Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 960

I am doing a research project on the development of large shopping malls and realized that the figures for the Mall of America are out of date or incorrect. The MOA website lists their gross leasable area as being 2.869 million square feet^[1] while the Wikipedia article notes the number at 2.779 million square feet.

As an inexperienced Wikipedia editor myself, would someone be able to make the change to this page and update the ranking?

Posting link to article for the convenience of other interested editors. Mall of America. The current source [] used for square footage is a primary source that was updated and doesn't appear to show the square footage anymore. The link above is also a primary source - it would be great to get third party validation of the square footage. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, this morning I made my first contribution, I edited this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_February I added valuable, neutral info about the film screenings, with links, and I completed the cast and crew sections. But none of this seems to have been kept. My user : Humble contributeur The page I edited : Roads in February (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_February) Is there a reason why my edits don't appear? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humble contributeur (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

At View history, Lugnuts reverted your content, adding "lgv" as explanation. Means "last good version." Issue was lack of references for the content you added. Suggest you leave a message at Lugnuts' Talk page, asking it that was the only problem. Your content can be recovered from View history, but do not add back until you resolve the referencing issue. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What program do people use to create coats of arms for Wikipedia? Thanks, Don — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtblackpepper (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sgtblackpepper. Since nobody has responded to your query yet, I'll take a shot. I'd image that some of the COAs you see used in Wikipedia articles are files found on other external websites. How these files are licensed depends on a variety of things, but they're not really user-created for specifically Wikipedia. Someone found a COA file somewhere online and figured how to upload and use them in a way that complies with Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files. There are also files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which are either public domain or user-created to some degree (perhaps based upon on an existing COA). You can probably find out some more about this at c:Commons:Coats of arms or maybe by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology since the editors belonging to that WikiProject probably know quite a bit about the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

My friend Odor from Hungary Ex Legionnaire Now in Norwegian Prison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashina 1020 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mashina 1020. The Teahouse is a place where people can come to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing? From looking at the edits you've made so far, it appears you're posting comments on various article talk pages, but it's not clear what you're posting because you're using a language other than English. It would be easier for someone to help you if you can post in English, but if you find that too difficult perhaps you can find someone to help you in your preferred language at Wikipedia:Local Embassy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: See also: meta:User talk:Mashina 1020#About your recent modifications. --CiaPan (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They've already deleted my edit three times today. As I understand it, they should have their account freezed for that, but they have these alternate accounts. It seems really shady and I don't know what to do. The worst part is that they're doing it in defense of a really controversial statement within the industry. I don't really know what to think of it or what to do. I tried to open a conversation on their talk page, but they ignored it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There was not one editor using three separate accounts that reverted you, GymnasioArgos. It was three separate editors. Whatever in the world would make you think otherwise? You need to discuss your changes on the article talk page, and work with the other editors on what if any of your proposed changes can gain a consensus to be included in the article. You'll likely be blocked if you continue on the path you are on. John from Idegon (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi GymnasioArgos. A couple of things in no particular order.

1. Accusing another editor of misusing multiple accounts is a serious accusation which shouldn't be made lightly; in fact, it can be considered a personal attack when it's not supported by evidence. Having your edits reverted by "different" accounts doesn't automatically mean that the same editor is using multiple accounts to try and make life difficult for you. It could also mean that multiple editors feel that your edits weren't in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines and were in agreement that they should be reverted and discussed further. From looking at the page history of Dog training, I think this is more of a case of the latter than the former.
2. Wikipedia want us to be WP:BOLD when we edit; at the same time, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project which means we are expected to discuss things with others when there is a disagreement over article content and try and establish a consensus. You were bold in making changes to an article, but these changes were subsequently reverted by another editor; this means that the obligation is now upon you to discuss the changes you want to make on the article talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. Trying to use edit warring to impose your particular version on the article is only going to end up getting you or someone else blocked. The editors who have reverted your edits explained why in their edit summaries, so try and address their concerns on the article's talk page before trying to re-add the content you feel should be in the article per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
3. Posting on a user's talk page is a good thing to do, but try an understand that editors sometimes get WP:BUSY and may not respond as quickly as you like. Moreover, it's generally better to discuss disagreements over article content on the article's talk page because it makes it much easier for others who may be interested in the subject matter to participate. It also makes it much easier for any record of prior discussion to be found in case the same or a similar issue comes up in the future. In some cases, some of the changes you want to make might've actually been discussed before and a consensus was actually established not to make them. So, the article talk page can really be helpful in cases like this.

