudden, out of the blue, the problem appears in Mozilla.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I see similar effects at some zoom levels in Firefox. Try for the default size 100%,  to decrease,  to increase. The zoom percentage is written to the right of the address bar in Firefox. Starting at default, one  goes to 110%. It cannot zoom each pixel by 10% so for some page elements I guess it doubles 10% of the pixels instead. If the doubling happens to be on a cell border then it becomes thicker and looks bolder or darker. I don't know a Firefox setting to say "Always zoom all cell borders by the same amount". If I zoom down to 90% then some of the cell borders disappear. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I will try that.  SO what would make this problem appear of out thin air?  One day, Firefox is fine.  The next, I encounter this mess.  Nothing "changed" in the interim, as far as I know.  In other words, I never change settings or zoom, etc.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you haven't changed zoom? Some users do it accidentally, often by holding down while using the mouse wheel. I don't see the issue at 100%, only when changing away from that. Do you see it at 100%? Anyway, I wouldn't think too much about it. Browsers often have little quirks in rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No, I never changed the "zoom".  If I did, it was by mistake, as I would not even have known how to change it. But I just now reset everything to 100% (by hitting Control and the zero keys).  The problem seems to have disappeared.  Thanks a lot.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Car insurance
I'm a named insured driver on my wife's policy she has been banned from driving so can I still drive the car which I'm the insured driver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.251.137 (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Legal no.png We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer. or your insurance company. - Arjayay (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional citations message
Hello,

A page I'm working on has this message at the top:

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2009)

As I go through and deal with the issues, how is this reviewed so the message can come off? Do I need to submit the page for review by another editor?

Sorry--sorta new here and trying to do this the right way.

