Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 9

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.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8
Subpage tracker
Association of Reference Desk Volunteers by Cernen Xanthine Katrena.

Contents

ARDE

Anyone interested in joining the Association of Reference Desk Employees should probably drop by meta:Association of Reference Desk Employees. You can add yourself by doing an interwiki link instead of four tildes; just put [[w:User:Username|Username]] ~~~~~ where your signature would normally go. Regulars are encouraged to apply... Cernen Xanthine Katrena 13:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL...I've been waiting 8 months to see something like this pop up...oh, we Wikipedians are so special!!! :-) --HappyCamper 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Whats the latest update on the transition to new categories?--Urthogie 21:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The feedback I got from the side was that there wasn't too much enthusiasm for the move right now. I think it would be a good idea to keep that template tucked away for now...I'm not sure what to do now. Maybe leave things as is, and work on the bot? :-) --HappyCamper 03:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for ref cats

{{RD header new}}

Support the above template

  1. Urthogie 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. deeptrivia (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC) I'd been wanting this for a while. The science desk is flooded with "What's wrong with my computer" questions.
  3. TERdON 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 07:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC); it's about damn time we keep the most fun of the idiot questions at Miscellaneous, rather than have people asking about other things there.

Oppose the above template

  1. Oppose for the reasons stated above. FYI, the Science Desk runs between 6 and 24 questions daily which I think is about right. Also. almost all of the misplaced or silly questions are posted by new kids making their first edit, expecting a "search engine" result and not getting one most likely never return for a response. The only additional category that I support would be Homework Help where everyone could be up-front about it and our responses appropriate to that source of questions. hydnjo talk 13:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if new kids post obvious questions, at least the cruft will be divided evenly between the people who watch various desks. Currently, when you watch humanities, you'll get way too many cruft questions, because its such a broad category.--Urthogie 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The most active folks patrolling here can be seen contributing at all of the desks. hydnjo talk 16:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
We can indeed. Black Carrot 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose because that is just way too many cat's. I initially thought a "Homework Help" would be helpful but I'd much prefer people saying something like "The rules of this page state not to copy and paste your homework questions here. That being said, try this article for help." Dismas|(talk) 14:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain why you think its not good to have so many cats? By the way, I also added that homework help link as you suggested.--Urthogie 15:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Allow me: why not then split the Math desk into Math (1 thru 12) and Math (College and above) so as to relieve the burden on us math wizards? Just kidding of course.  :-) hydnjo talk 16:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that you're joking, but this allows me to specify my point-- the line between math and technology is clear cut-- however, the line between college level math and high school math is often not. I'm sure you can see the common sense in this, right?--Urthogie 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes and my obvious exaggeration was just that. :-) hydnjo talk 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
So whats the common sense reason for not expanding cats?--Urthogie 18:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Other than that you don't make an express line for 3 customers? We don't get that many questions. We are near our reasonable limit, though. Black Carrot 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose as I said before. Too many cats. Meow.--Fangz 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I wouldn't want to see Humanities cut up into culture, society, and history. You can slice 'em and dice 'em, but in the end they're organic. The volume of questions to me seems reasonable. Halcatalyst 18:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Even though I like the new icons, I think that the main rationale for splitting the ref desk should be that the number of questions per desk is getting unmanageable, and so questions are 'disappearing' too fast (because they're no longer within two screens of the bottom). IMO opinion this is not happening, even the science and misc desks (where I think there is the highest volume of questions) are running happily at the present volume. If it aint broke, don't fix it. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

  1. I would prefer a banner with fewer columns, for smaller resolution and for aesthetic reasons. Perhaps a list of rows, or dual rows of columns would be better. -- Ec5618 03:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll set this up.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Honestly, I'm not enthusiastic about the splitting. Regardless of how it is done, from experience, having more pages or smaller pages does not serve to decrease the maintenance overhead - it only increases it. Will Wikipedians step in to help out? Well, I cautiously have this inclination, but this is currently accompanied with a lot of skepticism. If the splitting occurs, I hope I am thoroughly proven wrong! :-) Nevertheless, we have been doing things the same way for the past 6 months, so perhaps we are overdue for some changes. I won't oppose any proposals here, since I think the RD should be open to change, open to new ideas, and open to everybody. One thing I do not want to see is a fundamental change to the "culture" on the reference desk - we all know why it's fun to participate here, and those reasons which contribute to that should stay. I hope further splitting does not cause this concern to materialize, and moreover, I do not want to see too many "rules" added to the functioning of the reference desk. --HappyCamper 05:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I promise not to add any rules, or over-featurize the desk. I'm doing this to get more people involved, mainly.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. If we have questions about the template itself, well...it would be nice to get rid of the pink and replace it with some other colour...say, green, or even orange? :-) Finally, I suspect that the splitting changes can be done without an administrator, with the exception of merging the template page histories. I can do that when it is needed (but of course, any other administrator can jump in and help out too!) -- for those who want the split to occur, just note that the last time the split occurred, there was an intense amount of editing which took place for a solid few hours during the split, and after that, it took a full week for all the bugs to be wrinkled out. This splitting this time around should be much, much more simpler, but expect to wait at least a few days before all the necessary changes have been made - the archives and templates all need to be updated as well. In other words, to split the reference desk, stay by the computer when it is being done, and leave only when it's finished! --HappyCamper 05:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll make a change to the color, and I'll definitely help out through the whole time if this passes.--Urthogie 15:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. I of course like the Homework Desk. Do y'all think it should be an RD category or a separate desk? hydnjo talk 16:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I don't care what it is as long as its on the side; wikipedia helping people with their homework is not exactly umm..encyclopedic in nature.--Urthogie 17:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
So, a student with a homework assignment requiring some research (in the old days) goes to the library and either finds the appropriate reference material or asks the RD librarian for some help. The RD librarian doesn't do the homework but provides guidance and direction. That is the the kind of Homework Desk that I'm envisioning. We don't do the homework but provide direction and links to either WP material or external links as appropriate. That is providing an encyclopedic service. hydnjo talk 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. 1. The background picture of "miscellanous" is a triangle and not an ellipse (as the others are). 2. I don't really like the idea of a homework desk at all - A) we do not really encourage homework questions today, B) It would be smarter to have them in the same section as "other" questions on the same topic, and finally C) We probably won't get rid of the homework questions anyway, even if the template was red and blinking aggressively... EDIT: And finally D) Many questions can be "homework-like" even though they aren't really actual homework... TERdON 16:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The concept is not to rid ouselves of homework questions so much as to corral them. Coming to us for help shouldn't be onerous and by nature some students will do some research on their own and come to the RD when stumped while others don't have a clue. What a wonderful opportunity for us in either case. hydnjo talk 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think your point is well taken, but aren't you kinda making the assumption that people will ignore these obvious categories while noticing the homework link?--Urthogie 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Some will and some won't. But this provides a place to shuttle the "homeworks" to. That way the folks who are intolerant to those questions need not be bothered by them or dismiss them out of hand, leaving a bad impression on those genuinely seeking help. hydnjo talk 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent logic-- thing is, thats my same reason for doing the split-- so more people are willing to watch pages and answer questions more specifically.--Urthogie 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then maybe it's just me but I've never been detered from a desk because it was too broad, just the opposite, I find the variety to be enriching. Although I patrol all of the desks my least favorite is Math because it is so disciplined. I still patrol there but it's the least interesting but still I return. If your objective is to gather more responders by specialization then I think you're just wrong. People who are interested in helping others are willing to bypass a few questions that are not in their mainstream to reach out and help where they can. My point is, just how helpful is someone who doesn't do RD patrol because the questions there aren't right up their alley and, how helpful are they going to become when the questions are right up their alley amidst the sillys and first timers. Do you think that they will now become "converted" because the inept questions happen to be in a more specialized category? So again my question is, what is the objective that you're trying to achieve by adding more categories? hydnjo talk 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a broader knowledge of things than me-- personally I know about music enough to answer peoples questions. No other subject, besides that really. There's a lotta people like me. And you could still watch multiple pages.--Urthogie 07:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Perhaps using template:click for the images? It must be confusing for people who aren't used to Wikipedia finding themselves on a copyright page. I still do it occasionally without thinking and it can be annoying; for a newbie it must be downright odd. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it is important to put "social science" clearly in a certain section. Where does economics, sociology, international relations, current events, etc go?--Catquas 19:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A list of the templates referenced by the AoRDE

Here's a list of the templates I've made for use on the reference desk to either slander or support askers.

  • {{User:Cernen/Template:nocapsplz}} creates: Please do not write your questions in all caps, all bold, or all bold-italic text. It is much harder to read than normal questions and frustrates the reference desk employees. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening.
    • Use this for when the question is in all caps.
  • {{User:Cernen/Template:nodoubles}} creates: Please do not post your questions more than once. We may not know the answer to your question, are still figuring it out, or are refusing to answer for one of the reasons stated at the top of this page. Asking us a second time will not likely get you your answer either, and almost guarantees you we will be ignoring you in the future. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening.
    • Use this for when the question was posted twice.
  • {{User:Cernen/Template:dyoh}} creates: Please do your own homework. We are not going to help you cheat. We do or have already done our homework; it's your turn to do yours. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening.
    • Use this for obvious homeworkcruft.
  • {{User:Cernen/Template:noemail}} creates: Please do not post your e-mail address. Spammers love that kind of thing, and we have removed it for your protection. Please do not repost it.
    • Use this for when they post their e-mail address.
  • {{User:Cernen/Template:question|foo.}} creates: There's something glaringly wrong with your question: foo. You should check the list of things to do before you post at the very top of this page before posting a question. Your question may be deleted if you see this notice; you should reformat it to prevent this from happening. {{{2}}}
    • Use this for general problems with the question (i.e. they didn't ask one, it's all in the header, etc.
  • {{User:Cernen/Template:goodquestion}} creates: This has been identified as a good question by the Association of Reference Desk Employees. Congratulations on asking something thought-provoking and interesting, and we look forward to more questions like these in the future, either from you or someone else.
    • The equivalent of a Reference Desk Barnstar for question askers. Used to praise the good questions; insert at the top of the question section.
  • {{User:Cernen/Template:bjaodn}} creates: This question has been added to the archive of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense on Wikipedia. It has been identified by one or more users as inherently funny, or posessing humorous qualities. If this was a deliberate attempt to be funny, it has most definitely succeeded.
    • Use when you BJAODN a question.

