Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/RD header/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benc suggested using this page to discuss replacing the text currently at the top of Wikipedia:Reference desk. See Wikipedia_talk:Reference desk#Instruction bloat. The basic idea is that the existing instructions are long and complicated, and frequently ignored. I believe that they can be rewritten to make them easier to follow, by using a couple of small screenshots as examples. AlexG 19:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Draft 2 Comments 3 Feature requests 4 Revamp 5 Added new Cat 6 Removed WP:DESK 7 Removal of Browse all questions... link

[edit] Draft

(Border is just to set this off from the rest of the talk page.)

[edit] Comments

The idea is to make the existing instructions "implicit" in the shorter text and example. This should make the question-and-answer mechanism evident, along with.

Of course, the images need to be filled in. I'll have a think about what text ought to be included: should be something short, obviously, but it would also be nice if the answer could refer to some article that is particularly "Wikipedia-ish" - something for which Wikipedia is the best possible reference. Screenshots should be clipped to show just main edit box, subject box, and toolbar (for context) - maybe the "Save page" button as well.

So far, this text doesn't include the stuff about other useful places. I'm not sure how best to integrate that.

It doesn't include these instructions from the current version:

1. "Be concise, not terse."
2. "Provide as much of the answer as you are able."
3. "Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated."
4. "Avoid using all capital letters."
5. "Don't start multiple sections about the same topic."
6. "If you know an answer, give only a very limited answer on this page. Just post a link to the Wikipedia article that contains the answer (although you might have to supply a few missing details, relevant to the specific question, here on this page)" (from Wikipedia_talk:Reference desk)

I think the first three are unnecessary, and I don't see the fifth as a real problem. Number 4 is ignored today, and I suspect this state of affairs will continue; the best we can do is make sure the example is not in all-caps. The sixth is not really followed (I'm guilty of this) but nobody seems to mind.

--AlexG 19:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Using images to illustrate the question and answer process may be very confusing. New users will be tempted to try to write their question in the image of the edit box, and click through to the image page instead. They might then decide the page is broken and go somewhere else. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 00:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is a worry. The only thing I can think of is what I've done with this shot - a bit of perspective and a rotation to make the widgets look less like widgets. It's meant to suggest someone looking at their monitor, I suppose, albeit while drunk. The text is not supposed to be real, by the way - just some filler.

This won't be to everyone's taste, and the text does get a bit hard to read. AlexG 00:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hee, that's cute. My concern with this, however, is that it doesn't look very professional. It's a bit hard to take seriously when it's skewed so. Still, it's better than most ath else that might be done to the image. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 03:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sixth of these is simply wrong. Users do not expect to do their own research to answer their own questions; answers should condense the relevant information into an easily understandable form. Topics of tangential interest should be linked in passing, to avoid overwhelming the main subject. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 00:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This seems to be the de facto policy, rather than that ancient one. (Blast from the past: seems to predate the "User" namespace.) AlexG 00:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the use of bold text, the usual style for pages such as these seems to be:

• simple instructions of moderate length
• bold text for the most important details

This causes the essence of the instructions to be immediately visible even if they are only briefly skimmed. The non-bold text supports the main point if a user takes the time to read it in full.

Currently, the instructions in the template are roughly sorted in order of decreasing importance. Possibly some of the later guidelines can be removed. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 00:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Feature requests

Perhaps we would do better to pressure the developers to add an inline "post new comment" edit box? If the reference desk could include a real, working edit box at the top of the page, a number of problems would be solved at once:

• no need to describe what an edit box looks like
• no need for Post a new comment links
• no intermediate edit page
• instructions remain visible
• an example question could be displayed

--[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 03:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revamp

Ok, so I was bold and updated this page with the original goal of reducing the amount of bold in the instructions, which I believe made people unlikely to read them. I welcome your complaints :-) --David Iberri | Talk 01:08, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Added new Cat

hope no one minds--Aolanonawanabe 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed WP:DESK

I removed WP:DESK as a redirect. There are two desks on Wikipedia, the reference desk and the help desk. Having WP:DESK go directly to the reference would be confusing. I'm going to make it an undocumented redirect to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Superm401 - Talk 00:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Browse all questions... link

Copy of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Browse all questions...

==Browse all questions...==
I'm thinking of removing the Browse all questions... link from the RD header. It is a relic from long ago when the RD was first split into categories (remember that!?) and was argued in as a "security blanket". It is a HUGE page that seems to serve no purpose any longer except to confuse the newcomers. Thoughts? --hydnjo talk 19:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is huge. And of course it's not "all" questions, just the ones that haven't been archived. I can't imagine anybody actually using that, you've got my vote. --LarryMac 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that removing the all link would be an improvement. -R. S. Shaw 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support removal of link. I assume you are planning to get the all page deleted at the same time? Road Wizard 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The RD header links to the /all page as do the direct calls Wikipedia:Reference desk/all and shortcuts WP:RD/ALL and WP:RD/A. I'm not anxious to delete those calls to the composite page, only the link in the header. If some future need comes up then the composite would still be available. --hydnjo talk 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support removal InvictaHOG 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks to all (oops!) for your comments.  :-) --hydnjo talk 23:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

end of copy --hydnjo talk 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)