The page is Longwood University

Thanks

Mcwilliamsmj (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no review process. If you're satisfied that the concern has been addressed you're welcome to remove the notification. Just keep in mind that if other editors disagree that adequate citations have been provided, they may choose to re-insert the notification. At that point the best course of action would be to initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, once you have addressed the concerns of the person who placed the tag, the tag can be removed. The tag in this instance was placed with this edit, and although the person didn't leave a talk page note, their edit summary indicates they were concerned with several unreferenced sections discussing ghost stories, sororities, hazing rituals, and the like.  Those sections are no longer present in the article; and what little remains of the information that was in them is unrecognizable.  Overall the article appears much better referenced than it did then, and I would say the tag is almost ready to come off.  I'm concerned about the Entertainment section; which still doesn't cite any sources, and I've added a tag to that.  Also the Athletics section is unsourced, as is the section on the College of Graduate and Professional Studies. However, the concerns of the person who first placed the notice in question seem to have been met.  Feel free to remove the tag once you feel the article is adequately referenced. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all. Additional sections are being addressed, updated and referenced. Mcwilliamsmj (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, if you have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject of the article, you must disclose it (preferably on your user page) per our terms of use.--ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Help:Problems with Ref on draft page
I am trying to create a Wikipedia article under draft name Davina Catt, I am having problems with URL and refs. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinacatt1 (talk • contribs)
 * Judging by the article name and your user name I'm going to suggest that you read WP:PLAINSIMPLECOI- X201 (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , you can read about how to format reference citations at Referencing for Beginners. But before you worry about that, you need to find sources that clearly establish the notability of Catt. Of the two links in the draft at the moment, one is to a site about a documentary that Catt was involved with, by the production company. That means this site is not independent, and does not help to establish notability in any way. The other is to a blurb for a forthcoming article in which Catt apparently models clothes, but judging from the blurb, the focus of the article is on the clothes and their designer, not on Catt. Independent writings published by reliable sources that deal with Catt in some detail are needed. This means not blogs, not personal web sites, not anything from Catt or her producers or other business associates, not brief passing mentions, not directory listings. Magazine articles, major newspaper stories, serious reviews, content in books, or the like that discuss Catt and her work at some length would be needed. If such sources (printed or online) are not available, then no Wikipedia article about Catt can be written. And, as says above, read our conflict of interest guideline and be very careful in writing about yourself, or better, don't do it at all. Any article must be neutral, which is very hard to do when writing about oneself or one's work or close interests. (,  forgot to sign, so previous pings won;t have worked.) DES (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki disappeared from Google Search results
The page for [Mark Angelo] has disappeared from the Google Search results. In the past, the very recent past, a search for Mark Angelo resulted in the Wikipedia page at the top or near the top of the search results. Now it does not appear to rank on the first few pages. Can you provide a reason for this? I cannot see any issues on my page as a regular contributor or on the page for Mark that would cause this to occur. I had some difficulty recently with uploading images from another author of an image of Mark but this was on the wikimedia commons page and has since been resolved and this image has yet to be used on a wikipedia page. I am interested in your ideas and expertise in this area. Thank you. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has no control whatsoever over Google search results. I suspect the reason that the article has dropped down the list is because people are searching for Mark F. Angelo the record producer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know why but Mark Angelo isn't indexed by Google at all. The search gives no result. Searches on quotes from the article only returns a lot of mirrors. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe Google is trialling a new algorithm that excludes Wikipedia articles containing a great deal of promotional wording. The article in question seems to have that. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be good, but would seem "too good to be true". It is easy for a Wikipedian to recognize a highly promotional article, but I don't know how I would program a bot or spider to recognize a highly promotional article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the article is showing up on my search results now. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 19:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too, but it wasn't working earlier. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This request and inquiry resulted in a nasty series of notes at the top of the page that undermines the content, which is corroborated within the article, and the contributor, me, as an impartial contributor to the page. This is ridiculous and I am losing my respect and interest in this resource.  What is the issue here and how can such statements be added without justification.  This is an old page that has existed for almost 10 years.  It is a record of Mark's activities and history as a conservationist and it has been updated on an as needed basis when new information comes available.  --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it adds completely relevant tags that the article needs improving. It's clearly not neutral tone for example. Just because it's existed as an advert for so long doesn't make that acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no real instructions on how to fix it. And how to address the accusation that the editor 'seems to have close relationship with subject'.  It is a baseless accusation and wikipedia offers no help or mechanism to address or fix the error.  Nor is there any information on how to change this bio to comply with what seems like an arbitrary judgment by one or two reviewers.  If there are issues, fine; provide me with a list or clear definition of the issue and it will be addressed and fixed and the mistake will not be made again here or elsewhere. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just so everyone else is aware, at WP:COIN, it's basically been determined this is an undisclosed paid editor, paid to spam river articles. So the way it works is it gets cleaned up by people who actually want to build the encyclopedia, using neutral language and reliable sources, instead of unsourced, promotional spam and external links. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Google's cache of the page currently says "It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 19 Jun 2015 22:19:17 GMT." I hoped the missing indexing was just a Google glitch and they would detect my linking of the page and reindex it, but I don't know whether the link did it. Edits to this help desk are often discovered quickly by Google but now the help desk is missing from Google! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

About Sonora, Texas
I was looking at the information about Sonora, Texas and noticed there is nothing about the Ice House Ranch Museum and the Miers Home Museum. How do we get info on the site pertaining to these attractions? And we would like to add our website. Please contact us about this ommission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.37.86.139 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a travel brochure. If there are third party reliable sources that note places as significant to the towns history or economy, then perhaps. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You can add it here: wikivoyage:Sonora (Texas).--ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Self promotion
Can we really use our User pages as self promo pages? This would help out immensely instead of having to buy hosting services. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Erik_Wagner 2602:306:C447:1960:30D0:10CD:982C:3735 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No you cannot. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)
 * But he did it. :( 2602:306:C447:1960:30D0:10CD:982C:3735 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for bringing this to our attention. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sites out there actually meant for free hosting. Google Sites and Webs come to mind. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 19:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving my article from my sandbox to the main Wikipedia page
Can someone please help me move my article (a biography) from my Sandbox to the main Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daibatokornberg (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In it's current state, it doesn't pass WP:GNG and so would just be deleted. I recommend submitting it for review by adding to the top of it, and continue working on it, making sure to add more reliable sources to show significant, independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG. As noted at your talkpage, this appears to be an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)