Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

fixing the shortcut link

{{editprotected}} please delete the lines 3-4 of tis header: I have a neon lightbulb that spells my name , I want to hook it up, what do I need?

These lines create a shortcut link back to the page in question, which overlaps with the edit link if first-section edit links are enabled.

This request is paired with a request on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/leftside which adds a conventional shortcut box into the subtemplate. -Us_talk:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. —  (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

It was noted on RD:Talk that the refdesk header's floating elements had visual conflict with the iOS browser. Can this be addressed? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit[1] which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

This may be the wrong place to write this, but I am having difficulty tracing through all the RefDesk Header templates. Recently (noticed 2013-01-13) the header has changed to the RefDesk pages. The Search Wikipedia and Search archives fields in (say) RefDeskMaths are now side by side and often cause the page width to exceed 100% requiring sideways scrolling as well as vertical scrolling. Could someone put them one after the other vertically. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

I've add these shortcuts to Reference Desk Language and want it to show in the header:

• WP:Refdesk/Lang & WP:Refdesk/lang
• WP:Refdesk/Language & WP:Refdesk/language
• WP:REFDESK/Lang & WP:REFDESK/lang

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected. There were only a few transclusions of this template and all of the subtemplates, so I've reduced the protection to semi-protection on all of them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

article gripes

Along with the "We will not answer" section, there ought to be a line like "This is not the place to suggest improvements to a Wikipedia article; each article has a discussion page for that purpose." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of question "‎Ideas for what to get a good friend of mine for her birthday"

I hope this is works for justification. The poster is a currently active troll and doxxer on RationalWiki, particularly with the personal details of the person they named in this particular Reference Desk question, and had left several links to this page from a page on RationalWiki. Please let me know if this is not sufficient justification, or if an alternate route must be taken to keep this removed. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Shoot, wrong talk page. Please disregard. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, pardon my ignorance if this is not the proper method for requesting the following:
The instruction section of this header states: We'll answer here within a few days -- This might give the wrong impression; it typically takes only a few minutes; an hour or two at the most. Therefore, my request is that this be modified (at the editor's discretion). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (modified:01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Layout problem

...related to vertical positioning of the "skip to bottom" item in the right column. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Protection-template spacing. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Topics are not desks

The list below "Choose a topic:" is not a list of topics. The addition of "desk" to each topic should be removed. Additionally, the different sections of the Reference desk are not separate desks; they are different sections of one Reference desk. So unless there are serious objections, I'll proceed to replace "Computing desk" by "Computing", etcetera.  --Lambiam 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Choose" or "Select"?

I think "Select a topic:" is more appropriate terminology for the navigation column. "Choose" would be better for someone not having a concrete question but seeking a chat room to hang out in that suits their interests; here there is already an issue and the question is which section of the RD is appropriate.  --Lambiam 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are the recent archives???

I've just tried to look for questions archived from early November, and they are nowhere to be found -- the archives only run through October, and there are no recently archived questions here! So what happened, and where are they??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C195:DC40:D019:40A6 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November 2023 exists, so do others. Which specific page are you having a problem with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Skip to the bottom 

Bot to add internal links

What would everyone think if i were to build a bot that would go though the reference desks and add internal links. This is still just an idea that would need to be refined before implementing. The first step is to get approval(and i don't know how to go about doing that so any help would be helpful). Thank you – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, what do you all think about adding internal links for other peoples questions. As i did here and here. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the either idea (the bot or the edits). In general, we should refrain from changing other people's signed contributions. --LarryMac | Talk 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't thought about it that way. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec*2) While the intent is good, we actually discourage editing other editors' posts – especially the original questions – to add links to Wikipedia articles. (See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Don't edit others' questions or answers.) The first problem is that the original poster may not notice that someone has modified their question or realize that the newly-added links contain the answers to their question. The second is that subsequent responders may assume the original poster added the links and is already aware of our article. A much better strategy is to just a comment pointing explicitly to relevant articles. (Optional advice about using Wikipedia's 'search' box may also be provided.) It avoids any confusion about who said what.