You've only been editing for a week (at least with this account) and Wikipedia has quite a lot of policies and guidelines which is how we as editors evaluate article content, ie. what to leave in and what to leave out. Nobody expects you to know all of these policies and guidelines by heart and some editors who've been at it for years still make mistakes or get things wrong. Wikipedia, however, doesn't want us to make our mistakes worse by making other mistakes on top of them; so, please use the article talk page to engage in discussion with these other editors and see if some common ground can be established which improves the article in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

GymnasioArgos, there is only one proper place to make an accusation of sock puppetry, and that is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, where you are expected to provide convincing evidence. It is disruptive to make such accusations elsewhere, especially without any evidence at all. I notice that nobody has edited Talk:Dog training since 2017. That is the proper place to discuss your proposed changes to that article. Make your case there, and do not try to add your content back to that article without obtaining consensus. I urge you to be cautious in these circumstances. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The accounts all have the same name, but then are numbered in sequential order starting with 1.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos (talk • contribs) 02:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You have confused edit numbers with editors. The editors reverting your additions are Bradv, MrOllie and MarchJuly. Take it up at the article's Talk. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi again GymnasioArgos. The edit you made here is not the way to try and resolve a content dispute. You tried to discuss things at User talk:Bradv#Message from GymnasioArgos Edits on Dog Training page, not at the article's talk page; Bradv has responded to your post and suggested you discuss things at Talk:Dog training instead. Just because an editor doesn't respond to one your posts right away, it doesn't mean you're being ignored; it could just mean that they are WP:BUSY and haven't had the time to respond yet. What you need to do now is follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve things on the article's talk page. Continuing to revert to try and impose your desired version on the article is only going to lead to your account being blocked for edit warring regardless of how right you may think you are. Moreover, your post here indicates that you probably should read Wikipedia:Expert editors; the knowledge you have about the subject of dog training can be a great assest in figuring out ways to improve the article, but it doesn't give you any special editing privaleges or control over the content. Anyone interested in the subject can edit that article as long as they do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; they don't need to be an expert in dog training, own a dog or even like dogs to be able to edit the article. You started out being bold and were reverted; that's no big deal. You then dug yourself into a small hole, by reverting back and assuming others were using multiple accounts inappropriately because they disagreed with you. Again, not an ideal thing to do, but still something fairly easy to get out of. That hole, however, is starting to get deeper and deeper the more you continue to try and force your preferred version onto others involved in editing the article. You've already been politely warned above by Cullen328 (an Wikipedia administrator) to take a step back and discuss; if you continue on as you've been doing, you’re going to find that a Wikipedia adminstrator is going to step in and and take action that you might not like to prevent any further disruption of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RE: "The editors reverting your additions are Bradv, MrOllie and MarchJuly" I happened upon a list of editor available for third party resolutions that I cannot find again. It listed a Bradv, Bradv2, and Bradv3. I don't know much about how accounts are generated, but it looks like there are three accounts associated with this editor. I'm sorry, but that looks bad.

RE:"Just because an editor doesn't respond to one your posts right away, it doesn't mean you're being ignored; it could just mean that they are WP:BUSY and haven't had the time to respond yet." Well, in the time it took them to get to their talk page, they deleted two of my edits. At best it's an unfortunate workflow.

RE: "That hole, however, is starting to get deeper and deeper the more you continue to try and force your preferred version onto others involved in editing the article." If Wikipedia is about the truth instead of greasing elbows, I really don't see why you need me to be nice about it. My first edit was completely deleted, not edited, and accused of bad faith. That's a pretty big hole itself, but the reality is that the edit that Bradv is reverting ignores a good portion of the dog training industry. Applied Behavior Analysis is a discipline focused on children with intellectual and cognitive disabilities, not dogs.

