Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Table of Contents

Something seriously needs to be done about the table of contents on this page... perhaps {{TOCleft}} or {{TOCright}}, or better yet... ___NOTOC___? ChewyLSB 02:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

New Questions

Is there any way to view only the most recent questions? --Think Fast 14:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't suppose you could just scroll to the bottom of the page? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I need the source code to WPRD (no, clicking in view source won't do it: only shows: (RD header)). I need to translate to Portuguese, including the subdivisions: hystory, sience, literature, miscellaneous, etc. Thanks

User:Mdob | Talk 18:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

See Template:RD header. Superm401 | Talk 21:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanxs! But I need the source to template {{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]}}, too. User:Mdob | Talk 22:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Check out these pages listed here: [1] --HappyCamper 03:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
To see /How to ask and answer , go to Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer. Wikipedia uses relative links, even for templates. By the way, if you're copying this to the portugese Wikipedia, don't forget to cite the source. Superm401 | Talk 03:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Archival!

I've archived the recent threads related to the recent changes made to the reference desk. Might have been a bit overly WikiBold, so please feel free to recover some threads that should remain active. This page was getting a bit too long to navigate around easily, I thought. --HappyCamper 03:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A Compensatory Pause

After about three days with the categorized format: With all of the vigorous activity over the prior several days this talk page seems eerily calm and quiet. The RD questioners seem to have adapted just fine and I don't notice any reduction in either the rate of questions or answers.  :-) hydnjo talk 21:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's true come to think of it. It's day 6 right now...let's try some graphs to see the impact of the changes? The RD is supporting about twice the number of questions than before...I can't imagine what it would be like to regularly have ~200 active questions on the same page! --HappyCamper 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, that Image:Question mark.png was pretty bold. Sorry about the understatement with the stats. Heck, time just goes by fast when you're havin' fun. I'd love to see the actual stats, I'm just eyeballin' Got milk stats? hydnjo talk 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
According to the page history, there were 21506 edits to the page up to the midnight before the split... --HappyCamper 00:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
WHAT?! It's September already?! And here I was thinking it was August! The question mark needs to be a bit smaller I think, but much better than the medical symbol :-) --HappyCamper 00:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. It looks much cooler now! --HappyCamper 02:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Graphs - Reference desk changes

Look at this graph, isn't it interesting? It's a graph of the number of edits made to the reference desk by month. Look at the recent spikes in July and August - I think splitting the desk was a good move after all!! (Isn't it also interesting how talk about splitting the page started around May, when the first surge and increase in edits to the RD occurred?) --HappyCamper 01:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

For your viewing pleasure: --HappyCamper 01:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Total number of edits made to the Reference Desk before the page split, grouped by month.
Total number of edits made to the Reference Desk before the page split, grouped by month.
Well done HC. I don't know how you do that! The data certainly suggests that WP:RD is becoming more useful (by almost doubling in one month). Let me add some thoughts about this page in a few. hydnjo talk 01:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, quite the spike in July. August is even higher. I wonder what will happen in September? The archiving isn't any much easier than before. Sooner or later we'll need extra help. I think we should form an "RD Brigades" club somewhere :-) --HappyCamper 16:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll give you a hand, but a few guidelines might be useful. For the moment I will stick to "seven days without edit" for sections. Physchim62 23:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Yay! See below for some tips. --HappyCamper 03:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Geography

