Computing desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing 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.

January 27[edit]

Google search does not turn up article[edit]

Hi. This article Stephen Kovacs has been around for a number of days. But does not appear at all, when I do a google search. Is there some problem in how the article is set up? Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9B8:B23B:7DDC:518E (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Articles that are newer than 90 days will not be indexed unless patrolled and not marked with the NOINDEX magic word Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. BTW WP:Help Desk and WP:Teahouse are better places to ask site help editing or using Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW although the article may have gone through the AFC process AFAIK this doesn't mean it was seen by a NPP reviewer or admin, indeed the person who accepted it isn't. To be clear, AFAICT the article has still not be marked as patrolled so it should be marked as NOINDEX until 90 days have passed (or someone patrols it without the magic word being added), which means it may not be indexed by search engines. (I say may not since ultimately search engines chose what they want to index, and may ignore the tag whether in choosing to index things marked as NOINDEX or choosing not to index things even without a NOINDEX.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you're looking for a solution, the best one is IMO just to wait. Either someone on the NPP will be along eventually and patrol the page or less ideally 90 days will pass. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting! Thanks. As it is an article of current interest ITRW, is there a way to ask the proper group if someone has interest and time to take a look and perform majic? Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9B8:B23B:7DDC:518E (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After all, Wikipedia has no way to decide or cause the page to appear in the Google search results. Wikipedia may try to prevent a page from appearing there (with the abovementioned NOINDEX, for example), but it's depends solely on Google machine when it indexes any particular page and whether it includes it in results. --CiaPan (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CiaPan Thanks! The article is of current interest given his death. And will be more so, when the State reports the cause of death. Which could happen any day. Is there a way to ask the proper group if someone has interest and time to take a look and perform magic by removing the indexing prohibition suggestion? Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A01C:BBD5:BB4E:8633 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Wikipedia is not a newspaper but an encyclopedia, so There is no deadline to add information. --CiaPan (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right. There is no deadline. At least - given that that is only an essay -- that's the advice or opinion of one or more Wikipedia contributors. That essay is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

At the same time, you point to wp:notnews. That's far more important than an essay. It's a policy. But that policy clearly states: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." What I'm suggesting is in precise accord with that - not the opposite.

As with an encyclopedia, an article on Wikipedia is only of use if it is available to the encyclopedia's readers. That's after all the nature of encyclopedias. Without that, encyclopedias have zero purpose. And as the reader interest can be naturally expected to spike again with the report on cause of death, and the attendant articles, it's really wp:common sense.

Instead of following every rule (or essay), it is acceptable to use common sense as we go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules (or, especially, essays) can cause loss of perspective.

As our fundamental principle states: "Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers.

And as to "use common sense" -- as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

My humble view.--2603:7000:2143:8500:EC64:FB79:7C07:7BDE (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linux help - /etc/apt/sources.list.d[edit]

I was following instructions from here to install docker and I was having some problems with duplicated lines from the /etc/apt/sources.list.d directory (if I remember correctly) so in a rather hurried decision I deleted the directory altogether. (Eventually I was able to complete the instructions there.) I tried recreating it and giving the needed permissions (mkdir + chmod) but I believe it has left some persistent problems. Lately I tried installing 2 packages (unrelated to each other) and I couldn't do it.

sudo apt install trash-cli returns E: Unable to locate package trash-cli
sudo apt install php7.2-cli returns E: Unable to locate package php7.2-cli

I've tried re-deleting that directory and recreating it many times now (currently is still deleted) and running sudo apt update thinking it would solve the problem but...

What should I ultimately do with that directory? Should I recreate it manually with mkdir? Are the problems related to that event or maybe it is just a coincidence? I worry that I won't be able to install any new package whatsoever in the future. :/

I was referred here after this discussion, of which this post is more or less a copy-paste. I'm rather new in Linux so any kind of help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running Lubuntu, but I assume something that basic will be the same. I have (in Properties):

Ownership
- Owner: root
- Group: root
Access Control
- Owner: View and modify folder content
- Group: View folder content
- Other: View folder content

No more that I can see, and the 'Advanced Mode' button is grayed out so there might be more I'm missing. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbarson, I'm sorry (and this is strange given that I also use Windows everyday) but I'm not too accustomed with the Linux GUI. I use the terminal mostly so your explanation doesn't make much sense to me currently. :/

The questions I had practically were:

Should I create back manually /etc/apt/sources.list.d and if so, how?
Why can't I install those 2 packages? - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was obscure. Sometime operations in/on a folder may be affected by the ownership and access rights; I merely put forward those properties for a 'clean' copy of the folder (supposedly; I've never deleted it since the OS was installed). If the properties of your folder differ, it might be worth changing them to match mine. Just a guess. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 15:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This directory should contain files that tell apt where to get packages. The documentation can be found here. The ".d" is a common way to indicate that a program is using a directory of configuration files instead of just a single file.

So it saying it doesn't have a source for these packages makes sense: you deleted the information on how to find packages.

I think you will have to restore the files that were in the directory. Maybe you can find a live CD of the same version of whatever you have (e.g. Debian or Ubuntu) and copy the files from there. El sjaako (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally (in the Ubuntu family at least) /etc/apt/sources.list.d would be owned by root, group root, permissions 0755, but different Linux distros could make small variations on this. You didn't say what distro you use. You can just re-create the directory. In the Ubuntu family, the directory /etc/apt/sources.list.d is only used for third-party repositories. The official repositories are in the file /etc/apt/sources.list. If you run Ubuntu, that's where you can get those two packages (except that php7.2-cli is no longer available after 18.04). For more help, one needs more details. Consider using a support forum dedicated to your Linux distro. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El sjaako, @PiusImpavidus, I use Bionic Beaver. I'll try recreating it and hopefully that solves the problem as currently I can't install anything apparently. I tried installing jq yesterday and again I got the same message. Can someone help me get a copy of it online? I mean, I'll try searching myself but help would be appreciated because I'm kinda feeling overwhelmed by this. I've only started using Linux lately and I'm not really good at even getting help for it. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us the contents of your /etc/apt/sources.list ? There should be a bunch of lines including urls. Also, can you show us the output of "sudo apt update"? It should go through all the urls listed in sources.list (and possibly some more). On the system I have access to right now (a windows box with WSL installed), apt works fine even if the sources.list.d directory isn't there, as long as the sources.list file is there. El sjaako (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El sjaako, I searched online on how to recreate the sources.list file and I found this: https://askubuntu.com/questions/683223/how-to-restore-etc-apt-sources-list-i-removed-it-by-mistake

I was able to solve everything following the instructions there. Every package gets installed normally now. I feel so relieved. You were right. It was sources.list that was causing the problems with the new packages, not sources.list.d. Thank you a lot to everyone who helped! Really appreciated and it feels good knowing there's somewhere when I can come to in need of help in future times. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi check the repo list from Synaptic (which is as same as reading /etc/apt/sources.list in practice). There should be at least two entries (one for binary, "deb", and one for source, "deb-src") that points out to archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu (assuming that you're using Ubuntu). If there isn't, then simply add them.
If you're sure that the repo list is correct, then the packages simply doesn't exist anymore. You may try to add them as PPA but be aware of the possibility of running into dependency issues. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 13:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]