It takes two people to edit war and I certainly didn't initiate it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GymnasioArgos (talk • contribs) 03:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

GymnasioArgos, I assure you there is only one of me. And as I noted on the article talk page, I agree the article needs some improvement, and I thank you for starting the discussion. – bradv🍁 03:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@GymnasioArgos: Please try to remember to sign your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do that, look at WP:SIGN and WP:TILDE for more information. Signing your posts helps others see who's posting and when they are posting.

As for edit warring, you were WP:BOLD, and made some changes to the article; another editor then WP:REVERTed your changes because they felt they were not an improvement. The other editor left an edit summary explaining why they were making the changes which means so the reversion wasn't a case of random vandalism. At that point, you're expected to start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to establish a consensus for your changes; however, you didn't do this and instead reverted back to your preferred version. Then, when other different editors reverted your edits and left edit summaries advising you to discuss things on the article's talk page, you continued to revert back to your preferred version. Whatever edit warring occured began with your first revert; so, yes you did technically start it. The other reverts were made in an attempt to stabilize the article per WP:STATUSQUO to allow some sort of proper discussion to take place.

This thread is slowly moving beyond the scope of the Teahouse. If, however, you'd like me to take you through everything that happened step by step using diffs, then I can do so on your user talk page. Right now, however, it might be best to focus on the discussion you started on the article's talk page. Bradv has responded there and has even started a new thread; so, perhaps the two of you can work together on improving the article. If you two are unable to resolve your differences, then take it to the next stage of the dispute resolution process and seek other input. Perhaps some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs might be able to help sort things out. Wikipedia is not about truth per se, but rather about verifiability. It's also not about original research, but rather about reflecting content found in reliable sources. When there are disagreements about these types of things, it's not about winning but rather about trying to find a way to work together with others and figure out how to resolve any differences of opinion. This is one of the main ways how articles are slowly and steadily improved over time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@GymnasioArgos: If you refer to Special:ListUsers/Bradv then Bradv1 and Bradv3 is a blocked impersonator who has not edited any article. Bradv2 was created in 2007 and has no edits at all. By the way, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses does permit alternative accounts if some rules are followed. I have the alternative accounts User:PrimeHunter2 and User:PrimeHunter3. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you be interested in writing a Wikipedia page for Yungfester or no? — Preceding comment signed as by Masumrezarock100 (talk · contribs) actually added by Yungfester (talk · contribs) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to write an article, please create a draft of it at Draft:Yungfester --DannyS712 (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have started an article about director Draft:Benedikt Erlingsson. Can you give me tips on how to proceed with publishing the article. I want to add more short bios of Scandinavian and Nordic filmmakers and their works. Is that something that would be of value for English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActicCinemaGuy (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems that this Benedikt Erlingsson is notable, having been covered by a number of reliable sources. So I encourage you to continue your draft. I suggest that you also add a background or early life section. This source, for instance, provides some info about his parents. Darwin Naz (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

i made article about motivation and sleepi ng less and there is no effecct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbezos (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. Can you explain the issue a bit more? Its unclear what we can help you with --DannyS712 (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Michaelbezos. Are you talking about your sandbox User:Michaelbezos/sandbox...? It has been removed, and if you click the red link you can see a pink box there, which says '...(Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria U5, G11)'.
And if you click those green links you'll see they are two criteria of speedy deletion: U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host and G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --CiaPan (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I've tried editing a biography of a living person. Basically, I've flagged the page for notability, credibility and concerns that the editor is someone close to the subject. In fact, the whole page was constructed by one person and he seems to be very defensive about my edits i.e. constant accusations of vandalism, improper motives etc. All I wanted to do was raise a legitimate concern (a tag) that the person editing the page/ created the page is close to the subject. How can I do this 'properly' without his constant harassing and removal of my tag?

