Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 May 26

= May 26 =

Page not appearing on Google Search
I created a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Nirankar_Singh_Neki on wikipedia but it is not getting indexed by Google Search. On investigations, I've found that it has following line (line 17) in html code. Unfortunately, I don't have rights to update. Would someone be able to advise what needs to be done to get this removed as I want the page to appear on google search too.




 * , I've moved the page to its correct title, Nirankar Singh Neki. Note that you need to sort out the references, they are not in-line so we can't tell what fact each is supporting. I note that your user page redirected to this article (now removed, that's not permitted), if you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * May we be permitted to ask if this article is an autobiography, and also what connection you have with user:Iamtheexpert?   D b f i r s   06:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . While the answers you have received above are pertinent, nobody has yet directly answered your question. Part of the answer is that, since Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind, we don't particularly care whether Google finds articles or not. But more specifically, new articles are automatically set to not be indexed by Google until either they have been patrolled, or thirty days have passed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

safari wikipedia summary preview shows differently than actual summary on page
Yes, hello I'm sorry to bother but I am a fan of the fictional work Attack On Titan and one of the characters, Mikasa Ackerman, her summary shows up correctly on the Wikipedia page but when you put it in a safari search engine, before you actually hit search, the Wikipedia summary shows as, "Mikasa Ackerman Annoying bitch, Eren will never love her. Gets angry whenever she sees Eren with his true love, Levi." Here are some linked photo references of both summaries: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0007f65e1j6u3k4/AAC0bVIRK-k1-V2gZB0rgIPWa?dl=0 Here is a link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Attack_on_Titan_characters I made an account to see if I couldn't edit anything to make that summary not show in the search, because it is highly incorrectly and holds no actually relevancy to the series, but no matter what I do it won't go away. Is there anything I can do in order for it not to show that in the Wikipedia safari preview? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Autumn365 (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the question Autumn365. There used to be a very short separate article for Mikasa Ackerman, which included the text you quote. This article was edited in August 2015 to make it redirect to the main article List of Attack on Titan characters. So it looks as if the search engine you are using is picking up an old version: not much we can do about that. The text doesn't appear on Google Noyster (talk),  17:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of offline sources
Can a piece of information cited to an offline source be removed because a particular editor can't access and confirm the source online? --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Offline sources are just as valid as online, perhaps more so in some cases. Because a source can only be accessed offline cannot really be considered a reason for removal IMO. Eagleash (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to use print publications is repugnant. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * has twice removed info cited to a Hindi-language daily. Their reason for the second revert was "I couldn't access and confirm this source online". Since I have made 2 reverts to the article City Montessori School I request someone else to add back the info. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Information on Roger Noriega's biography contains false and libelous statements
To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to inform the editors of Wikipedia that Ambassador Roger Noriega's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Noriega contains false and libelous statements that need to be corrected.

I have tried on several occasions to edit the page, but my changes are automatically removed.

I work for ambassador Noriega

Please advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisionAmericas (talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the material you have removed is sourced to reliable sources, your removal of the material has been reverted. If you think there is incorrect information in the article, or that it presents a one-sided view, please open a discussion at Talk:Roger Noriega. Provide specific examples of information that you feel is incorrect, and provide citations to reliable sources to verify your assertions. Or, at the very least, indicate statements whose sources you feel are not reliable, and provide a valid reason why you feel the source is not reliable. Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons applies here, and any incorrect information or negative information that is not reliably sourced can be removed, but you'll have to provide evidence to support removing the offending information. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , also, as a WP:Paid editor with a clear conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly anyway, but make suggestions on its talk page instead, making sure that your COI is clearly declared Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Although VisionAmericas may have a conflict of interest here, I think he has a valid point. There are, in my opinion, serious problems with that article in regards to WP:BLP, WP:POV, and WP:RS.  Gnome de plume (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * An apology and retraction from 96.231.226.59 (who claimed to be Roger Noriega), (whose ISP is in Washington DC) calling unpaid volunteers “WikiLoons” -would be appreciated. Can User:VisionAmericas arrange this? A politician doesn’t win people over and gain their cooperation by lambasting them for things he himself has brought about by ham-fisted WP editing. We acknowledge that to err is only human but most people are man  enough to apologize afterwards – and not ignore it like it didn't happen. Next: VisionAmericas needs to state very clearly on User:VisionAmericas what his COI is. So lets allow VisionAmericas & 96.231.226.59 to Turn over a New Leaf and from now on do things properly. Aspro (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The account has been blocked, since VisionAmericas is the name of a lobbying and consultancy group, presumably hired by Noriega to massage his reputation. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

wikitable sortable problem
I noticed on the page 'Comparison of hub gears' that the sortable table has a problem - it sorts on the first digit in the column, so, for instance, 11 gears is shown as a smaller number of gears than 2, and a weight of 900g is shown as larger weight than 2000g.