It should be noted that these templates should be subst'd to prevent metavandalism, and you no longer need to pipe your signature into the template tag as before since they're plain text now instead of flashy cleanup-style notice tags. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 10:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggested such templates/standard responses before, but many people felt it was impolite to remind users of the rules so blandly. -- Ec5618 14:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm against template replies. Each question should be judged on its merits individually as it shows respect to all and, some of these folks are going to be our replacements. hydnjo talk 16:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
People can use templates if they like, although Hydnjo is right that a personal response is much friendlier usually...its all a matter of choice, and should stay that way.--Urthogie 17:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand the desire to be intentionally rude to people who are asking for help. More than a few of the templates listed above are quite rude; the BJAODN one is intentionally hurtful. If I notice anyone being intentionally rude on the Reference desk, I'll remove the rudeness, and I would suggest that others do likewise. I'd also add that anyone who objects to the formatting of a question strongly enough to comment on it ought to just fix the thing to his liking, and be quiet about it. We don't need a template telling us you've done it: there's no reason to increase the length of the page to demonstrate your ire. If you're getting angry at people for asking questions, perhaps the Reference Desk is not the place you ought to spend your time. - Nunh-huh 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do you insist on helping people who disrespect the system? I find the Reference Desk an important tool in mainaining and updating Wikipedia, as it gives insight into missing data in articles. It should not just be a place where clueless newbies are 'helped' again and again when it clear that they will never check back for an answer, and never read the rules. Again, why help people who disrespect the system?
I also don't find the above templates particularly rude, and have a greater problem with people posting inane or single-word 'questions'. Should we just remove all questions that do not appear to be genuine questions? That would certainly help to decrease the length of the page.
In summary, the RD should not go out of its way to 'help' people who could have 'helped' themselves without much effort. Only stricter rules can curb the number of rediculous questions. -- Ec5618 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, helping the clueless newbies again and again and again and again and again is pretty much what Reference Desks do. If you don't want to do that, you don't want to work the Reference Desk. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
ps. I've now read on several occasion that editors who object to repeating themselves, and who would like to curb the number of rediculous questions are effectively not welcome at the RD. I object to that. The reference desk is a disorganised mess, and should be reviewed as such. -- Ec5618 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
How is it a disorganised mess? I don't see much of a problem either way. Black Carrot 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to see paralells between my posts and the posts of madmen. Nevertheless, the Reference Desk currently serves its purpose only up to a point. Only a small number of volunteers answer questions, and there is no clear way to archive past questions. The first problem could be fixed, in my opinion, by reducing the number of incredibly stupid questions, and by encouraging knowledgeable editors to patrol these pages looking for articles that require clarification or appending.
The second problem could be solved by a system of categories for archival. Many questions do not require archival, for example when the problem with a page is fixed, or when no actual question exists. Only questions that led to an interesting discussion (What is your favorite poem? for example) need to be archived. While this question appeared on Humanities, it could very well be archived under a more specific header, such as a poetry category. Questions regarding computers could be archived together, specified by operating system or some such criterion.
My point is that the Reference Desk is little of what it could be. But when I previously suggested actually enforcing the rules at the top of each page, I was told I was uncivil and shouldn't contribute. At the very least then, the rules should be renamed to suggestions or tips, but it should be made clear that asking a question in even the vaguest terms (What are the evils of monopoly?) or completely redundant (what is virginity ?) will be answered. -- Ec5618 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Our point is that many of these silly questioners are first-timers. Whatever you say isn't going to do a damn thing about the next one, it isn't like training one kid. So, the strategy that some of us encourage is to be polite and responsive and helpful. Doing otherwise isn't going to deter the next intrusion but it may well indeed influence this questioner to improve. Scolding is not helpful, and in fact may result in "justifiable" vandalism because we were such jerks. hydnjo talk 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I hold hope that a future software tweak will enable us to force the readers to read the rules. Until then, you know as well as I do that the person who asked 'what is virginity ?' will not be back to read the clever answers given to the question. Ve will not even follow the link to 'virginity' that was created to help vim. All effort to help this person is wasted.
There's a difference between being jerks and being professional. Making it clear that a procedure should be followed to ask a question is professional, not uncivil. Answering any question, no matter how innane, or responding with sarcasm to people whose mastery of the enlgih language may be poor is unprofessional, and even uncivil. I ask you, what is wrong with standardising a response such as the following:
What is viginity?
Please search first - it's quicker. A search for virginity may be helpful. -- Ec5618 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If no other contributors pile on, or offer help/sarcastic remarks the problem is fixed, and the question can safely be ignored. When archiving time comes along, this question needn't be archived. A standard response might even help a bot remove such questions before archival. -- Ec5618 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That's some some freaking smart bot. And oh, if someone is researching this whole "mess" in the future for whatever reason well then we'll just change history by not archiving the stuff we don't like because we know it all. Right on Sir! hydnjo talk 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Crossed out previous comment. Again, a bot could easily detect any question that has not been answered, or any question that has been responded to only with a stanrd response. Such questions could then be treated differently. Perhaps .. Perhaps unanswered questions could be left on the main page of the RD, while 'silly questions' (those questions with a standard reponse) could be removed after a while, without being archived. -- Ec5618 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I made a lot of people very angry, didn't I. O_o Cernen Xanthine Katrena 11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my above post. I shouldn't have minded hydnjo's rather silly answer. For the record, I still don't see how ve could have misread my comment, unless he didn't read it carefully. I don't see what is ambiguous about "A standard response might even help a bot remove such questions before archival." And I don't see how anyone could find the concept laughable, even if they misunderstood its simplicity.
Still, I let emotion guide my post, which I shouldn't have. -- Ec5618 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's worth noting you all raise good points. True, my templates may seem a bit harsh, but I believe that to deal with puppies who piss on the carpet, you must give them a good thwack with a rolled-up newspaper. Standard responses seem a bit mechanical, true, but it seems to me that it's a lot easier to just toss in something standard than type out, "Hey, you know what, you're stupid, don't do that dumbass." It's a matter of philosophy; you can love them or leave them, but they're ultimately in my user space and I'll have them deleted if I am told to because I am violating some policy or some such. I never said you had to use them and I'm not forcing them down anyone's throats. It's just a suggestion. Feel free to be bold and edit the wording if you like; I don't really care, honestly. Just putting in my two cents, since I started the controversy. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why be curt?

What do you achieve other than self-satisfaction by berating a cluless newcomer? Do you think that you've detered the masses? How dare they soil our pages with their stupid questions? This'll fix 'em. That one won't come back again! Hah! If you don't like being around sick people then geesh don't become a doctor. If you only want to be around folks who are as smart as you are then don't become a teacher. Or perhaps you're thinking of the last crowd you encountered at the RD at your university, this ain't there and you can't make it so. So, I continue to ask, what do you achieve by being curt? hydnjo talk 22:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is directed at me.
Take a look at, for example, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Zodiac which, among other things, goes quite beyond the premise of the question and suggests keeping a baby in a box of flesh. What is the point?
I agree with being civil, but I don't see what is uncivil about a quick fix. See my example above. What is uncivil about that? If the user is a one-time user he might not even notice it was created through a template, and would feel he was quickly helped by a warmblooded human being.
There is no reason to actually answer the question, when you know the answer will not be read, or when you know the answer isn't what was asked for. So why not give a standard response, and be done with it? Why allow sarcasm?
Finally, what about my earlier points of attracting new people to answer questions, and of archiving questions? Repeating my points will not make them clearer, it seems. -- Ec5618 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
C'mon, "silly" questions aren't going away because of anything that we do. And don't presume that we are doing some noble deed by picking and choosing what is to be archived. That's been done before in this world's history and has always failed. Who decides? You? Me? Straw poll every questionable question? I can see it now Wikipedia:Vote to not archive this question (shortcut WP:VNAQ). You can't be serious. hydnjo talk 22:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested that. And I can be as serious as I like, thank you very much. Civility indeed.
I am suggesting .. hold on, I'll copy it from above ..
"Making it clear that a procedure should be followed to ask a question is professional, not uncivil. Answering any question, no matter how innane, or responding with sarcasm to people whose mastery of the enlgih language may be poor is unprofessional, and even uncivil. I ask you, what is wrong with standardising a response such as the following:
"What is viginity?
"Please search first - it's quicker. A search for virginity may be helpful. -- Ec5618 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)"
I in no way suggested that this would make questions go away. I never suggested polling to decide what questions should be archived. Please don't twist my words.
The 'virginity' question needn't be archived, clearly. Archiving it serves no purpose, as it will never be looked at again. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Mutation rate of Y chromosome? should be archived, as it might come in handy at some point. It is an answer the RD can be proud of, and which might interest readers. A catalogue of such answered questions would be useful, no? Entertaining atleast? Might be fertile ground for Did you know.. sections.
Please stop being curt. Thanks in advance. -- Ec5618 22:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I apologize for being curt. I was responding to Ec's comment above: "When archiving time comes along, this question needn't be archived". Who are you (or anyone) to say what should or should not be archived? Do you really want to go there? I think not. hydnjo talk 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I do in fact want to go there. Generally, content on talk pages is archived by moving content to a subpage. Editors are encouraged to read the archives before rehashing a point. The same is clearly not true here, and I seriously doubt many people have ever read any substantial part of the archives here. The archives serve no purpose, and as every past edit is stored, nothing is lost (Theoretically, one could retroactively archive past discussions years after they have been removed from the RD itself, by reviewing the history).
Perhaps you should look at it another way. We should archive nothing, but merely create a 'best of ..' subpage, on which we place interesting questions and their answers, or interesting questions to which the answer still hasn't been found. Questions/answers we can be proud of should be showcased.
You still come across as curt, and it seems you are addressing my points only to dismiss them. It is natural to be conservative, but I think the RD could be improved. Don't you? -- Ec5618 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It makes no sense to involve ouselves in the argument of importance or archive worthy. We all surely have better things than that to do here. And Ec, I'm not picking on you as you seem to think. I'm just trying to present a counter-point to the effort to expand the RD categories. I don't insist that I'm right and I apologize if I come across that way. I respect your feelings about this whether we're on the same side or not. Sorry if I misinterpreted your argument, I try not to do that. On the question of "archive-worthiness" however, I think that we are bound to agree to disagree. Oh, and I'm looking forward to: "Prepare to meet a calmer, more gentle Ec5618". hydnjo talk 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not entirely calm. Thank you for reminding me. Please look inward yourself.
I'll ask again, what about my other points? I have several.
  1. The reference desk is not terribly professional, and is quite relaxed. This may discourage knowledgeable contributors from joining, and the sarcastic tone of many responses is counterproductive and probably confusing to anyone not fluent in English.
  2. Archival of these pages is a mess, and no-one cares about it (enough to read the archives). Perhaps archiving doesn't make much sense here, though we could certainly create a wayback machine in the form of a permanent link every so often.
  3. Some answers are good. These should be prominently displayed. As a minor point, it would be useful for anyone trying to come up with a good Did you know..
  4. Many questions are bad. Obviously so. The question is dismissed by contributors as being a homework question, or because these is no question to speak of. These shouldn't bog down the archives (see point 2) nor should they be spent time on.
  5. A simple set of templates could streamline the RD, and reduce off-topic discussions (which may be fun, but not useful). Templates needn't be uncivil, and certainly not less so that sarcasm.
You may start with these. You may also stop being sarcastic at any point. -- Ec5618 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
And this is the "Prepare to meet a calmer, more gentle Ec5618"? Oh, and my sarcasism is what exactly, C'mon Ec, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, we've worked together before and can do so again. OK, I'll start: I promise to avoid sarcastic comments towards anyone, especially Ec. hydnjo talk 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do the same.
It may appear that I am trying to upset a delicate balance here, but I'm not. I am just disappointed that the RD seems to be a place for childish questions that at the end of the day have little substance. Ideally, I could come here, and be tickled by a question, be motivated to do some research or change my stance on a subject, or be encouraged to think about something in a novel way. When I first came here, I quickly got the impression that there was no vision behind the RD, and that it was all rather ad-hoc. I had hoped to be able to steer the RD. I was actually surprised at the number of editors content to let things be.
Still, I am not done. I refuse to walk away and let this page be dominated by contentment.
I say again, there is no point in ever archiving any of the questions here. The village pump, as another example, doesn't archive either. It has a holding tank where old discussions are allowed to die for a week, after which they are gone. It is no problem there. Why can't we do the same here?
I am not suggesting setting up an elaborate bureaucracy to determine which discussions are worthy of inclusion. I am suggesting creating a display of good discussions, to which any discussion can be added if it is deemed interesting. A set of guidelines might include suggestions such 'Please don't add discussions that have let to changes in relevant articles, making the question moot.' or 'Please don't humourous discussions that do not answer the question.' (I have given little thought to specific guidelines.)
I realise that such change may be rather drastic, which is why I didn't initially suggest it. Still, my list above stands, and I was quite serious. I don't see why templates need be uncivil, and I don't see why you can't seem to see that many personally added comments are in fact more uncivil than any template. This should be addressed. -- Ec5618 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Wha! I have no objection to anyone using a template shortcut to express their position with regard to any question. My personal feeling is that it is unwise to do so. Regarding your specific questions:
  • 1. Huh?
  • 2. When was the last time you archived anything at the RD desks?
  • 3. OK good. We need a good judge. Anybody?
  • 4. So don't spend your time on these so called losers. Why don't you just move on to the next question?
  • 5. Hello: If you have a question that has been deemed stupid or silly, press 1. If on the other hand you have an important question then press 2.
Ec, this isn't personal so please don't try to make it so, regardless of your reason for engaging in this interesting conversation. hydnjo talk 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed to stop using sarcasm. I agree, this isn't personal. Did I somehow make it personal? I tried to explain my personal views, and noted that you seemed relucatant to use templates. Also, I don't think you've actually addressed my points, but rather the preconceptions you already showed, as evidenced by your "We need a good judge. Anybody?" comment. Read my comment above, "I am not suggesting setting up an elaborate bureaucracy to determine which discussions are worthy of inclusion." -- Ec5618 09:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ec5618- You've got a some good points. Other than the templates and organizing the archives, what do you suggest? Black Carrot 03:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
My main suggestion, which I am trying to get settled elsewhere, is that new users often mis the rules entirely; the eye is drawn to the 'ask a question'-link. We should display the rules more prominently to the person asking the question. As far as I see it, my suggestion is quite simple, and should be relatively easy to implement. C
Following a redlink leads to an edit window, headed with MediaWiki:Noarticletext, while editing an existing page has no header. I'm requestion that the system be expanded so that even existing pages can be headed, so that [1] would show the Ant article as a header, above the edit field.
See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_6#I am irked and check out the prominent link. -- Ec5618 09:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think he's right, y'know. We shouldn't archive homework questions. They're a violation of the rules, and the rules say that any questions not following the rules are to be deleted. Rather than entertain these hacks, why not just toss the question outright, rather than feed the trolls, flame the jerks, or leave it alone to fester on the board until some hapless admin comes along and tries to archive the desk and sets the unanswered remains of such a troglodyte of a question in the "Unanswered Questions" archive. Speaking of which, what do we do with the unanswered questions once they've been answered? Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL :-) -- the "hapless admin" who has been doing the archivals for well over 6 months is me - and credits to the wonderful few others who have helped out every now and then. I gave up sorting the questions into the answered and unanswered bins way back in August 2005. --HappyCamper 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it thusly be advisable to remove that section entirely? If we're not using it anymore and are getting a bot to archive for us...what then is the point? Cernen Xanthine Katrena 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonky Talk Page