Yd85 (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Big help if you identify the article.David notMD (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do the numbers you get from making edits mean? I’m assuming it’s saying you did a good or bad job but how do you get more or less and what do they do? Just please explain the whole thing I don’t get it. Twooeight (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It's just how many bytes of content you added (green) or removed (red). David notMD (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. I will add that it has nothing to do with whether you made a "good" or "bad" job - adding unsourced speculation will appear in green (but it is not a good thing), and removing it will appear in red (but it is a good thing). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings! I appreciate the fine and detailed article on fascism, with one glaring exception--"Dostoevsky" is included as a thinker/artist whose work inspires fascist tendencies (fn 86), which is a patently anomalous view, apparently based on one page in a chapter in a book, written by an author (Zeel Sternhell) whose championing of the Enlightenment tends to extreme bias (here's a review of one of his books:https://newrepublic.com/article/72487/black-and-white). Dostoevsky does not belong in this list of precursors to fascism (he is a serious critic of fascism avant la lettre), and I'm not sure how to rectify this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.154.97 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-28T17:03:18 (UTC)

Hello IP user. the best place to discuss what should go in a particular article is that article's talk page. I cannot find "Dostoevsky" in the index of the talk page, so it looks as if this hasn't been discussed before; but Talk:Fascism seems to be quite active. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

how do i make custom signatires. Swig swoot (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Swig swoot. You will find the detailed guidance you need at Wikipedia:Signatures. Please remember that not everyone has perfect eyesight, so do try to avoid using very pale colours, or dark text against very dark backgrounds. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I have been editing some Portuguese football clubs in English and I have unfortunatelly and accidentaly destroyed the layout of the:

{{Navbox | name = Primeira Liga teamlist | title = Primeira Liga | state = autocollapse |listclass = hlist

| group1 = 2018–19 clubs | list1 =

Any thoughts on how it can fixed? I volunteer to fix but I don`t now how, or will wikipedia staff fix these type of layouts? Examples of what I have made can be found on the Lusitano Ginásio Clube and SC Campomaiorense in English.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusitanist1911 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You had 2 malformatted entries in your additions to the template. Corrected in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it again, clubs from the Évora Football Association, as a district association, do not belong on Template:Primeira Liga teamlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

How to upload sound(mp3) in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiruchengode (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Tiruchengode, I believe Ogg Vorbis is the preferred format for lossy-compressed audio on Wikipedia. (See c:Commons:Audio for help.)

Whether you can add the sound file depends on what it is. If it's not a free cultural work, it will have to meet the non-free content criteria. (See this as an example of a file meeting those criteria.) If it does, you can upload it here.

If it is a free cultural work, or if you created the audio and you want to release it under a free license, you can upload it here.

Hope this helps. Eman235/talk 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

So I'm a new user, not experienced ofcourse, but I need to create a page for the Blackstone and Burke center at which I'm interning this summer. I went through (I believe) the correct process of creating a draft, and have been waiting for someone to approve it or disapprove it. Anyway, I can't find the draft, and the draft does not appear in my edit history. Is there any way to find the page, check progress, or edit? It was about 5 hours of work that I'd like to get back. Thanks for any help. The page I tried to create a draft for is called "Blackstone and Burke Center for Law and Liberty"— Preceding unsigned comment added by KingryJason (talk • contribs)