I tried adding a space at the beginning of items like the 900g, but that doesn't work. Adding a leading zero works, but that leads to a list showing for instance that a hub has 02 gears. That looks clumsy. Is there a better way of making the sort work properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchmiles (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it with  in the header.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_hub_gears&diff=782383979&oldid=732086273] See  Help:Sorting. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References for personal observations.
Greetings, I attempted to add "Colorado front-range foothills to 7000 feet," to the Habitat section of the "Bobwhite" article. Since there appears to be no reference to this species in this exact location, I thought it would be worthwhile to add. However, the only reference is my personal observation. All other resources cite populations in low altitude riparian areas east of the foothills. Over the last several months we have observed Bobwhites in a covey of 10-12 and recently we have seen a pair on our property on several occasions. So I don't know how the reference this.

Thanks, Jim H
 * We define information that does not appear in any published source as original research and it is unfortunately one of our core policies not to allow it. This is by no means authoritative advice, but perhaps if you took a picture of the bird and tagged its location, that would be acceptable. I certainly think it is. Xenon54 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sheetala Traders
It is a whole sale book shop in Ghazipur founded by Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta Situated Near Sichai Vibhag Chauraha, Kacheri Road Ghazipur (233001)

Bookselling is the commercial trading of books, the retail and distribution end of the publishing process. People who engage in bookselling are called booksellers, bookwomen, or bookmen.. In Rome, toward the end of the republic, it became the fashion to have a library, and Roman booksellers carried on a flourishing trade.

The spread of Christianity naturally created a great demand for copies of the Gospels, other sacred books, and later on for missals and other devotional volumes for both church and private use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyanshu Gupta (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the help desk.  It is not clear whether you wish to add information to our article on Bookselling, or whether you wish to write an article on one particular bookshop.  In general, we don't have articles on individual shops unless they have been written about extensively in independent WP:reliable sources.    D b f i r s   19:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference type.
Hi, I was wondering what kind of source this article: Acronicta bicolor takes. I known it must be some sort of taxonomy gig, which I vaguely remember seeing at some point, but can't seem to locate it. scope_creep (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you mean what citation style to use, in the sense discussed in WP:Citing sources, it doesn't have any citations, so you can use the style you think best. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

infobox size (or infonox size)
Hello again. I am one of the many editors who are less than enamored with infoboxes, and the almost useless (for almost all readers) info they often contain. Please take a look for example at GRASP65. The box overwhelms the article with info the vast majority of readers won't ever access. It is bigger (wider) than standard thumbs. The preoccupation with having it at the top "forces" editors to squeeze the text between a relevant image and the infobox. I think of these things as infonox's, for noxious infoboxes.

Is there some way to reduce the width of infonoxes?