Is it just me, or has just about everything become magenta and stricken out? Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No such problem on my end. Try CTRL-F5 or something. -- Ec5618 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe someone shoved a bowl of PCP into a tape drive on one of the firewalls at Pierce College. Everything is fine at home. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorting

If you don't mind my saying, it seems like you've got things out of order. You shouldn't be trying to split the categories up to handle more traffic when you haven't even dealt with what you've already got. I suggest that all that wonderful debate about organization and repercussion be applied first to what truly needs it, our archives. Does anyone have an idea for getting those under control? Black Carrot 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose a radical idea like morphing the Reference Desk's structure into a pseudo Village Pump style operation, but (a) someone else already proposed it and I think it's a really good idea, and (b) my head would be cut off and stuck on a pike for all to see. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well Carrot is right, first things first. But can I have your support once the archiving is set up?--Urthogie 08:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I really have no idea what proper archiving would consist of. How much time would it take? How many people? How do the people communicate and remain consistent in their organization system? What, physically, has to be done as far as copying and pasting, creating new pages, typing, etc? What do people want from the archives? Searchable, browsable, or tree-based? How much gets kept, and how much dumped? Do we keep entire conversations, or do we just summarize things? What's the point of this in the first place? Would anyone actually use it? Who would use it? When and how often would they use it? I'd do what I could, but I'm a student, so my schedule is bound to change every few months. How would that be handled? Would it work to come in whenever I have the time, the way I do on the Reference Desk itself, or does my schedule need to remain more consistent? If it's flexible in timing, how flexible would it be in length? Black Carrot 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we skip all these questions with a bot?--Urthogie 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes BC, Urthogie is correct. A "bot" archive (which started yesterday) saves in an archive, a verbatim copy. So, there should be no concern about losing anything. As for who would use it well, anyone could for whatever reason. That's an important transparency that is pervasive in all (I think) of the WP archives. Many archiving activities even say, your own talk page are done by ourselves (humans) as opposed to a "bot" which is done by a software program.
Take a look, from WP:RD there is an archive link. Once there you can navigate around to any questions which have been archived. hydnjo talk 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to count hits on it? Black Carrot 01:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
At one time the "hit count" on any given article or page was available. At some point this was deemed an unnecessary or low priority load on WP's servers and was discontinued. Is it important to know how often the WP:RD archives are accessed?
Archiving after all is pretty much the same thing that is available on any of the nearly one million articles by the "Page history" function. The advantage of archiving is that instead of having to search through hundreds of "Page history" entries, an archive can just take a temporal bite and stash it away in an orderly indexed way. For lengthy pages such as WP:RD archiving just provides a convenient way to lump some histories in a way that provides easier access. I'm going to post more about this on your talk page. hydnjo talk 01:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain in simple words what a bot is NOT doing that we need to do still?--Urthogie 11:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try. Prior to Tuesday (Jan 24), each day shortly after midnight (UTC) I (usually) added the large font date supersection on each RD category and at the HD. At some interval (about weekly) HappyCamper was archiving about a weeks worth of questions and answers trying to keep the pages reasonable in length. Starting on the date above a bot (software program) programmed and operated by Cryptic bagan doing those mundane tasks the only real difference being that the archiving is now being done daily with one days worth of questions (eight days old) being archived. Many thanks to Cryptic from HappyCamper and hydnjo talk 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
So what human maintenance work is still required on the page(besides answering questions of course)?--Urthogie 15:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
None except for correcting input errors the most common of which are:
  • deleting leading spaces which prevents wiki formatting and causes the page to be w---i---d---e,
  • deleting duplicate (identical) questions because the questioner doesn't think the edit stuck,
  • cloaking email addresses as a courtesy,
  • refactoring when the question is in really bad shape again as a courtesy,
  • adding a header when the questioner neglected to do so and,
  • publishing the ID of unsigned questions if there is a reason (trolls, improper questions and the like) to help others keep track.
  • All of these are of course optional and needn't be done at all. So, no maintenance at all. hydnjo talk 17:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If thats the case then can't we begin talking about a new categorization. For a bit, I thought we had bigger fish to fry but it seems like we've got maintenace in order.--Urthogie 17:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, hydnjo, though I'm well aware of WP:CIV, I think we should stop cloaking e-mail addresses and remove the rule that says "Don't post your e-mail address." This is becoming a WP:BEANS item. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
All of the items listed above are optional and done or not done as a personal choice. We can't ban or mandate any of them. Whether the email "rule" is stated or not, some users will, as a courtesy to a newcomer, cloak their posted email address. I also think that if the "rule" is deleted, about the same number of folks will post their email and fewer folks will be inclined to intervene and we will have accomplished what? hydnjo talk 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I started this post because I was under the impression that the archive was supposed to be more than an automated stenographer. If I was wrong, naturally I withdraw the suggestion. Black Carrot 03:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How to prevent unnecessary questions

How about this: add the search box to the top of the Refdesk page, and strongly suggest using it before asking questions...

Wikipedia Reference Desk

The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Before asking a question though, please try using the search box to find the answer you're looking for. For example, to find out more about the Seven Wonders of the World, you can find our article by typing in Seven Wonders of the World into the box above and clicking on go, which will search for it. For more information on searching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Look it up.
Shortcut:
WP:RD

If you have a question that you can't find the answer to, and that you would like to ask the volunteers at Wikipedia, please select one of the categories below and ask your question! Remember to check back for answers.

Answered questions can be found in the archives. You may also want to request a new article.