On the topic of automatic linking, I'm not sure that it would be possible for a bot to do so sufficiently intelligently. Look at my last sentence — which words should have links? 'Topic', 'automatic', 'linking', 'possible', 'bot' all point to dab pages. Of those, 'bot' and 'linking' might justifiably require links to help out the less computer literate; how does our bot figure out how to proceed? 'Intelligently' is a redlink, and there's no easy way for a bot to guess that the desired piped link is probably to artificial intelligence. What you've described – the generation of automatic, sensible internal wikilinks – is actually an extraordinarily difficult task. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, don't edit other peoples posts. Just provide internal links in your response, that's good enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - bad idea. The actual core of the problem is that your addition of a link implies a particular meaning of a word or phrase that the original author may not have intended. It's hard enough for a human to figure out which meaning is intended - but a bot stands no chance. At best, the results might be humourous - at worst, we might end up picking up the wrong meaning and answering completely the wrong question rather than asking the OP for clarification. Also - when the OP makes a link, there is an underlying assumption that this means that (s)he read that article - we actually lose that information if you go around automatically making links. So I've gotta oppose this (well-intentioned) idea. SteveBaker (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What if this idea was applied to normal articles? – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Same problem: how can a bot decide from the context what is relevant or even correct? Possibly you could write it as a module for AWB where editors could review the proposed changes. Franamax (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure there is a semiautomated bot / mechanically-assisted specialty wiki-editing browser out there somewhere that does precisely this. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have the skillz to write a bot, I'm sure there's better use for your talents than polishing these transient pages. But if you must ... how about implementing the oft-suggested feature of making each refdesk question its own page, similar to WP:FPC? That way questions could be bookmarked easily and edit conflicts wouldn't be such a bear. --Sean --76.182.94.172 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't like that at all. My watchlist would be huge, and how would one's watchlist alert one to a new question? Edit conflicts aren't a huge problem on the desks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts are a minor concern; the bigger issue (from my POV, of course) is the way that links break after threads are archived. It's been proposed before and deserves (another) thread of its own, but I'd be in favour of making it happen, if it was feasible to do in a user-friendly way. Matt Deres (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the discussion. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The more relevant thread is this one from two months earlier, which I haven't forgotten. Indeed, I may yet get around to figuring out the refactor I alluded to... —Steve Summit (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Planet colours???

Is it me or is this question not entirely dissimilar to some we've had before? --Tango (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of this one. As it was deleted it probably did not make it into the archives. SpinningSpark 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is itself referring back to this question. He/she doesn't seem to realise that there have been thousasnds of edits in between his/her posts and just carries on the conversation as if we had just been sitting here for weeks waiting for the reply. SpinningSpark 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it goes back rather further. See here. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is the same person who asked before (and before and before and before...), he/she is not interested in an answer. I have failed to figure out the benefit for this user's arguments. Next will come questions about the color of Jupiter, then Pluto, and finally Uranus. Perhaps, this user just thinks it is funny to lead up to the question, "What is the color of Uranus?" -- kainaw™ 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are wanting to implement the previous decision of deleting this guys questions, you have my permission to delete my replies along with it. SpinningSpark 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no NO. I know the answers to these. I'm just afraid to explain it. Since I don't want this thing to turn into a dialogue, I spent 3000 hours learning it, now I 99.99% got it. Let's just STOP criticize me now, what' the color of Jupiter, Uranus, and Pluto I know the answer. I don't enjoy leading this question. Let's just leave the answer on, since i have to study it. I've been studying older ones many, many times, I understood most of them. I just keep it to myself to avoid dialogue of No, No, No, Saturn is this, Mars is this, Neptune is this. Just go away since this is the FINAL LAST ONE.--69.229.4.179 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Let's just close these answers. I'm done now.--69.229.4.179 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - and on my own talk: page, we find User_talk:SteveBaker#This_is_the_last_OP_then_I.27m_done...I_promise - followed by: User_talk:SteveBaker#Sorry_to_ask_you_again_but_I_found_some_errors_on_some_response - what we have here is a rock solid, chromium plated, turbo-charged troll. Which part of "I promise" did you decide not to bother with? SteveBaker (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid he won't be able to answer you for another 24 hours when his block expires. SpinningSpark 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Answers to SB's question is on my talkpage, I promise Steve, I will not hassle you again. Sorry, I thought you made some mistake, and purposely mislead me. I do not have problem grabbing your information. I just have to think further and make connection. my promise is I will try to stop, and I will try to white flag myself from keep asking planets colors. Whatever it is i will not ask you any further questions, I swear to God and Bible.--69.229.4.179 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible request for medical advice.

