Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 September 11

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = September 11 =

About discussion in request article/s move
Can the requester involve in the discussion he/she requested? ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 01:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @98tigerius: if you're asking about whether the requester can respond to those in the discussion, then yes. ltb d l (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ltbdl then how about respond whether to support or to oppose or be nuetral or etc. in the discussion? ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 03:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @98tigerius: huh? ltb d l (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is assumed that the initiator of any request supports the request: if they change their mind, they will usually withdraw the request.
 * Since most things on Wikipedia are not votes, it makes no difference whether the requester explicitly registers a "support" or not. What matters is the arguments from Wikipedia policy, and the requester is free to expound these just as much as anybody else. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Film still from 1914
Hello. Is it possible to include a screenshot from a 1914 film in the body of an article? Thank you BJCHK (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally yes. If the film was shown in the US prior to 1927, its copyright has expired and it is in the public domain. Caveats: if the still includes elements taht were added later such as frames, etc. then it is theoretically possible that those elements are still protected by copyright, so you would need to crop them. I know of no actual example of this. -Arch dude (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great! Thank you @Arch dude
 * BJCHK (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Phillip Lynch
Refs 1 and 2 are not correctly done. Please fix if you have the time. I cannot. Thanks you115.70.23.77 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there! The issue is that website is not a valid parameter for cite book.  If you want to reference the printed version of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, then use cite book without the website.  If you want to reference the web site, then use cite web with website.  Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello again! An informative and helpful result is I think even simpler to obtain than what GoingBatty suggests. Simply change  to   (and preferably name the website that immediately follows this "="; don't just supply its domain name). -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a good solution. via has a specific meaning (see the template documentation).  Do not abuse cs1|2 parameters to merely make error messages go away.  A better fix in this case is:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I plead guilty to insufficient study of Template:Cite book. And insufficient sleep. After markup-stripping: "Content deliverer" is a new term to me. (I was about to dismiss it as an obscure synonym for "website", but I suppose that material can still be available via ftp, DVD, etc.) But defined in any way that I can think of, here it's not different from the publisher. I did already know that it had to be different, but sleepily/hurriedly managed not to notice that here they're the same. Template:Cite Australian Dictionary of Biography is new to me. It got me looking for more. And more there is. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I plead guilty to insufficient study of Template:Cite book. And insufficient sleep. After markup-stripping: "Content deliverer" is a new term to me. (I was about to dismiss it as an obscure synonym for "website", but I suppose that material can still be available via ftp, DVD, etc.) But defined in any way that I can think of, here it's not different from the publisher. I did already know that it had to be different, but sleepily/hurriedly managed not to notice that here they're the same. Template:Cite Australian Dictionary of Biography is new to me. It got me looking for more. And more there is. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I plead guilty to insufficient study of Template:Cite book. And insufficient sleep. After markup-stripping: "Content deliverer" is a new term to me. (I was about to dismiss it as an obscure synonym for "website", but I suppose that material can still be available via ftp, DVD, etc.) But defined in any way that I can think of, here it's not different from the publisher. I did already know that it had to be different, but sleepily/hurriedly managed not to notice that here they're the same. Template:Cite Australian Dictionary of Biography is new to me. It got me looking for more. And more there is. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Citing chapters
I'm citing a rather large tome split between four volumes and was wondering if there were any good ways to cite individual chapters. I've tried Template:Harvc, which unfortunately requires each chapter to have its own author. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You might do better to cite the book once, and then use short form referencing in the text. Use  as the format.  For example, this sentence occurs in chapter 2.  Another thought taken from chapter 4.  But finishing with chapter 2 again.  If you want to see a fully worked example of SFN, see Frindsbury as an example.




 * (in 4 volumes). —Martin of Sheffield (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If you are adding these citations to an article that is not already using, it might be better to use . Others may differ, but I feel that is more consistent with the simple referencing style used in most articles, and we are not in general supposed to do a mass change of the existing referencing style in an article. -Arch dude (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please I want to update my information
Name job age Uduak Meriweather (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a place to post your resume or personal information. That's what social media is for. There doesn't seem to be an article about you here to update, unless it is under a different title. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgot user name
how to find out my user name and register email id ? 103.146.229.51 (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you examine the edit history of some article you may recall having edited to see if you recognize your username. However, if you forgot your username and password, you will need to just create a new account.  You can then add your email address in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Where have the recent archives gone?
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any Help Desk archives for September 2023 where they're supposed to be. I wanted to remind myself of an old thread but now am having problems finding it. Is scsbot broken? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Very strange - they exist (for instance Help desk/Archives/2023 September 6), but Help desk/Archives doesn't show them all, and shows some as red links (but clicking the link still takes me to the archive). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've purged Help desk/Archives and now everything that is meant to be there seems to be actually there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I also purged, don't know who was first. I have added added Purge. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Einstein and Eddington
Some years ago I edited the entry for the film "Einstein and Eddington" as I was concerned that the film contained some serious scientific and historical errors. I inserted a section pointing out these errors and referenced each of my points. Recently I've discovered that this whole section has been deleted. Given the importance of the scientific discovery dramatised in this film I think readers should be aware of the egregious errors that are made. How do I reinstate the section I wrote and how can I be informed if such a thing happens again Reginaldgeorge (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like it was removed in 2020 with this edit. No reason was provided. I would suggest discussing this on Talk:Einstein and Eddington. As for notification, it is up to you to monitor any articles you are interested in. You can add it to your watchlist(click on the star tab at the top and when it turns dark, you succeeded). 331dot (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that Einstein and Eddington is a dramatization rather than a documentary. In any dramatization historical "errors" are perfectly normal and to be expected. The references you provided were very vague, which may be why your contribution was removed. Be sure to cite everything and include relevant page numbers so that your points can be verified. Shantavira|feed me 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Unless your references specifically mentioned the movie, your contribution was original research (WP:OR), and OR is not permitted in Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the diff that 331dot linked to, it seems to me that your edit was original research. You weren't summarizing what reliable sources had said about the film, but synthesizing from the various sources you mentioned and what was in the film. That is not how Wikipedia works. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)