An additional yet more detailed suggestion included in the page's content may help to bring this point home even better. A little bird told me that you guys were having trouble with questions so routine that a simple search would find the answer. Well, I hope my idea helps. --Go for it! 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good birdy. Do we really need the browsebar though? On one hand, it may direct users elsewhere (which is a good thing), on the other hand, it may add clutter.
It should probably be restyled anyway though. -- Ec5618 12:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the top part as far as design and function but the browsing under it is unecessary.--Urthogie 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the browsebar for now. The reason I suggested restyling the banner was that the banner is currently virtually identical to the bar as used by the Main page redesign team. We should probably diferentiate between the two. -- Ec5618 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? Consistency is good.--Urthogie 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't like this. I've come to the fairly firm conclusion, after reading the histories and talking to people all up and down the chain, that this is the wrong place to solve the problem. People shouldn't be getting here in the first place unless they have an actual question. Black Carrot 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Black Carrot, even though past efforts have stumbled somewhat it still makes sense to try again perhaps in a more comprehensive and collaborative than in the past. We have seen an increase I think in the number of first timers thinking that we're another search engine and our Main Page can be overwhelming to a first timer. We can and should do a better job with navigational help rather than scolding. hydnjo talk 21:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the statistics link out. I think that it doesn't contribute anything to helping the user find information; it just makes us look cool at the expense of their time and attention. Aside from that, I really like this idea. -- Creidieki 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Can't we do both? I quite liked your ideas regarding the change to the main page (As noted Wikipedia talk:Where to ask a question#From the Reference Desk).
The way I see it, we can do several things:
  • filter out a few unwanted questions through a slight edit to the 'Main Page'
  • keep out more through a modified 'Where to ask a question'
  • display the rules more prominently (possibly through the whole explanatory text above the edit page)
  • use some form of archival to create a browsable catalogue of questions (alright, I may be a bit hung up on my own ideas).
But I see no reason not to do all of these things together. (Note that when I say 'keep out', I'm talking about pointing people to the service they actually require, not shunning them.) -- Ec5618 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
btw, I edited the banner, in an attempt to make it fit into the existing Template:RD header. I hope that's not a problem. -- Ec5618 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Could be better accomplished by just putting the search box at the top of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer. That right there is unnecessary refdesk-mainpagecruft. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 00:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I like this, but how about that rewording I just tried? Yes even the quotes are confusing to some people, and it needs to be that clear to type into the box and click on go. Improvements welcome. - Taxman Talk 00:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, exactly. I agree that some questions will get through what I'm trying to do at the main page (homework, for instance), but I really think that's the place to divert people trying to look up terms, which is a significant part of the problem. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that, within a few weeks, Wikipedia:Where to ask a question will probably be replaced by Wikipedia:Questions. So, plan accordingly. Black Carrot 03:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I have modified Template:RD header, as per the design above. I changed it more, though perhaps too hastily. I removed 'answered questions may be found in the archives', as it seemed to suggest that users should check the archives sometime after posting their question, to find the answer. I also removed the enthousiastic '.. and ask your question!', as people still need to read the rules there (though I removed it mainly for brevity). Somehow '.. and read the rules at the top of that page!' seemed less cheerful.
By the way, what does the 'Browse all questions...'-link actually do? Is it useful to our target audience? -- Ec5618 08:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That link lists all the active questions simultaneously on one page. It was a suggestion which came up very early on during the splitting. --HappyCamper 12:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand the initial logic behind creating this page, but I don't think it really serves a purpose. Wasn't the RD split to limit the size of individual pages? More importantly, the 'all' page doesn't allow direct editing, which requires that users reload any page they might actually wish to edit.
Perhaps we should consider removing the link. I can't imagine it being very popular. -- Ec5618 12:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It's (potentially) useful for those who answer the questions, and that's important as well. Sections can be directly edited on the all page (you have to load the edit section page, but that's always true). By the way, I was unfamiliar with the type=search2 option. It's not documented at Help:Inputbox. Are there any more "undisclosed" box types? Superm401 - Talk 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

Does anyone know how to find out what links to this page? Which articles contain mention of WP:RD? Which directional, instructional, and tutorial pages send people here? If someone's searching on Google, do they ever get linked to the inside of the Reference Desk? There's something about the questions I'm seeing on the desk that doesn't add up. Black Carrot 03:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Use the What links here function (example link is for the RD itself). The link for each page is available on the page itself. And yes, a Google search and in particular, a WP exclusive search can indeed lead directly to existing text within the RD. For example, this is the result for a search on"Black Carrot". Google however doesn't refer a question to the RD, it merely points to matching text within WP. What doesn't add up (examples)? Maybe I or others could help. hydnjo talk 04:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear god, that's a long list. What bothers me is that people are asking questions that I can't imagine any human actually asking after passing through all the extremely explicit instructions we've put in their way. The obvious suspicion, then, is that they're coming into the desk from a different direction and bypassing all that. The other thing is that there are actually, compared to the number of newbies I'd estimate are looking for information, relatively few actually going to the reference desk for answers before searching. Whatever the explanation is, it isn't something widespread, it's something that effects a very few, and effects them completely. Once again, it seems these people are coming in through a door much smaller and less used than the Great Hallway(Main Page->Where to ask a question->Reference Desk->Specific Reference Desk). Is there any way to test this hypothesis?

Here are some examples pulled from the Humanities desk:

Deaths of the Apostles Is there any extrabiblical accounts of the deaths and/or murders of the Apostles of Jesus? It is rumor that one died by crucifixion upside down, one beheaded, and another boiled in oil in Egypt. Are there any details about the possible deaths of the Apostles in the earler 1,2,3 centuries?

The Wikipedia articles contain the Biblical information and then goes on to the stories attributed to them (including all their nasty deaths). See Twelve Apostles and click on each Apostle's name. --Kainaw (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Indus Civilization What are the reasons for the decline/fall of the Indus civilization? And which theory do Historians find most accurate-- 1/26/06~~

Try reading Indus Valley Civilization. Lapinmies 23:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, do check this link for other theories, that the article doesn't cover. deeptrivia (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

education system hi! i would like to know about canadian education system. i am from other country but recently settled in canada, but i am facing some problems in understanding education system of canada. can u please give me detailed information about its credits system.

You could start with Education in Canada. —Keenan Pepper 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Guiliani is Mayor Giuliani a republican

See Rudy Giuliani. --Kainaw (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
He is now. He didn't used to be. Taiq

Black Carrot 20:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • And did you expect all those Google hits for BC? Here are some reasons that I ginned up for how some of them get here. In other words, they get here because someone told them about it and gave them a link right into the desk.  ;-) hydnjo talk 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there weren't very many hits for me(26), since I haven't been posting very long. Any suggestions for finding out how these people actually get in, what links they follow? 70.243.45.244 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in a very small poll of two (pre and early teen) children, the younger hadn't heard of WP and the other had heard of it as a website for an encyclopedia and a place for asking questions. I wasn't totally making this up. Another much more prominant clue is to tally the number of questions that are obvious "cut and paste" homework questions. All it takes is for a few teachers to tell them about WP and then for the word to get around. Damn the instructions, they're a bother, how do I get to the answer page! Oh, I know how to do that, Google Wikipedia and then type WP:RD into the box. It isn't hard to imagine. Why, we even have WP:SUP and what seventh grade substitute teacher couldn't make use of that. Click on its Overview#6 and you're just about here. I'm surprised at how few make it!
We obviously can't put up entry barriers but I'm pretty sure we can be smarter than they are. hydnjo talk 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you quite understand. I'm trying to validate or invalidate a hypothesis: That those who ask instead of searching(specifically those, not the homework ones), enter through channels other than those intended. Not just that those channels are available (though I very much appreciate that), but that they are used, and that that explanation entirely accounts for the problem. I'd like to find out the answer one way or the other before discussion moves on at the Main Page redesign project, because it would significantly effect whether I continue to push for a Look it up link there. Black Carrot 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there is no "one way or the other". There is an enormous diversity out there and all we can hope to do about it is to be clever in our herding. If you think that "Look it up" will be helpful then give it a go, your idea is as valid as anyone elses. It is by all of our ideas in collaboration that this entire place works at all. hydnjo talk 01:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And my point is that, in this case, there could well be. I'm just trying to find out if there's anything in Wikipedia's programming that could trace how people get to a page, with some sort of identification (say, IP address or screen name) attached. If there is, I can find out pretty definitively where the people with bad questions are coming from, and yes, confirm or deny my hypothesis. The reason I'm trying to find out before I push my idea is that, if this is right, I'm pushing in totally the wrong direction and shouldn't be wasting my or anyone else's time there. If people are getting into the Reference Desk directly, instructions elsewhere will be useless to them and things need to be focused more on the desk itself, as the people below are working on. Black Carrot 23:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

HappyCamper's comments

Personally, I don't think this is really a problem to fix. There are many reasons why people will ask questions even though instructions are given directly to them. I will not go into the details of why this is. What I think we want the RD to be, is simply a place where we are as "customer oriented and friendly" as possible. Even if someone blatantly does not comply with the instructions at the top, as Wikipedians, we have a duty to be graceful - and this means leading by example, showing others best practices around here, and conveying this in an honest and open way. When this is done, it should come across as someone being genuinely helpful and personable, and not distant or condescending. No matter what the question is, no matter how outrageous the query is, we must assume that those who use the RD are (or can be) good faith new users - and for this reason, the onus for getting the help they need to navigate and find information around here is not on them, but on us. At least, this is how I see it, but perhaps needs a bit more rewording to put it more eloquently. BTW, less than 1% of the edits on the RD are "reverted edits vandalism". I will be bold and say that I think the RD is the most robust page on Wikipedia against vandals and WikiPolitics - and for these reasons, I love the reference desk! :-) As for the IP addresses, I have a feeling that the RD is not being accessed through internal links, but rather by word of mouth external to Wikipedia. The handful of IP addresses I've left messages for have told me that they heard about this page from "a friend in the office", or "someone from school told me about it". Perhaps more compelling, is that if you search for "free reference desk", the RD comes up as one of the top pages...hmm... --HappyCamper 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible template

I noticed two things on the desk recently: standardised templates and a search box on the main page. I was thinking whether it would maybe be possible to combine them like thus:


For simple questions like this, look it up first.Type keywords related to your question into the box to the left and click "Go". For future questions, use the search box at the side of your screen.

Your question may be deleted if you see this notice. If you cannot find an answer in the article, please re-post your question, being more specific. --smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it, but I'm wondering what it adds that the current one doesn't do already??--Urthogie 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mainly a search box, to get people used to the idea that search really is quicker than asking a question with a one word answer and waiting 30 mins + for a sarcastic answer. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that's already implemented.--Urthogie 16:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
One problem I see is that the signature would have to be manually added, each time it is used.
Also, I don't quite see the need to include a search box with every question (note that a search box now adorns Template:RD header), and I find the whole thing a little large. I had suggested something like:
{{dead question}}
Dead question Please search first for simple questions like this.
I'm willing to compromise on the image, obviously. It could be expanded to include a useful reference:
{{dead question|copulation}}
Dead question Please search first for simple questions like this. See copulation.
-- Ec5618 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How about

Notice Your question can be answered at Google or Wikipedia's search box.

--Urthogie 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Or rather
Please search to find your answer on your own. The reference desk is not a search engine. . What do we think about an optional parameter, to add a useful link to an article? -- Ec5618 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I like that one. Forget mine. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If you want to use it, I made a template: {{searchanswer}}
  • Umm, Search and Go mean two different things. Naming the box "Search" and the button "Go" needs to be fixed-up. Oops, I just noticed that it may already be abandoned. hydnjo talk 17:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If I may be so bold...we don't need flashy templates except for the search box at the top. If some of you recall, we had those very pretty clean-up style tags...but...someone complained, and their logic was sound, and I changed it. While I like all the templates because they're all very shiny...uh...could we use something simpler, like a template that looks like this?