Meta discussion moved by NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is about this question, which I interpreted like this:

I have a very weak teeth. I have visited many dentists, but they weren't a lot of help. Now, after so many advances in other fields, I find it weird that no-one has found a preventive treatment for dental cavities. I think it should be pretty simple. Some kind of mouth wash that will produce a thin film on the surface of the tooth, so it won't be in contact with food left, so no cavity will form. Really, I don't think it should be that hard. We've built space ships, rockets, submarines, airplanes - I think it should be a pretty easy task. I say this, because I visit the dentist so often, and it's frightening every time.

As Captain Disdain pointed out, there's technically no question in there. My interpretation was that the implicit question was Why has no-one come up with such a preventive treatment? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Meta discussion cut-and-pasted from the refdesk:

This is clearly a medical question - and we aren't allowed to answer those - I'm sorry but you REALLY need to discuss this with your dentist (or perhaps a doctor). If your present dentist can't answer your questions to your satisfaction - then find another dentist who can. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Medical questions aren't disallowed, only medical advice. Since some of my wording above may be construed as medical advice, I edited it slightly. The questioner is not asking for a diagnosis, but about whether caries can be prevented by surface treatment of tooth enamel. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - medical questions are indeed disallowed. If you scroll to the top of this page, it says: "The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead." SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Response on Steve's talk page. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is generally acknowledge that there is a difference between a question about medicine and a request for medical advice. "What is the surgery called where they remove an appendix?" is a perfectly acceptable question, for example, despite clearly being about medicine. This particular question, however, does seem to be a request for medical advice (although it is difficult to be sure since the OP has only got about 50% of the characters correct...). --Tango (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem like he's asking for medical advice, just telling an anecdote relating to the subject. "Why can't we create a mouthwash that leaves a thin film of material covering the tooth so the tooth does not contact the food?" He's not actaully asking about how he should deal with his teeth. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I find this constant medical advice paranoia very silly. --Taraborn (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This clearly isn't a request for medical advice, it's a request for information on the feasibility of creating a mouthwash that coats teeth in a thin film. Just because someone relates a question to personal experience doesn't mean they are asking for advice on it. Instead, the OP would like a scientific opinion on whether such a mouthwash could be created. At least that's how I took it. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I commented on NorwegianBlue's talk page that this is a difficult question to mark as either a request for advice or information because it isn't a request at all. There is no question. If you read the question as "What can I do about my teeth?", then it is a request for advice. If you read the question as "What can some person do about his or her teeth?", then it is a request for information. Therefore, I feel that it is important to come to consensus about what the question may be before arguing about medical advice. Otherwise, people are arguing about how they personally added an implied question, not about the (absence of a) question itself. Another opinion - replace the replies with a note to tell the questioner to ask a question. As of now, it is just a rant and we've normally removed rants. -- kainaw™ 23:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kainaw - respondents are left to infer a question, and may or may not infer a request for medical advice. I would err on the side of asking for a clearly-stated question. --Scray (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Answers removed --NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Porno

I removed this [2] question. I trust that's uncontroversial? APL (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious link spam. Good decision. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen these exact same links posted on several other websites over the last few days, dude is desperate for a rapidshare premium account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

removed Password

Just removed this post. The user posted his password.– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

some form of wiki suicide? I don't think there is much of a problem here, leave a short note on his talk page telling him to change it as soon as possible and remove this thread to draw less attention. Besides, he has only a few edits, it's not like an admin account has been compromised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on they way he edited, the things he used in his edits and the way he knew to format the code with the <source lang="bash"> tag I'd have to say that that user is an experienced user. But based on his edit history and lack of contributions i'd have to say that he made that account for the sol purpose of posting that question. That also leads me to think that he is doing illegal things with that program. These are merely my speculations. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if he was doing something illegal, which we can't be sure of since we don't know what country he's from, it's not really Wikipedias job to ensure editors are abiding to the laws of whichever country they happen to be in. Obviously there are exceptions, but on the whole minor things like editors smoking drugs or cracking wi-fi routers are ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