@KingryJason: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was deleted as a copyright infringement(if you click on Draft:The Blackstone and Burke Center for Law and Liberty it will give the reason); as such, it cannot be restored. Text cannot simply be copied from a website to here due to licensing issues. Also note that if you are interning for this organization, you must comply with the paid editing policy(even if an unpaid intern); this is a Terms of Use requirement. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why am I being warned about "vandalizing" the Once Upon A Time in Hollywood page? The other person posting is posting the PLOT of a film that isn't out until August! I want to see it fresh, and no one should have to stumble upon it in error. I'm being constructive, and not insulting anyone, or making the page unsightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourahioro (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bourahioro: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were edit warring to preserve your edit, this is not acceptable, please read WP:3RR. Regarding your edit, the plot of a film is generally added to the article about it as soon as it is known, either through someone seeing the film or a description being published in a reliable source. Evidently someone who saw a preview of the film put the plot in the article. Films have different release dates in different countries as well. If you don't want to have the plot of a film spoiled, it is best that you stay away from the article about it until you see the film. It's just the way it is. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bourahioro: See Wikipedia:Spoiler for the guideline to not delete spoilers. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was shown at Cannes 21 May and already has 59 reviews from critics at Rotten Tomatoes. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Can editors talk privately? I guess I mean not talk on the talk pages. Maybe when I see you got a message on your email might be private. Any input? Eschoryii (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eschoryii: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you send someone an email, the contents are private, and only you and the person you sent it to can see the text. DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

hi i can submit in sendbox yesterday but now i can see all data will deleted now i can submit new page again i can data will deleted what i will please \help me

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenMitchellsinger (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't see what it was that you submitted, but you might like to read WP:Autobiography and WP:Notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not like social media where anyone can advertise themselves. Dbfirs 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

My question is How to show sources correctly for tables?. I have seen many ways how that's done but which one is the correct? Is it writing "Source: [cite]" under the table in italic or what? Thanks! --LV1000 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand that if the table has a caption, you should just add it in the end of the caption but what if the table doesn't have a caption? --LV1000 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@LV1000: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no official "correct" way, most ways you can think of are valid. If you provide a link to the page you are thinking of, I can help you add the sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: OK. But in this page 2013 UEFA European Under-17 Championship, for example, regarding te section Group stage, where and in what format should I place the reference if all the sections's info is from one site - what's your opinion?

re: Dooring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dooring

The descriptive opening paragraph to "Dooring" entry ought, I believe, be amended also to include doorings of other road users such as scooter, e-bike, moped, motorcycle, skate-board, & inline skate users, etc - ie other Vulnerable Road Users. It also should note that other motor vehicles including automobiles, trucks, buses and even light rail vehicles get doored, and indeed can break off the offending vehicle's door. Last, exiting motorists themselves can and have been injured or killed by their negligent egress from their vehicle into the door zone and path of on oncoming vehicle / road user.

I do not see an "edit" link preceding the dooring entry's introductory paragraph and assume it is up to the senior editors of the section to do so.

If this is so, how can I contact the appropriate editor or group of editors?

Or could you kindly forward this recommendation to them? [I can readily provide documentation for such non-bicyclist dooring collisions upon request]

Michael C Thank you! 22:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Mcha6677 (talk)mcha6677

@Mcha6677: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. No one is "in charge" of the lead paragraph, there just isn't an edit button by default. You can edit the entire page and just change that paragraph, or there is an option in your settings (at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, the first option under "Appearance") to "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Alternatively, here is a link to edit the lede section of the page in question. Hope this helps, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mcha6677! Adding to DannyS712's comment, if a page does have an protection (there's usually a lock icon towards the top right of the page) you can usually request an edit on that page's talk page. OkayKenG (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the difference between sockpuppeterring and using another account without abusing? RedditDuchyii (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@RedditDuchyii: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The legitimate uses of another account, which don't constitute abuse, can be found at: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

re: Dooring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dooring

The descriptive opening paragraph to "Dooring" entry ought, I believe, be amended to include doorings of other vulnerable road users (VRUs) such as scooter, e-bike, moped, motorcycle, skate-board, & inline skate users, etc.

It also should note that other motor vehicles including automobiles, trucks, buses and even light rail vehicles get doored, and can damage or even break off the offending vehicle's door.

Last, exiting motorists and passengers themselves can and have been injured or killed by their negligent egress into the Door Zone from their vehicle into the door zone and path of on oncoming vehicle / road user.

Being a newbie, I assume it is up to the senior editors of this Dooring section to make such changes as I do not see an "edit" link preceding the dooring entry's introductory paragraph.

If this is so, how may I communicate these suggestions to the appropriate editor or group of editors who oversee that entry?