Please click here to find your answer on your own. The reference desk is not a search engine. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

C/Q/F? Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

When I proposed it, I hadn't realised the Clean-up boxes had been withdrawn. If so, then a plain text one would do, then. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unilaterally changed {{searchanswer}} to a text-only version. It links to Wikipedia:Look it up, not Special:Search, to avoid a situation in which users never find the searchbox on the left. I've also added an option for a parameter. This should help with most silly questions, while still quickly helping people. To use it, just add {{searchanswer}} on a new line, and sign using the four tildes. See below, where {{searchanswer}} -- ~~~ and {{searchanswer|Human genome}} -- ~~~ produces:

Please search to find your answer on your own. The reference desk is not a search engine. -- Ec5618
Please search to find your answer on your own. The reference desk is not a search engine. See Human genome. -- Ec5618

-- Ec5618 23:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not link search directly to Special:Search? Superm401 - Talk 02:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
As I suggested above, it might lead to the rediculous situation that users are unable to find the search box, as they assume it is formatted as on Special:Search. Many computer users are that dense. Also, Special:Search adds little (no) utility, while Wikipedia:Look it up atleast helps users make sense of the searchbox. I have no problem with changing the link, though it seemed to be the best choice. There are currently at least three pages to which we could link:
You're right. I should have thought of that. I can see the questions now (on the Reference, not Help desk of course). Superm401 - Talk 03:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Gobbledegook in Instructions

The recent improvement has had a bad side effect. The instructions about how to ask a question now include:

  • Edit your question for more discussion - click the UNIQ251fd3754e7daead-nowiki13a1fec655bdf86f00000001 link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic.
  • Sign your question - type UNIQ251fd3754e7daead-nowiki13a1fec655bdf86f00000002 at its end.

Cheers JackofOz 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) The problem seems confined to the Humanities ref desk. Cheers JackofOz 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems the problem was the recently added {{search wikipedia}}, though I'm unsure how it caused the problem. Still, I've transcluded that template into the standard header, which causes the search box to appear on all Desks (if someone minds, it can be removed there), without the gobbledegook. -- Ec5618 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the template too but couldn't see how it caused the problem, so I thought better refer it to someone who knows what they're doing. Hey, transclude - what a great word! Thanks. JackofOz 23:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've had to remove the template, transcluded or not, altogether. It seems we've found a bug. I've mentioned it on the Village pump, and cesarb has been kind enough to submit a bug report, Bug 4785. -- Ec5618 00:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, transclude is a great word. --cesarb 00:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Restructure with subpages

Would it be possible for us to switch to subpages and transclude them instead of the current system whereby each question is simply a section of the page? I can see a couple of advantages:

  • It would be possible to bookmark or watch a particular question
  • We could index questions using the MediaWiki categories, making it easier to point people to questions already answered in the past
  • It would be possible to present a summary version of the current page for users on lower-bandwidth connections with links to subpages instead of transclusions. It takes an unacceptably long time even on my 10Mbit connection, and I usually only scan the table of contents for topics that I'm interested in.

Comments? enochlau (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea. If its possible to accomplish I'd love to help.--Urthogie 14:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I support the idea, too - please see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_3#Split_up_in_subpages.3F, where this and other alternatives are discussed at length. — Sebastian (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I see a few problems with such a system:
  • Watching any Desk will no longer show updates in individual questions.
  • Each question would need to be edited individually. Currently, an editor can answer several questions at once.
  • These subpages would need to have a standardised name, to prevent overwriting the same question time and again. (for example, I imagine that many users might be inclided to use the title \I have a question.
A possible solution might be to create a subpage per day, with each question adding a category tag. The Category:Reference Desk:Computers would then show all days with featured a computer related question. While imperfect, it would allow some limited browsing utility, while also providing the user with a permanent link to their question.
I do however oppose even such a system, as I feel there is really no need to categorise all questions. In my opinion, a Best-of-RD should be created, to feature expertly answered questions. -- Ec5618 15:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm against it (I'm against even using a different page for each day). I (and I believe a lot of other editors) use the Watchlist to monitor the Reference desk, and since we do not have a way to watchlist "this page and all its subpages", we'd lose that ability. --cesarb 15:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My response:

  • I don't think the watchlist problem is really a problem. Currently, say there are two questions on the Maths reference desk. I'm interested in question 1. Person A edits question 1, then Person B edits question 2, and then I check my watchlist. I don't directly see any changes in q1 unless I go to the history. With subpages, you can watch particular questions - I would think that this is an improvement in functionality? Any new items would still appear on your watchlist, because they have to be transcluded into the main page anyway. If you really did want to watch all the subpages, then there's always the related changes link.
  • The name thing is a problem - although we could have the structure like this: Reference desk/Science/30 January 2006/title - it would be unlikely that two people would choose the same title in a day.
  • The Best-of-RD page does seem like a good idea, and it would have the added advantage of picking out all the nonsense from the good stuff, and categorising it.

I really do think the inability to bookmark a particular question (because it gets archived and moved somewhere else) is really a problem that must be addressed. It would be utterly confusing to newcomers to have to trawl through the archives to find their past questions. enochlau (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think this is a nice idea... But am not sure about naming scheme. Also, there are major technical limitations: There is no way in one go for a user to both create their question and add them to the day's list. Seeing as the RD is available for novices, this would be necessary. An inputbox goes halfway by creating the page, but if mistreated, it could also create random articles. This could of course be solved by a bot simply looking for all pages beginnging with the reference desk and today's date and adding them to the list every hour or so. More problematically, with the current restrictions on article creation, this would also restrict RD questioners to logged-in users.
So if it weren't for the major technical restrictions, I would like this idea. I think the categorisation of good responses would be great. jnothman talk 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point. I might file a bugzilla enhancement request about more fine-grained article creation restrictions - although as an enhancement, it probably won't be done in the near future. Likewise, the inputbox could potentially be given extended functionality, but I'm sure the developers have enough on their plates at the moment. I'll mull over how the categorisation of good responses could work... enochlau (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Best of the RD" has been on my mind for a while now, but I didn't bring it up because I thought it would end up becoming "HappyCamper's Best Picks from the RD"... --HappyCamper 12:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
How this could potentially work is that we tag questions with <!-- --> style comments and the bot can put it into the "best of" pages for us. This can be tagged by anyone easily. enochlau (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, we simply place next to the question. (see also the header of this section) Obviously, this needn't be a technical problem. -- Ec5618 10:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not. I would participate in it either way. Superm401 - Talk 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We could do the inverse

What if we had a crap-star for questions which should not be archived, and are clear examples of trolling and/or are completely unhelpful. Could make the archives smaller and more helpful.--Urthogie 09:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Many questions, while honest, are hardly worth archiving. See for example Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Differences in polymers. A user asked an honest question, but I doubt anyone else would be interested in reading the answer. It's not crap, but it needn't be archived. It's not 'Best-of' material. Similarly, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#adjectives with -of may have been useful to the user who asked the question, but I doubt anyone else would feel the same way.
But take a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Drinks to counteract spicy foods?. While a little odd, this question might interest readers of our archives. Similar, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#"What happens in Vegas..." sounds interesting. Both these have been answered by a number of contributors, and both of these feature a response by the person who aske the question, lauding it.
Given the sheer number of questions that pass through the reference desk, I feel that archiving them all isn't useful. In my experience, each desk may feature a single high-quality question on a given day. Looking at a random desk, and a random day, we find: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#January 29:
  • Past tense of sneak; no singular answer exists.
  • Dike vs Dyke; dike is more commonly used to descibe earthen walls. It is suggested to use large lesbians to pretect the Netherlands so that 'dykes' protect it.
  • Nice words?, asker is looking for an article on pleasantries in different languages. None exists.
  • what is meant by macrumors?, asker is directed to macrumors.com
  • Wiktionary:Translations of the Week, needn't be archived, surely.
  • What does "muffin" mean in slang terms?. This question might be Best-of material.
  • Hebrew translation, an answer is given to the question 'What is the hebrew word for "sad"?'
As you can see, many of these questions will probably not matter to anyone but the person that answered them, and thus needn't be archived, in my opinion. -- Ec5618 10:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should archive everything. Nothing should be deleted from here, I don't think - after all, disk space is cheap. However, we should put the good ones in a separate place and mark them as good. enochlau (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Everything is archived, effectively, through the history. Still, I should have said that such questions needn't be prominently displayed. -- Ec5618 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Support this idea because it is teh hawt. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, everything isn't archived (effectively) through the history. Someone (me for example or you for another example) six months from now trying to guage the effect of some future alteration (that you have yet to devise) on questions in the wrong category or, obvious homework questions or, questions in ALL CAPS or, "silly" questions or, questions about game characters or whatever should not have to search the history for a complete review. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to get into the contentious position of deeming any question unworthy of of being here and/or further unworthy of archiving. If you are serious about such an activity please don't be so naive as to think that it can be done without significant overhead expense (challenges, discussion, voting, etc) that will inevitably occur. And for what purpose exactly? That's the part I keep missing; we are going to set-up a mechanism to deal with "silly" questions and further we are willing to expend our energy defending our "Silly Question" pronouncement against all comers. And you have nothing better to do? hydnjo talk 02:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just so there is no mistaking my position, I am an advocate of a special "Best-of..." archive or directory but will continue to argue against any attempt to to abridge the main archive for whatever reason. I believe that any effort to classify any question as unworthy of archiving will necessarily give rise to the attendant overhead such as an appeals procedure, a voting procedure etc. We should just be tolerant that the main archive is indeed an accurate representation of everything that goes on at the RD, whether we "approve" of the question or not. Vandalism and obscenity are being dealt with by the RD editors quite effectively. hydnjo talk 22:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

*Best-of proposal

So, an offical proposal. we need to work these issues out, in no particular order:

  1. we create a subpage of each desk. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science/Best of.
  2. we link all subpages together through a common layout and inter-linking.
  3. we create a small template that will place a star-icon. (or decide to place the image itself manually.)
  4. we create guidelines for 'best' questions, and create guidelines on star placement. For example, the star could be placed in the header, or it could be placed next to the final verdict/answer, so it stands out.
  5. we decide how to move each question to the 'best of' page. A bot could do it, for example but a human might be able to fix formatting errors.
  6. we catalogue a few questions, and test the system.
  7. we advertise. We add links to the Best of to the main page (or to the header above each page).