Is there some way to make a WL appear at the top right of the article, so that the reader has to click on the link to display the infonox in all it's irrelevant glory? That would be similar to how readers need to click on thumbs to see a bigger image. Thanks. JeanOhm (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * These infoboxes were created with wide community consensus as part of the Gene Wiki project. The links in the infobox are useful to editors that want to find background information so that they can add more content and to readers that want to get a quick overview of the subject. I for one find these infoboxes extremely handy. Two parts of the infobox ("List of PDB id codes" and "Gene ontology") are already collapsed. Finally this particular infobox does contain a relevant image of the structure of GRASP65 at the top. Boghog (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "The links in the infoboxes are useful to editors that want to find background info". Fine. I accept that. I've used them that way. But, those people are a tiny percent of the readers of the articles who must deal with the infonoxes. If editors can click on links in the infonox, they can click on a link to expand the infonox, while letting it be less disturbing to casual readers.JeanOhm (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to understand the issue. I glanced at the article and I think the INFOBOX looks nice. Some of that information is detail I'd not be apt to care about but I assume that people very interested in the gory details of similar proteins appreciate knowing that we have standardize information in a standardized format. I briefly wondered if perhaps OP was looking at a mobile and the width of the INFOBOX crowded out the main text that I just checked in mobile and that's not the case (at least not using the Wikimedia app).-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to add a comment about Infoboxes, and why they consistently misunderstood. We live in a age where more that 62% of people now use mobile devices of one form factor or another. We really are well outside the age of the PC or even the laptop. I think it was research by Gartner, found that when people looking for view information on these devices, they tend to do it in a very cursory and quick manner, to get the facts and move on. When they look to Wikipedia, they barely ever go into a page, hence the reason for the Infobox. It specifically designed to address form factor concerns, provides succinct factual information, can be accessed very quick, and doesn't need extended or convoluted page navigation. scope_creep (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A pox on mobile devices! The issue is that you and the vast majority of readers are not apt to care about the detailed info, and yet, there it is unavoidably cluttering up reader's screens and eyes. I'm not asking to eliminate them. I'm asking if there is a way to make them less intrusive into the text of the article. JeanOhm (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just forced myself to look at the mobile view of the page on my laptop. Do you seriously think that the dominance of a disinformation box in mobile view is beneficial to our readers? There are 8 "biological processes" listed in the GO section, which apparently loads automatically on mobile devices, making the disinfobox even more dominating. Of the 8, #7 is the only one the casual reader should care about. It is what "defines" the protein. If the readers want to know more about what the golgi does, they can read the golgi article. From the top of the box, which appears to indicate that the ribbon diagram is of the structure of the gene (that is, there is no caption to the image unless one clicks on it), while in reality the diagram is of TWO different proteins, that box is a disservice to casual readers. People apparently think they are being educated when they see ribbon diagrams, which are the equivalent of eye candy. Editors apparently think they are dispensing information, when in reality they are promoting alternative facts. There should be a small "thumbnail" sized box at the top right of the article (and all gene articles, IMHO) stating "show infobox", so that editors can click on it and readers can avoid it. sigh. JeanOhm (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with display of infoboxes on mobile, is not with the infobox, but rather with the mobile front end which does not support collapsing sections of infoboxes. I have entered a request on Phabricator (see link in the box to the right) to fix this. Boghog (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to hear the statement that a collapsed INFOBOX is a not supported with the mobile front end. I checked the article being discussed on my mobile and the INFOBOX was collapsed. I'm using a Wikipedia beta app in case that makes any difference.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I never used the Wikipedia mobile app before.  I installed it on my iPhone, and indeed you are right, the infobox is collapsed by default under the heading "Quick facts", even in the non-beta version.  What I was referring to is loading a page in a standard browser in mobile view (e.g., GRASP65).  In this view, even sections of infoboxes that are collapsed by default in the desktop view (in the linked example "List of PDB id codes" and "Gene ontology") are uncollapsed. Boghog (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought perhaps the mobile view on the test top match the nonbeta view and maybe it was a change in beta but you've confirmed that doesn't seem to be the case. This is a bit puzzling and a bit troubling. While I use my mobile one I'm not in the house I tend to do most of my Wikipedia contributions on a desktop. I feel that a lot of questions about mobile and I had assumed until now that clicking on the mobile version and a desktop would show me what they were seeing. That doesn't seem to be the case.


 * One thing that just occurred to me — perhaps it is intended that the mobile app in the mobile view on desktop I sing but they may have made a change to the mobile app and failed to carry it over to the mobile view on the desktop.