Just to clarify: In which category a geography question goes, a question concerning countries? CG 18:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure...Maybe in miscellaneous? --HappyCamper 18:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
This kind of questions occurs a lot, and its currently found in three categories. CG 19:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that geography is a problem. It should be included specifically somewhere in the header. Misc is probably the best fit. hydnjo talk 19:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...I think in our categorization of the pages this is bound to happen. Are the questions being answered in a helpful way though, despite the fact that the related questions are not centralized together? --HappyCamper 19:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'm just saying that although geography doesn't have its own category it is a significant subject. Someone (you) should choose the most appropriate category and add the word Geography somewhere in the header. If it turns out to be misplaced, well we can change it later. We just need to provide some direction soon. hydnjo talk 20:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The more I think about it the more complex Geography becomes. I take back what I said because it doesn't fit into any one category. It depends on the context of the question. hydnjo talk 22:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd put it in Humanities, but I wouldn't insist on others doing so. Superm401 | Talk 22:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Physchim62 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
So, do you think that the Geography word should be added to the WP:RD header? Helpful or not? I'm just trying to be helpful by getting some kind of consensus so please give your opinion. Thanks, hydnjo talk 00:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I went bold. Added the word to science on the basis that it had the shorter list of words. See Template:RD header. I should add that it's okay to revert that change :-) --HappyCamper 01:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It looks just fine right there. Thanks for getting this question off the dime. Now at least we have a starting point if someone has a quarrel. No rv from here. hydnjo talk 01:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I have to say. Your basis doesn't really impress me. :) It also bothers me to put it under Science and Mathematics, because scientific conclusions are inherently true(if the research is done properly), while many facts of Geography are true only by virtue of humans agreeing upon them(and they're sometimes not agreed upon). That's why I suggested Humanities. I would be okay with leaving it out altogether, but the categorization in science bothers me. That seems to mix policy with irrefutable fact. Superm401 | Talk 01:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
If no one follows up on this, I'll probably just remove it. Superm401 | Talk 01:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Or relocate it to a more appropriate category. hydnjo talk 03:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Or make an subpage? *gasp* :-) Just remove it if you like, I don't mind at all. --HappyCamper 03:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Atomic reference desk

Just a random thought: wouldn't it be cool to have an RSS/Atom feed of the reference desk? RSS/Atom tech is being worked on for wikinews, and im not sure where its up to, but once they get it working i think it would be awesome to have a Reference desk feed (or one for each cat). It would mean that the individual heading would probably have to be a bit longer and more specific, but that's not a bad thing is it? The bellman 06:38, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

There's an existing RSS feed for Wikipedia:Announcements... hmm. The Help/Reference Desk and Village Pump are pages that'd certainly benefit from this. Shimgray 12:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering how one makes an rss feed using a wikipage? Do they find all h1's and make an <item> out of it? I would be interested in having a feed of all the rd questions. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, it sounds really neat! Let me know if we know if we figure out how to do this and I'll try to help out. I'm wondering if it would this impact how archival is done? And how often we would need to patrol the RD to make sure we are sending out quality material? --HappyCamper 22:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it would involve writing a script that would take the page, then convert each header into an <item> the title of the header into <title> and maybe the first 200 characters under the header into a <description> (is that what it's called? I have no experience with RSS or XML). This would probably be something that involves C#, PHP, CGI, Perl, or something similar. The RSS feed would also have to be hosted on a different server I guess... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
This shows a script that might be useful. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Ugh...looked at it and tried to do it in PHP...too much work! Don't want to get perl, so I'm leaving this up to someone else. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm actually pretty close to getting it. I just need a few more regexp tweaks and a host and I'll be done. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

RD Brigades (for want of a better name)

Archival on the reference desk is quite easy. Some heuristics to use:

  1. Archive whenever the page looks really long
  2. Archive whenever the page has old questions (typically 5-7 day old questions since last thread seems good)
  3. Sort the questions - all unanswered questions go in one place, answered questions go in their subpages.
  4. Follow the pattern in the archives. If it doesn't make sense, change it so it's easier to use :-)

In addition, these are some other things I have done in the archives:

  1. Remove questions relating to citing Wikipedia unless there is more content associated with answering the question
  2. Remove "contentless" questions - single word questions are examples
  3. Try to make the least number of edit to the main question pages during the archive edit.
  4. Leave archival edit summaries!
  5. Dates on archives are associated with the date of the posting of the question, not the date of the last post to the question (but this is really arbitrary anyway, so it really doesn't matter if this is done or not. I've been doing this since it was more convenient for me when it came to sorting questions into answered and unanswered ones.)
  6. To prevent potential spamming, either remove e-mail addresses in questions, or obfuscate them so it is more difficult for an automated crawler to capture the address
  7. Rewrite any posts which have been posted entirely with caps lock. Alternatively, surround the caps lock text with the "small" HTML tags

--HappyCamper 03:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive page redesign