Obviously, a lot of details would still need to be worked out. Discuss. -- Ec5618 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines would be instruction creep. Let's have good faith in wikipedians to apply the star with their good sense.--Urthogie 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily, I think we need to have some broad guidelines, just not a horribly specific formulaic one. Otherwise, randoms will be nominating garbage for best-of, and we would have an edit war on our hands. For #2, I take it that you want to put each question in a separate sub-page? If so, we also need to work out a category structure as well, and indicate a way by which the bot knows which category to put it in (e.g. a parameter in the template?) - so things are easy to find. enochlau (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't considered unique subpages for each question, to be honest. I meant to suggest linking the Best-of-Science to the Best-of-Language etc, for easy navigation. I'm actually not certain about the idea of subpages, not initially at least. I think we'll be collecting questions for a good long while before, say, the Best-of-Science subpage becomes overly full. When that happens, we can look into a different categorisation system. Until then, the subpages are probably bold enough.
As for 'guidelines', I was thinking simply of something along the lines of 'the actual question must be answered', or 'at least two editors must have contributed'. We can simply state at the top of each subpage "These pages contain .." with a little exposition on the sort of questions that might be appropriate. -- Ec5618 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

****An easier way to try out the concept

  • Oh, c'mon now, let's don't do anything elaborate. If anyone thinks that a particular Q&A belongs in the "Best-of-... " then edit the headline by adding say, an asterisk. So, ==Wonderful question==would become a ==*Wonderful question== and thence with the next affirming user becoming a ==**Wonderful question== and so on to becoming a ==***...*** Wonderful question== (asterisk color (*) added for emphasis). The asterisked questions will thus attract more enlightened discussion making for an even better Q&A. We can deal with copying the best (those with n asterisks) manually at first in order to refine the concept and the threshold. We can bot it later. If anyone thinks this is a good idea well then just start now. No need for any formallity, let's just be bold and try it out. Someone pick a category and we'll all go through and add *s to see what happens (black is fine). No harm - is there? Also, I would suggest HappyCamper's comments as recommended reading. Thanks, hydnjo talk 02:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea. See whether having best-of is useful before modifying the bot. I suggest maths and science (a small and a big one), but I'm a little biased here of course. enochlau (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, let your bias be our guide. Pick those questions worthy of an asterisk and boldly attach same at the beginning of the header. Remember that the topmost questions (within that date range) will be bot-archived tomorrow so work from the bottom for the longest visibility. We'll be watching you. hydnjo talk 07:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Clever. Apart from the visual appearance of the asterisk itself, I really like this idea. -- Ec5618 10:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a bit of a problem with this though, in that changing the section titles will break links to those sections. I'd suggest adding the stars anywhere except the title. Maybe we could put small star images (like *) below the title? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a link to #Restructure with subpages (which contains a star) still works fine. Perhaps we should use images of stars instead of a typographical mark. I do like the idea of adding stars to the header, and of adding several stars for 'better' questions though. -- Ec5618 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the addition of an asterisk to this sub- section header and its parent section header doesn't really affect the history nor any linking: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#.2ABest-of proposal and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#.2AAn easier way to try out the concept (I think). The definitely looks better though. hydnjo talk 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did not expect that. I've tried it with several asterisks, but it seems to work in all cases. Odd that.
Still, adding the images looks better, and we should be able to set up a template (eventually) that will add any number of stars, so we won't clutter up the formatting. Something like {{RDstar|n}}. -- Ec5618 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My thinking is that anyone who thinks the article deserving somehow marks it (asterisk or whatever). If two others (or some other threshold) also mark it then the question gets copied promoted into "Best-of-RD" heaven. hydnjo talk 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Another advantage is that the "marks" show up in the header menu making it deliciously easy for someone inclined to do so to drop down directly to a question that has achieved n votes for immortality . hydnjo talk 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Also note tha adding to the header doesn't show anywhere but on this page itself. Not in the menu and not in the history. I wonder if it's the pipe that causes it to behave this way. Gotta go, I'll check or someone ckeck our flexibility with this. hydnjo talk 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Having played around a bit with , the final pipe makes no difference whatsoever. Any thoughts on a preferred markup to indicate a vote for "Best-of...". The comments I'm asking for have to do more with the behavior of a vote symbol rather than the symbol itself.
(1) a symbol say, with visibility in only the headline or,
(2) a symbol say * with visibity in the headline, the TOC, the history and in the Edit summary.
Also, I agree completely with Ec's suggestion that any vote for "Best-of..." should be implemented via a template. hydnjo talk 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been keeping up with this discussion due to general busyness, but I think the template would look better. Having a row of asterisks in the section title looks a little unprofessional. enochlau (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Progress

I've created Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science/Best of and tagged "Dinosaurs" and "Black light power, Nuclear fission or Nuclear fusion" with the new {{RD-best}}. enochlau (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also placed provisional instructions on Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer. enochlau (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested split

Apologies if this has been suggested before (I'm still fairly new to helping out at the Desk) but I notice a LOT of the queries on the science page and a number of those on the miscellaneous page are medical-related. Of the first 50 items on the Science desk at the moment, a full 30% are medical queries. Would a separate Wikipedia: Reference desk/Medical be worthwhile? Or would it only encourage people to ask here rather than doing the right thing and seeking professional medical help? Grutness...wha? 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion above concerning new categories. See #Vote for ref cats Medical wasn't among the proposed desks, and I tend to agree that it would create the impression we can authoritatively give medical advice. -- Ec5618 07:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, a bad idea. No matter how much disclaiming we do we would still be perceived as having solicited medical questions for the purpose of providing medical advice (answers). hydnjo talk 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions from project page

The questions infra were inappropriately posed on the archive page. I am moving them here. I believe each has been asked elsewhere, though, so they needn't to be answered; I'm just putting them here in order that those who posed them will know where they are if they desire to ask again elsewhere. Joe 18:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

compromise on split

The only category that it's really important to me gets split is humanities into society and culture. If we did just this one as a compromise, would that be alright?--Urthogie 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you supply us with a list of descriptors for each of those categories? I'm unclear about the distinctions. Thanks, hydnjo talk 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to correct myself here. It should actually be culture and humanities, with humanities covering all other things besides culture.--Urthogie 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's still confusing because humanities is the study human culture. Do you mean culture only as in modern popular culture? I have to agree with the call for sample short descriptions like those for the current desks so we can see how clear the distinction will be for users. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Culture deals with the arts, entertainment, and fashion-- the products of society. The humanities desk would deal with the history(history), structure(government), and function(sociology) of society and the beliefs(religion)/ideas(philosophy) held by its members.--Urthogie 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand. The WP:RD/H section runs on average about fourteen (Jan '06) questions per day. Why on earth would you want to sub-cat that? What is the reason for your intense desire to fragment a reasonably sized category? One could argue for example that government is a product of society. I see no bright line here nor a need to quibble the distinctions. The catch-all humanities seems a reasonable category to my thinking and the proposal to split it seem like a solution in search of a problem. hydnjo talk 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that government is a meta level structure for all of society, its the glue. Art and fashion is the actual product of the society. And yes, theres some overlap, but much less than you could have between say language and humanities or humanities and science.--Urthogie 15:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Urthogie, I can imagine an editor contributing to a single desk only, such as mathematics, if that is a field in which the editor is able to contribute authoritatively. Such an editor might be completely useless in matters such as linguistics, and might not care than someone had asked a linguistics question. As such, there was a clear advantage to splitting the reference desk into (among other categories), mathematics and language.
I don't see the need to split up humanities into humanities and culture, as, for one, I cannot imagine that an editor specialising in culture would be ignorant of humanities. Any editor capable of contributing to either desk, would be able to contributing to the other as well, and would thus need to watch two pages. For another, since the size of the current humanities desk is reasonable, splitting it seems futile.
Yes, it's possible to split up the desk, and create more specific desks, but why should we create tiny, rather specific categories? -- Ec5618 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, I find myself in complete agreement with Ec5618! Anything I say would be redundant. hydnjo talk 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Word. Black Carrot 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Huh BC? What does Word supposed to mean? hydnjo talk 05:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Wiktionary definition: word. See also, wiktionary:word up. -- Ec5618 10:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the humanities, but not HISTORY!--Urthogie 15:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Then how would breaking the humanities desk into culture and humanities help? More importantly, is it a problem to simply skip any questions you are unable to answer yourself? At worst, you'll learn some history from other contributors, which in my point of view is never a bad thing. As an aside, I watch the humanities desk for that very reason: I am seldom able to answer questions, but I can fix formatting and clarify wording, and learn while doing so. -- Ec5618 16:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
History isn't part of the humanities.--Urthogie 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm positively confused now. Did you not propose, above, that the new humanities desk would cover history, government, sociology, religion and philosophy? In any case, surely there shouldn't be a problem with an editor not being able to answer all questions facing ver. -- Ec5618 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, when I'm making an argument I sometimes change my view, because I'm openminded to points by others. Here's my current suggestion: Split history from it. Objectively speaking, history is not part of the humanities.--Urthogie 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I could see a split into humanities and popular culture. It would be elitist, but so be it. Anyone interested could frequent both RDs. As for history... I know, I know, it's a social science, just as psychology is a natural science. But it's human history, so please let us keep it. --Halcatalyst 20:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just make it History and the Humanities, seperate?--Urthogie 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's warranted. There seem to be as much logic in your proposed split, as there is in splitting the Science Desk into Software Desk, Hardware Desk, Theoretical physics Desk, etc. Yes, we could split the desks up, but what are the advantages of doing so? -- Ec5618 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No, see technology is part of science. But history isn't part of the humanities.--Urthogie 12:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Technology is a product of science, not a part of it.
I see no need for this split. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Technology is in the realm of science, as well as being a product of it :). The reason for this split is I want to answer humanities questions, not history questions. And yes, history is decided by humans! Its not called the humans reference desk. Humanities does not mean Humans!--Urthogie 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's far off-topic, but as a scientist I still disagree with your description of the relationship between technology and science.
Ah, the straw man. My point isn't that humanities=humans, but that any subject that proposes to study and analyze the writings of humans falls under humanities. Seems to me that history is traditionally studying the writings of humans. Now, I have no quibble with the newer classification of certain types of historical study under the social sciences, but that gets us into another question about why there isn't a social sciences desk. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand

Its obvious that history isn't part of the humanities. The argument that humans create history is not even an argument-- the fact is, history is not part of the humanities. Words have meanings. I hope that this point can be recognized before we discuss whether we should do this or not-- I'm not demanding we make this move, but as logical people you should see that history is not part of the humanities, simple as that.--Urthogie 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I very much don't see your point about history not being in the humanities. Who exactly writes history if not humans? — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. First, according to our very own humanities article, "History, although at times considered a social science, is one of the most prominent humanities in the United States as measured by foundation contributions, National Endowment for the Humanities projects, and National Humanities Centers fellowships." In other words, even taking the techincal definition of the term, there's no reason to exclude history. Second, the technical definition isn't what's at issue here. Organization is. It isn't a matter of what the words mean, it's a matter of what will put people in the right place to ask their question, the 'right place' being a place where people are used to finding such questions, and where the people best able to answer them will probably be hanging out. Black Carrot 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh c'mon now. About half (well, maybe a bit fewer) of the questions come from first-timers. The other half (OK, maybe a bit more) come from more seasoned users. So, what the heck are you trying to accomplish? I just don't get it. The questions that end up at WP:RD/H are for the most part questions that belong there. There aren't an overwhelming number of total questions nor are there many mis-categorized questions. What's the broken thing that you are trying to fix? I don't understand why you're trying to add fine print where none is called for. Again, your proposal seems a solution in search of a problem. hydnjo talk 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Urthogie, you have insisted repeatedly that history is not part of the hummanities, but as far as I've seen you have offered no reasons. Why isn't it? What is it part of? Or does it stand sui generis? Some make the claim it's a social science. If you think so, why? Please explain your thinking. --Halcatalyst 06:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It deserves its own category. I know you guys like 'learning' about new history while trying to answer questions about music and art, and philosophy, but I don't. It really doesn't make sense to mix a section where people could ask questions about hip-hop with questions about what so and so did in 200 bc. That's why I don't even watch that desk anymore.--Urthogie 09:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's probably for the best. Do you plan on answering the points made above, or letting them stand as accurate? To answser yours, of course things are jumbled together. And it's not just hip-hop with history, it's everything in the humanities, including subsets and examples of every single thing named above. I might point out as well that the Science desk, because of its similarly broad focus, mixes discussion of half-life with tooth care with astrology and nobody minds. Black arrot 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Math is part of science, so why do we have a seperate desk for it? Because its a seperate subject in school.--Urthogie 13:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've gotten the impression math was split off a bit later, not unlike what you've suggested for history. And how many questions a day does it get? Black Carrot 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It gets more math questions than science got before the split.--Urthogie 20:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's clarify: The Mathematics desk was made not because it is a subject in school - it was made because of 3 things:
  • One particular Wikipedian was bold enough to create the desk after no significant opposition was voiced;
  • There was a significant amount of support for it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics (obviously I suppose) and others to ensure that the page would be actively monitored and archived;
  • It was the first time a split was suggested after the 4 desks were created last August.

To be honest, I was not too keen on making the Mathematics desk, but at the time, the inclination around here was that we could learn more from doing a single split (with the anticipation that it would likely be necessary again in the future) than if we did not try it out. One of the motivations of the split was that at the time, lots of math questions were being mixed in with the science ones. We were curious to see if it would be possible to separate these from the science ones, by explicitly making a math desk. For this reason, the split was done based on topic separation, with volume of questions being a secondary factor.

However, what we learned from that split was that it would be better to do such things based primarily on the activity and volume of the reference desk subpage, as opposed to the academic inclination to segregate questions based on topic. In fact, we realized later on that it would be rather difficult to make people post questions and stick on topic - these subject areas do not have clearly defined boundaries, so for this reason, future splits should not be done primarily based topic, although, it should be a motivating factor. If we split, the next split I would expect, would happen for the humanities desk. But taking everything from above, it probably wouldn't be the time to do so. --HappyCamper 12:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If volume is a key consideration, then surely Science is due for another split? Have we considered creating a computing desk? We get quite a few computer related questions, and they're not really "science". enochlau (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, that too. I think we did mention a computing desk a while ago, but the proposal didn't really take off. --HappyCamper 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For every split we have to take into account there will be an increase in misfiled questions, and more work for the people answering them. No matter what we do some people will not ask in the right spot, so can we please instead focus on making life easiest for the answerers? I've already have to check five reference desks to see all the questions, I'd rather not have more unless there is a very clear benefit, and that I don't see. Finally I specifically don't agree with splitting the humanities ref desk, and history is very much a humanities subject by the most common use of the terms. - Taxman Talk 16:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Humor

First, let me say I enjoy the kidding around on the Humanities desk. Second, I don't think we need to systematize it. If folks want to keep favorite quotations on their user pages, fine. On my personal web page I have a ton of humor which has appealed to me. I guess that's my point: humor is personal. One man's drink is another man's poison. Let's just enjoy (or hate) one another's jokes/sophomorisms/wit. Homo Ludens, yes, but it's not something to build a community upon, at least not around here. --Halcatalyst 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you relating humour to any discussion above, or are you starting a new discussion out of the blue?
For what it's worth, I don't oppose humour, generally, but would urge reference desk editors to avoid sarcasm, especially when answering a question from a person who seems to have trouble with the English language, as they might not notice the sarcasm and be terribly confused. -- Ec5618 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The Best Of isn't supposed to be about witticisms, it's supposed to be about answers we're proud of. Answers whose content we're proud of. That's if you're talking about the Best Of proposition. Black Carrot 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "Best-Of" will be what we collecively want it to be (including you BC). It's about the "Best-of" dialogue here by our own choosing. If the dialogue distinguishes itself for whatever reason, interest, cleverness, response, witticisms or whatever then any one of us may vote to promote that particular dialogue to "Best-of..." heaven. Having achieved a threshold number of votes (yet to be determined) then there it goes, funny or serious, because a certain number of us have said so. Please don't presume to tell us what it's supposed to be. hydnjo talk 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And sometimes a funny can make it. Depends if it gets enough votes, the voting threshold hasn't yet been established. In any event, a generation from now some researcher will read it and murmur "...that's really funny..." or "...geesh, what jerks they were, no wonder we're back in the stone age..." Who, after all is so omnipotent that they can foretell?. There's nothing wrong with being proud of humor, especially if it's a "Best-of..." hydnjo talk 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And as for BC, well so far this month (check this post's UTC) you have made twenty (20) contributions. Ninteen (19) of which have been in the WP:RD namespace (combining article and talk) and of those nineteen (19), two (2) and only two (2) have been within the humanities category, your main area of complaint. Although I am averse to calling one on their editing profile I can't help but comment on your persistent grousing at the RD about splitting the Humanities category. Heck, you're hardly ever there except for your complaining about it. Please try to find a place where your edits will be perceived as contribution. Or, if you wish to persist in your endevour here where you will not prevail well then, be our guest. hydnjo talk 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confusing Urthogie for BC. The first proposed the split, the second opposed it. -- Ec5618 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Right you are - pretty late at night for me to have been editing. Sorry BC.  :-( hydnjo talk 20:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are talking about me, please note that I stopped watching the humanities desk because the categorization makes it mostly history. Watching it is too irritating and time consuming with the current situation.--Urthogie 09:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
hydnjo- I was responding to "Second, I don't think we need to systematize it. If folks want to keep favorite quotations on their user pages, fine. On my personal web page I have a ton of humor which has appealed to me. I guess that's my point: humor is personal" when I said it wasn't about wit. Of course it's whatever we want it to be, but I was saying that 'humor is personal' is no reason to be against the Best Of. If that's what Halcatalyst was talking about, which I have no evidence it was. And in what way is the Humanities category my 'main area of complaint'? I suppose you could be thinking of Urthogie, but I don't see how you could have gone all the way to counting posts without getting the name right, so I have to think you do mean me. Black Carrot 13:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

House of Lords

In the "House of Lords" page, in the first paragraph, there is this sabotage:

" The House you of are Lords going is to an strugggle unelected to body remove, consisting this of two"

This was also posted on the relevant Ref desk page and was answered there. JackofOz 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Template:RD-best breaks edit summary links

Test case: go here and try to click the arrow in the first edit summary to see the section that was edited. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm you're right. Maybe we'll just have to settle for a template that goes underneath the title instead of in the title? enochlau (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've recently tried to make the image clickable, but it broke the header. If we move the template out of the header, we can make it clickable as well. -- Ec5618 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if the "star" or whatever showed up in the TOC. hydnjo talk 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. See if you like it. diff enochlau (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yesssss! Thank you. That makes it easy to navigate to them and to ID those questions as soon as they're archived (dialogue is complete) for copying into "Best of". hydnjo talk 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not good enough. What shows up in the edit summary still contains the symbols {{RD-best}}. That means it's not a valid anchor, because those symbols don't show up in the section header itself. PLEASE no templates in section headers!!!! --Trovatore 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried out putting subst: into the templates in the section headers. That turns out not to be good either (the edit summaries become unreadable). Please just drop the idea of putting these things in the section headers! It simply doesn't work right. --Trovatore 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but it makes it rather difficult to find all the starred topics on the page because it doesn't show up on the TOC. How about including some text on the template to the right of the star, so that we can use a normal browser text search to find them? enochlau (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that putting [[Image:LinkFA-star.png|width=14px|height=14px| ]] into the title line renders this image but it doesn't show in the edit history. Hmmm. hydnjo talk 02:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I put the templates in a sub-title for visibility in the TOC. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Shooting_a_gun_into_water. hydnjo talk 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also please pull the notice in the header, people have already started using the template in the title. hydnjo talk 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've pulled the instructions diff. enochlau (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The subtitle isn't a bad idea, although it looks kind of clumsy in the TOC (on a separate line by itself), especially when we get to a point where many of the questions and response are tagged... enochlau (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The other problem with it is that if editors use its edit link instead of the one for the main section header, you get non-clickable edit summaries again. I really think templates in headers are a bad idea, no matter what level of header. (Note BTW that Hydnjo's edit summary is not clickable.) --Trovatore 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Check my edit summary for adding the template Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Dinosaurs. hydnjo talk 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Trovatore; we'll just have to ditch the idea of putting it in a header of some sort. Just a template underneath the heading will do.

Another thought: after archiving into the "Best of" page, do you think we should change the colour of the paragraph(s) that contain the answer(s), or put a tick mark at the start of the paragraph so that people's eyes are directed to the answer? enochlau (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed something. Why are we ditching sub (third level) titles for the accumulation of stars using the template? It doesn't break the edit history and is clickable and shows in the TOC. hydnjo talk 04:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above a) people may be tempted to click the edit next to the level 3 heading to make a response, whereupon the edit summary won't be clickable b) Having the asterisks on a second line in the TOC is ugly, especially when more questions than present are tagged. enochlau (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, got it. hydnjo talk 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the title color for the next section as an experiment. I'll change it back in a while. Just tossing stuff out to see if it triggers any ideas. hydnjo talk 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't title colours suffer from the same problems as a template: that we don't have a clickable edit summary? enochlau (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary shows my font color edit and is clickable. No TOC visibility and doesn't look as nice as your template though. hydnjo talk 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope, not clickable from the edit summary in the history. Try it with my last edit to the sandbox section. enochlau (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Quitting for tonight. I could have sworn that when I tried it on the another idea section it was clickable. hydnjo talk 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like our test cases have been archived already. Shall we try and recover them to best-of? enochlau (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt...how are we going to do this? --HappyCamper 04:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
We really ought to use a bot. Any suggestions? Superm401 - Talk 02:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Best of sandbox section