Or could you kindly forward this recommendation to them on my behalf?

[PS: I can readily provide documentation for such non-bicyclist dooring collisions upon request]

Michael C Thank you! 23:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Mcha6677 (talk)mcha6677

Mcha6677, your question was already answered here. Eman235/talk 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The drawing in taxonbox for Wikipedia "Carex crawfordii" is a 1970 Dover reprint (p380) of the 1913 ed of Britton & Brown's "An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada". Does Wikidome need consider questions about whetherornot an image is or is not in the public domain? Elraywms Elraywms (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe File:Carex crawfordii illustration (1).jpg is, in fact, public domain, even if it was scanned from a later reprint. (Which, given the linked source, doesn't seem likely.) Eman235/talk 00:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There's 3 TV series called Strangers on Wikipedia in:

• Strangers (2018 TV series)
• Strangers (2017 TV series) and
• Strangers (1978 TV series)

But there's 2 redirects both called Strangers (TV series) on Wikipedia too in:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strangers_(TV_series)&redirect=no and
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strangers_(TV_Series)&redirect=no

Which both appear in search.

Is it possible to merge the 2 Strangers (TV series) pages into one, then either redirect them to one of the 3 TV shows, or the disambiguation section Strangers_(disambiguation)#Television?

Danstarr69 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Danstarr69:  Done by Bkonrad, who changed both redirect targets to Strangers (disambiguation)#Television. Note that the redirect pages differ in the capitalization of series, so that both are useful (no "merge" needed). Deor (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Deor I noticed they were redirected yesterday. Redirecting pages is one of the few, relatively complicated things I actually know how to do by myself on here. What I didn't know how to do is merge things so they disappear, which is what I wanted to do as I can't understand why both of them appear in the top 10 search results when you type "Strangers (TV series), while pages like Strangers (1978 TV series) and Strangers (2018 TV series) don't, as they only appear if you type in the year. Both the 1978 and 2018 TV shows should appear in the top 10 search results, when searching for "Strangers (TV series)" in my opinion, as you might not remember the years they came out. It makes no sense why they don't appear, yet the 2017 series does.

It's like with The Royal which doesn't appear in the Top 10 search results when you search for "The Royal," yet The Royals (TV series) does.

Danstarr69 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Danstarr69, are you referring to a Google search? Where things appear in one of those passes all understanding, though the number of times a page is visited certainly seems to have something to do with it. When I search for Strangers (TV series) on Google, the 2018 and 2017 series are the top two hits. When I search for the same string on Wikipeia, Strangers (disambiguation) is the top hit, and the three series articles are among the top ten. Deor (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Deor Nope. I'm talking about the search in the search box on Wikipedia. It seems to have changed slightly in the last few hours as only 3 results show up in the search box when I search for Strangers TV series, but still...

The Top 10 results when I search for Strangers are:

1. Stranger
2. Strangers on a Train (film)
3. Stranger in a Strange Land
4. Strangers to Ourselves
5. Strangers into Citizens
6. Strangers (2017 TV series)
7. Strangers with Candy
8. Strangers Almanac
9. Strangers in the Night
10. Strangers (Halsey song)

And the Top 10 results when I search for Strangers TV are:

1. Strangers (TV series)
2. Strangers to Ourselves
3. Strangers' Thoughts
4. Strangers on a Train (film)
5. Stranger in a Strange Land
6. Strangers to the Marsh
7. Stranger to Stranger
8. Strangers (Van She song)
9. Stranger in a Strange Land (Lost)
10. Strangers on a Treadmill

That's why I can't understand it. The search box clearly doesn't order the articles in terms of popularity, however it should at least put the type of thing you're searching for in the Top 10 results. Things like Stranger in a Strange Land isn't even pluralised, and things like Strangers (Van She song) has nothing to do with TV, so why do they appear in the Top 10 results when you search for the above two search terms?

Danstarr69 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69. Just a suggetion, but this might be something better asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) since it may possibly have something to do with Wikipedia:Metadata or some other technical aspect that they usually sort out at VPT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)