I tried to redesign the Archive page: First, I created three templates {{Answered questions category}}, {{Unanswered questions}} and {{Answered questions no category}} (You can change their design and their colors if you like). Second, I changed the Instructions for archivers to match the splitting of the Ref desk.
Just some remarks: In the end of the archive page there's a Note, a link under the title of "Deletion log", and a section called "Helper files". Could someone tell me what these things are for. CG 11:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful! Right now, Wikipedia isn't letting me open those pages, so I'll get back to you when the error disappears. --HappyCamper 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

CG

I believe that the deletion log is an outdated version of an archive that never whent anywhere. It's dated March 2004, and if we have a back-up copy in the archive of the same questions, it should be fine to delete it. It was made by Paddu in one of the first 20 edits. The helper files appear to be a record of the title of all the 2005 archives. This is a good idea, though a search algorithm would probably do a better job. I like the new format, but I thought that the idea was to sort by year first, then category such as humanities, science, etc. Rather than the other way around. This would allow for easier archiving, though I have not changed anything in case I misunderstood the original system. Please keep me posted. Dariusthegreat898 10:59, September 5, 2005 (EST)

I removed the "Deletion log" section, it contained some archives from March 2004 that weren't archived. work done. CG 17:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please use {{unsigned}}

Please use Template:Unsigned for anon comments without signatures. It makes it a lot easier on certain scripts that are running on the page. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What scripts are these? --HappyCamper 22:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
See below. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
How does one enter the parameters "1", "1" and "2"? hydnjo talk 00:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
{{subst:unsigned|Username|Time}} — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Just trying: (preceding unsigned comment by hydnjo 00:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)) using five tildes. hydnjo talk 00:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Using five tildes will only put the current time, while you usually want to put the time the anon posted. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Good point, thanks. hydnjo talk 20:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You can also use {{unsigned2}}, which can be faster to use (copy the username and date from the page history, paste both at the same time, and just add a | in the middle). It has the opposite parameter order and adds the (UTC) at the end (note: you cannot be using any timezone offset in your preferences if you want to use that trick). --cesarb 20:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Atomic Reference Desk (Update)

Check out the new RSS feeds of the Reference Desk. Thanks to User:Talrias for helping me a LOT on this:

These will be updated hourly starting eventually this week, but right now they're just one-time snapshots. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What does RSS stand for? How do you use RSS feeds? --HappyCamper 03:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
RSS (file format). ~~ N (t/c) 22:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (mmm... i love wikis), is it at all possible to have an agregated one of all categories? A pipe dream that would be quite a bit more work to code (me thinks) would be a feed that had a Q in front of a new question, but also repeated the question with an A in front when someone gave an answer (i'm guessing this would be easier on something more traditional like a forum) - possibly something like this requires something more than what the RSS framework provides. Anyway, it is really freaking cool as it is. You rule. The bellman 10:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't folk look up the answers for themselves?

I can't help noticing that a significant number of questioners not only do not seem to realize that this is an encyclopedia - they don't even try to look up the answers to their own questions. Is there some way the page heading could highlight the fact that they've come across a huge reference resource and encourage folk to look up answers for themselves. After all, that's what Wikipedia is for. Shantavira 13:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with you that thisis a problem, but I don't think that expanding the header even further will help. I doubt that people who can't be bothered to look things up for themselves will read or heed the header. If there are people willing to help the clueless out, then we are providing a service. If there aren't, then eventually the question will be moved to the archives unanswered, and no harm is done. Those of us who monitor the page should feel no obligation to answer every question. I generally ignore the clueless questions, or, if I'm feeling generous, point them in the direction of the appropriate Wikipedia article. I don't answer the question for them, though, if there is an answer in an article. Ground Zero | t 14:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed this and changed the header, before the Ref Desk got split up into sections, to read something like "Check to see if we have an article on the subject before asking your question". In most cases I'll do something like G. Zero does. I'll just point them to the article that answers their question without actually giving them the exact answer. Maybe that will encourage them to actually look for the data before asking the next question. I don't see the point in their asking these things either since they have to wait for someone to be nice enough to reply instead of going to the article and finding out immediately.  :shrug: Dismas 14:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
For the novice user WP's case sensitivity and correct spelling requirements are sometimes a problem. Some folks (like me) are used to throwing anything close into Google and getting what they want. I think that providing an article link (if there is one) is the helpful thing to do as it will help falmiiarize the new user with WP. hydnjo talk 16:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
i assume it's too much work or not within the wikipedia idea to first give a search result for a given question. it would certainly help for a lot of these so called questions that are answered by looking for the right article. Boneyard 13:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

becoming a member

what do you mean by becoming a member? does it cost money?