* A place for experimenting with Best-of ideas... hydnjo talk 05:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

another idea

It seems like my other idea was mainly rejected. Here's another one. How about a list of users by topic(no matter how specific), which was shown to people when they viewed the reference desk, and it told them who they can reliably ask questions about a certain topic to, for immediate assistance. We could make it so inactive users could be set to have their names in red, or something, too. Any thoughts? would be really easy to implement, and would get me back into helping questioners.--Urthogie 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That would rather discourage discussion between multiple answerers. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Urthogie, why is it so difficult for you to just ignore the questions for which you have no interest? Lots of us do it all the time and are still able to sleep at night.  :-) hydnjo talk 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The page is just mammoth...oh well...I give up.--Urthogie 11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Urthogie, don't feel discouraged :-) -- If it weren't for you and some others, we would not have had so much discussion about the reference desk the past few weeks - and that is always a good thing. At least, we all know more about how the reference desk is being used, and what sorts of issues are important to Wikipedians who visit the pages. Before this, we had little to no idea of these usability issues.
This is my opinion, but I sense that some resistance towards changing much of the current structure of the reference desk has to do with the fact that the reference desk is a service which is being provided gratuitously on the side - as a service to supplement the Wikipedia project. It may be the case that we are running into a saturation point where it would not be so justified to extend the services of the reference desk. However, the sub-community that has been built up around the reference desk is quite robust, and I would not be surprised to see the pages split in the near future. It will probably happen when we have a tremendous increase in questions, and when that occurs, we already have a good starting point to build from - and all because a handful of Wikipedians decided that something can be done to make the RD better. So to summarize, I'm sure that everything brought up will be useful in the future - just stand by and be ready to help out when that time comes!! In the meantime, I think I might experiment with this tagging thing...quite interesting actually. --HappyCamper 17:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Exsitance about Isues of Altering Some Others' Comments

I think something involved person attacks and was going to off topic,for those which should be deleted by Wikipedia. If not,I think those bad comments made by some people who often did,should be deleted or alted by a person who is just attacking. It is very fair,and I don't think it is not apprepriate at all.--HydrogenSu 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone has made a personal attack directed at you, a good idea would be to first leave them a message on their talk page. If you don't get angry and simply explain that you "don't appreciate their harsh comments" and "hope for a peaceful discourse" then you may get a good response, even an apology. If the user continues, there are other methods of action that you can use, part of the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes faction.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
We have a relevant (disputed) guideline at Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

FOS

The recent discussion about painless suicide really shocked me and made me think a little about how the reference desk is being used as a free speech medium. Is it Wikipedian of us to let absolutely anything and everything be said on these pages? I'm not sure what I think, and I could bring up points arguing both sides. It may be that I'm just too into the articles side of Wikipedia (I find myself reading books and frowning at authors who make broad, unverifiable statements, wishing I could somehow put a {{Primarysources}} sticker on the cover to warn everyone) but these are real people asking real, real-life questions, and I can only assume that they trust a lot of what we say, whether it's sourced, verifiable, well-intentioned, or not.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  17:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not follow that thread at all, but it is not the first time where questions of the sort were asked on the reference desk. Generally, there are two things to keep in mind:
  1. People who use the reference desk know they are receiving an opinion from someone here - that opinion may not be fact, but it is expected that the answer would be a "reasonable" one - one which might help whoever is asking the question to find an answer that would be suitable for their needs.
  2. No matter how rediculous the question is, we do not have to answer it - we can choose to ignore it. But, if we do answer, it needs to be done professionally. If the question is deliberately worded to be, say, controversial, insinuating, or on the inclination of disruption, well, simply rephrase the question in a manner which would be more suitable for answering. The reference desk is quite a good place to practise diplomacy skills, and in fact, works surprisingly works well! It would not be possible if it weren't for conscientious Wikipedians who hang out here. --HappyCamper 18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You should take a look at the thread, even though it's obviously pretty long now. I'm not really debating how a good Wikipedian should or shouldn't answer a thread like that, but rather if we should allow threads like that to exist at all. I'm not confident about this, but it almost seems to me that the only way to prevent bad Wikipedians from taking advantage of such a pitiful and sad situation may be to disallow it in the first place. No properly conscientious Wikipedian I know would justify a plea like that with an honest answer, and most of those smart enough seemed to do the only human thing and pushed for counselling.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  19:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Most of the people who edit here are intelligent, reasonable, sensitive to others' pain, and well-informed in some or many areas. Some people here even have personal experiences related to such a question, and in fact many of the posts there claim they do. The occasional jerk aside, who will be quickly shouted down by an avalanche of more reasonable people, this is the perfect place to ask for friendly advice. It's a place where he can talk anonymously, to a large group of frienly people, who know what they're talking about, and many of whom have been through what he's going through now. He should be so lucky. And, as you say, most are doing the proper thing, especially after hearing his age (13 if I remember right, at which time you have little basis for making such a large decision on your own) and pushing for professional counseling. Black Carrot 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess you're right. The response was overwhelmingly positive and well-intentioned, and there'd scarcely be another place where he could get such a quick and honest answer. Though I doubt it would have happened the same had he not said he was 13, or that he was personally thinking about comitting the act, I doubt someone so troubled would have the clarity of mind (or the desire) to deliberately hide their identity for the purpose of a cold, direct answer.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It was my answer to his question (I actually answered his question instead of avoiding it) that spawned the deletion issue. In my opinion, it wasn't the answers to the question that was a problem. It was one user's opinion that it was OK to delete my answer on the grounds of morality. Having worked suicide hotlines and group therapy sessions, I feel I have a rather rational grasp on how to answer suicide questions. The person who deleted my reply then turned around and gave the worst answer you can ever give someone contemplating suicide: "Don't do it. Things will get better." So, I saw a situation where one person posted a reply based on experience in the topic and another deleted the reply based on inexperience in the topic. Regardless of the topic, I feel that should not be allowed. But, because my respose was deleted, others had to assume it was something very terrible and agreed with the deletion. When it was reposted by someone else, it stayed because I had then included my reasoning for giving the answer I gave and it made sense. --Kainaw (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is that the worst answer you can give? Black Carrot 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Because it is dishonest and patronizing. The first half: "Don't do it." That is patronizing. What makes you think you know what they should and shouldn't do. Have you killed yourself and come back to let everyone know it is a mistake? Then, adding "Things will get better." That is dishonest. You don't know things will get better. They may find out their best friend was hit by a train the following day. Then, they find out they have cancer the next day. They, they get their arms blown off in a terrorist attack the next day. They, after a few months of intense pain, they die. That doesn't sound much like "Things will get better."
Time and time again, the most effective way to work with someone who is serious about suicide is to be completely honest with them. Answer the questions they ask. Agree that the world is full of bad people. Life can be rather nasty. Most people want to die at one point or another. Many people do kill themselves. Answers like those will gain trust and make the suicidal person feel part of society - not an expendable lone soul outside of it. From there, you can work with the person on ways to handle the depression and stress that made them consider suicide in the first place. --Kainaw (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics reference desk improving?

Is it just me, or has Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics improved a lot? --HappyCamper 05:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The questions have. And there are more of them. Black Carrot 13:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Facilitating follow-up on questions

A lot of kids post questions here and, granted, many may not even come back to see what we say. But if they do, and we've asked them to be more specific, how do they know what to do? Well, they have to know how to use Wikipedia. So, can we post information in the heading telling them what to do? OK, so 99% won't read it. Let's cater to the one who does. It could be something like this

Follow-Up Questions: If you would like, or are asked, to follow up on your first question by providing more information, here's how: click on the <edit> button you see at the right of the screen next to you question, scroll to the bottom of the window that pops up, and write there.

This means that someone will have to modify WP:RD/H. A possible problem I can see is that vandals will deface the reference desk. But the vandals already know how to do that. --Halcatalyst 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean? The header for each reference desk is actually stored somewhere else. --HappyCamper 05:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

4th of July 1879 grand baseball match

hello... i ran across your information site here, and i was wondering if there was any information you could give me on a poster i had found many years ago folded in the back of an old clock. it is a poster of a grand baseball match (its words not mine),between the diamond baseball club, and the concord baseball club of concord. on the concord grounds, at the rear of the fitchburg depot. it states that baseball not being "officially" an athletic sport is not announced by the executive committee. the time of the game is 8:30, and crossed out and penciled in at 9:00. apparently im not much of a researcher because i havent been able to find any information on it, although i did find another poster like it in the library of congress, they didnt really give any information about it. and denied my request for information. you can see their copy of the poster online in the library of congress, washington d.c. i was hoping you could tell me something about this day, and this game, i would be extrememly interested in anything you could tell me. thank you for considering my question.

meagain...Meagain46247 04:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

ps. i hope i ended it properly for you but i was afraid to go back to the information page for fear of losing my letter..Meagain46247 04:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding this to Reference Desk>Miscellaneous. Black Carrot 20:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Flatulence question

The flatulence "question" was asked by a vandal who has vandalized several other pages in the past hour. I think it can and should be deleted. -- Mwalcoff 02:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Problem with icons

It seems counterintuitive to me that when you click on one of the icons, it brings you to it's image page. The way they are designed I think many people might expect they are are supposed to be clicked. Dforest 12:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

Many of the responses to potentially controversial questions (such as those on homosexuality and morality) have been very emotionally loaded and highly pejorative, even critical of the patron asking the question. This feels particularly unprofessional to me, and is doubtless not very helpful to those asking questions. Even if a patron is upset or antagonistic, I think that it is important for those of us answering questions that we remain calm and civil, and refrain from assaulting points of view we may happen to disagree with.

While I have been impressed with some of the responses I've seen people offer here, other reactions have been appalling. I'd like to remind people that The Reference desk is not a soapbox. At a real reference desk, those with who feel a need to preach their POV would not last long. The Jade Knight 09:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that timely reminder. Yes, the RD is not intended to be a soapbox. --HappyCamper 12:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ref Desk Archive

What happened to the link to the Ref Desk archive? Did it get lost in the latest remodelling of the Ref Desk page? I think it ought to be put back, but wanted to ask for opinions before editing such a highly visible page. What do you think? — QuantumEleven | (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know...I've been out and about doing other great things for Wikipedia after Crypticbot freed me from archiving :-) Let's see if we can find out a little more... --HappyCamper 12:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Asking questions anonymously

There have been several times when I've had Reference desk questions that I wanted to ask, but desperately didn't want to be traceable to me. Is there any way for users to ask questions with strong anonymity (perhaps by creating a m:Role account, or by the addition of some software features)? How would the regular Reference Desk editors feel about that capability? In the best case, I'd want users to be able to create new page sections, but not do anything else, and for the IP addresses involved to be discarded immediately or within a few days. I think it might make people a lot more comfortable in asking questions about drugs, sex, psychology, etc. -- Creidieki 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Open a different web browser, create an account, and post from that. We'll know it' you when someone anonymously asks embarassing questions. But seriously, even if you got an anonymous wikipedia account, then there will be all sorts of people at your ISP and law enforcement who can read the comments you post, and associate them with you. Ojw 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If absolute privacy is important, you'd do better to simply not use your own computer and internet connection. Perhaps you could go to the library or an internet cafe. ×Meegs 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)