 * Back to the main point. I trust we can agree that a problem in the mobile version of the test top is not a particularly critical problem to solve. If the INFOBOX is not a problem on a normal desktop view because it is over to the right and the text is on the left, and not a problem on a mobile because it is collapsed and only viewed if opened, I'm back to thinking there is no problem.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that 's policy of name-calling ("infonox", "disinformation box") is not helping his cause. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the UI in Wikipedia in general does a huge disservice to our readers, and infoboxes in particular. I can really imagine right now, with 20 years up the road, everybody using enhanced devices to interact with the web, with us still stuck with this UI. To be honest, I wouldn't know how to begin to improve these types of pages. The infobox seems to offer a mix of machine data as opposed to human criteria data, and seems to specifically designed for protein researchers, linking of protein databases, with normal human readers, being secondary customers. Something similar to the Authority control tag for proteins data, that splits the two data types, so human readers can extract value from the infobox, may be possible. I don't see why it has all the classification information within it, it serves no purpose. scope_creep (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Normal human readers like myself often follow these links, so I strongly disagree that they serve no purpose. Moving the protein box identifiers to authority control is mixing apples with oranges. Authority control provides bibliographic information about the subject of an article. The protein box identifiers provide links to external databases. They serve two very different purposes.  As mentioned above, the problem with infoboxes on mobile is that sections of infoboxes cannot be collapsed.  I have put in a request to fix this. Boghog (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither you, nor I, nor anybody engaging in this discussion are "normal human readers". We are human editors, who, as I wrote above, often use the detailed links in the boxes. But, since we know how to navigate the boxes, we can damn well navigate another cick to enlarge the box while leaving it out of the way of human, non-editing, readers. The wp templates page states: "...infoboxes, which are small panels that summarize key features of the page's subject." Maybe at one time in the past they were small panels with key info. Now, the boxes I see are overwhelmingly large and filled with minutia, not key features. Don't eliminate them, but reign them in for the sake of more or less normal human readers. JeanOhm (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nomenclature is not a key feature? Genomic location is not a key feature? Structure is not a key feature? Function is not a key feature? I would agree with you on high importance general articles like protein, a specialized infobox is not appropriate. However GRASP65 is very specialized and not likely to be of interest to general readers in the first place.  This articles readership is likely to be self-selected and much more likely to be interested in specialized information that is included in the infobox. Boghog (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , JeanOhm, Sphilbrick, I see there being some comments about collapsed sections inside infoboxes.. Note that we have a guideline against hiding CONTENT. And it is for this exact reason. Due to presentation variance, we cannot guarantee that other interfaces are able to hide content (Think about previews in google, or in Apple dictionary, ebooks etc). Thus if your infobox becomes 'annoying' because it's not collapsing, then your Infobox is BROKEN as it should never make such a usability assumptions. The infobox is in the wrong here. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox is not broken on the desktop where is resides happily to the right of the table of contents. On the mobile view, the table of contents is collapsed. Does that mean the table of contents is also broken? Of course not. You made an excellent suggestion on Phabricator, that similar to mobile apps, that the entire infobox should be collapsed under a 'quick facts' heading. Boghog (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WTF am I missing? I am asking for EXACTLY what you just described as an "excellent suggestion". Program the damn boxes to be collapsed at all times, on all devices, unless the reader clicks on something. Whether that something is a "show" button next to "infobox" or a "quick facts" heading doesn't matter. siiggghhhh.....JeanOhm (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I misread the phabricator comment, I don't see as proposing that info boxes should be collapsed on all devices at all times. It specifically talks about mobile apps. As I have previously reported, the INFOBOX is collapsed on a mobile app, at least the one I looked at. I am strongly opposed to collapsing INFOBOX is on a desktop.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I wrote above. Infoboxes are collapsed by default on the mobile app. I am suggesting that inboxes also be collapsed by default on mobile web browsers, not on the desktop.   Boghog (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , JeanOhm, Sphilbrick, Boghog, I'm not trying to mix apples with oranges, and you misunderstanding my words. There is two solutions: Have a separate template, cut out the machine date, and leave the infobox with human readable data. Perhaps something similar to Auth Control, not the Auth control itself, but perhaps a template. Due to the serious design limitations of the MediaWiki server, templates are now the standard way to extend WP, hence the explosion in their use. All auth control does is link one database (WP) to another (biliographic database). It has the advantage of collecting machine data at a single point, ensure humans don't read or see machine data in the infobox. It would have to be a hard template, possibly designed by WP, similar to the design of auth tag, which hides its implementation, but still enables a call out of WP. This solution has the advantage that once it was designed, it would be possible to use it in other classifications of article. The second solution, is easier, but use cases could be done. The machine data is left in, but only a very small subset of folk are going to look at it, if needed. It is quicker solution, as a new infobox template could spun up in a few days. I think its the better solution. scope_creep (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Template, help to add a section
Hello, I've tried to add a section called "membership" in the Template "Infobox sport governing body" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_sport_governing_body, but it seems like I've only changed the documentation. How do I make this change to the template itself? Sauer202 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Typo fixed.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_sport_governing_body&diff=782440415&oldid=774298302] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

2019 NBA All-Star Game article
Can you please remove the red articles and make them blue and make the North Carolina stub blue please. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:2932:5932:8296:523C (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP user.Thank you for asking politely. However, what you are asking for is considerable work: what makes a red link into a blue link is creating the article it refers to, which is not usually a small task. If you do not feel you can do so yourself, you can request particular articles get written by posting at Requested articles (though unfortunately there is no guarantee that anybody will pick up a request). --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)