                        DJ
  • Hi, DJ. Signing up at Wikipedia is completely free. You might read this page to find out what we're all about. If you want to sign up for an account, you can do that here. If you have any other questions, click on the link after my name that says "talk," and I'll be glad to help you. Joyous (talk) 00:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think he's referring to HappyCamper's request for members of the "Reference Desk Brigade". If I'm right, DJ, that's only a very informal grouping of people. Feel free to participate in any activities they participate in(i.e archiving, structural changes to the RD, answering questions). In fact, though a lot of projects like to keep track of members, sign-ups for activities on Wikipedia are almost never mandatory. As a general rule, if you see an established editor doing it, you're allowed to as well. Obviously, try not to violate any policies. Superm401 | Talk 01:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The "RD brigades" is just some term I coined for "Wikipedians who archive the reference desk pages whenever they feel like it." Essentially, anyone can do it, and it can be quite fun when you read over what questions have been asked! You can help out too - there are some tips for archival at the top. --HappyCamper 18:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
HappyCamper and the RD brigades, congratulations for taking the step to the Main Page Browse bar! I hope that the Portal folks and RD can work out some sort of agreement with you; while I cannot speak for them, I would guess the change was a little sudden for them; if you have other designs in mind, you might bring it up on the Portal talk page, for example. As it stands, we currently do not have a link for the Portals. Does anyone have any concepts to share with others about this? Ideas, anyone? Ancheta Wis 00:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Culture  ·   Geography  ·   History  ·   Mathematics  ·   People  ·   Science  ·   Society  ·   Technology

Alphabetical index · Browse articles · Browse categories · Browse portals · Other indexes

Link to talk page for the Main Page Browse Bar

What is this about? The splitting of the reference desk? I haven't really done much for the reference desk other than archival ever since the split late last August. I'm not sure what change you are referring to, so if you could get me up to speed that would be great.
PS -> the "RD Brigades" doesn't really exist. It's entirely just a term I came up with for want of a better term. For the last few months, I've been doing most of the archival, so it was just a fun way for me to ask for help, that's all. It's also a subtle way for me to thank everyone who had a hand with the changeover, sort of an inside joke I guess. --HappyCamper 00:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
RD now has a link on the Main Page
Can we change that link to point to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead? --HappyCamper 04:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Spammers...

It seems we still get people who put their email address at the bottom of their question. Do you think mentioning the fact that spammers scan the Wikipedia (including the RD) for email addresses might help convince them to stop doing so? --Robert Merkel 03:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how much of the header anyone reads. I just remove them as soon as I see them. Anyone who actually wants to cc their RD answers to those who left emails can always check the history. I personally usually try to mark that I was only removing an email addy. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
For some it may be a lost cause anyhow; anyone participating in a large number of mailing lists and newsgroups will have long since given up on keeping his email address pristine. (In fact, the more spam I receive the better my spam filter is at keeping spam out!) — mendel ☎ 17:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent archival

I recently archived all 4 reference desk pages...however, I haven't saved the archived questions to Wikipedia yet, as I haven't had the time to sort them out. They are currently stored on my local desktop as text files, and I'll commit them to the archive soon. --HappyCamper 04:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. --HappyCamper 21:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Long pages

I thought I just archived the pages...how did they grow this big so quickly??? --HappyCamper 21:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

School is back in session. ;-) --hydnjo talk 19:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Yup, and I suggest for all those that appear to be homework, we refer to the top of the page (where it says we don't do homework) and request that they ask a more specific question about what they don't understand. Since most of them are probably asking at the last minute and not even checking their class notes or books, they probably won't clarify. Then we don't waste time and everyone still learns :) - Taxman Talk 20:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Except sometimes it seems more productive to steer the user towards the article which may stimulate some curiosity (I hope). Anyway, I think we should deal with homework questions in a way that doesn't turn anyone off, even though they didn't get their homework done for them. --hydnjo talk 01:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)