MICROPROCESSOR

This dude has posted the same question six times today. I asked him to stop and he has not. Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

he's still at it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He has removed the comments saying this is homework and he should produce evidence of his working first. He should be banned for a period. Dmcq (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If the user isn't responding to warnings, the next step is to go to the admins. Now if only {{tilde}} counted as a warning. . . :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong desk

What do I do if the desk I posted a question on turned out to be wrong or only be the right place for part of the answer. Can/should I move my partially answered question or would I get dinged for that? Should I post it as a new question on another desk? Current case I'm asking about is my language desk Q "English "legalese" meaning of assign", but I'm interested in the proper procedure in general. (And how do I get the edit window to do a line break without adding a paragraph space above the new line?)71.236.24.129 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's clearly in the wrong section, like a computing question on the entertainment desk, you can move it. Cut and past the question to the correct desk using the same heading, and provide a link under the previous question heading to the questions new location, so that OP can find where it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just re read and you're the op, sorry. Yeah, feel free to move it, but same as above provide a link to it's new location —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks will do so. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RD Templet

What is the opinion on the template below? Would people use it? Would it be accepted? How can it be inproved? Is there already a template like this? Input would be greatly appreciated. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New Template
Usage: {{questionresolved|Computer}} Welcome to Wikipedia! This has been placed on your talk page to inform you that your question(s) at the Computer Reference desk has an unconfirmed solution(s). If you feel that your question has been resolved to your satisfaction feel free to place a {{resolved}} tag at the bottom of your question. And thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

Could be helpful. I have a feeling lots of the questions are "drive by" and the user won't be willing to spend extra time once they have gotten the information they needed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point, i will look in to placing a link in my templet that will allow the user to add the {{resolved}} tag with 2 click of his/her/it/them mouse.– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Crazy idea, but what if every thread was in a collapse box? Nah, probably a bad idea, I'm just thinking of a page full of nice little colored boxes :D never mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You have an aswer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:E_smith2000#What_if– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with both this and the box with the big green {{resolved}} check box is that it assumes that the person who puts it there (either respondant or supplicant) knows that the question has been fully and correctly answered. I can't begin to count the number of times that an incorrect answer has been given and the check-box added. This is dangerous stuff because there may be yet more answers - or corrections - or total rejections of previous answers yet to come - yet we've told the OP that he/she can stop looking for any more answers. I suppose there is a case for saying to the OP "Hey come and look back at the RD page because a new answer has been added - but having to go to the OP's user page and add a template for every single answer you give during the course of a day would significantly impact the time it takes to offer answers. So I have to say that I don't like this idea. Sorry. What I'd like to see happen would be for every question to somehow wind up on its own sub-page so that the OP and respondants would see it in their Watchlists...we've talked about that before - but somehow it didn't get anywhere. SteveBaker (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'm not really a fan of link message spam. There are already too many warnings and automated messages flying about. If the OP wants to know if the question has been answered, they'll simply check the ref desk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OP?

From what i have gathered the meaning of "OP" is the person asking the question. But what does "OP" standfor? – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Original Poster". It does not originate here so it don't fit perfectly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It can also mean "Original Post". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

those are the real meanings, but I believe I've heard people use it as though it just meant 'other poster'. I believe this is a corruption however. 94.27.244.146 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"other poster" would not be a useful meaning, since it doesn't specify what poster. --Tango (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

more questionable questions from our friend in Hungary

Now trolling the boards regarding papal infallibility. If I'd checked the WHOIS first, I wouldn't have fed him. My bad. Matt Deres (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

link to special:contributions page?

Special:Contributions/94.27.244.146, FWIW. I'm not familiar with this user. What's he done previously that I might've seen? Is this the 'colour of planets' guy? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've informed him of this thread —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the real reason for this thread appearing now is my recent contribution to this talk page, offering to improve the conspiracy theory article with two sections (a historical conspiracy theories section, and a subsection for ones that history has since validated, through freedom of information requests etc). It's just too big of a coincidence that I would post that question, which would obviously upset anyone who didn't like the existence of well-referenced historical conspiracies, and the fact that all of a sudden my contribution is questioned here. Too big of a coincidence. 94.27.244.146 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See this thread. Matt Deres (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt Deres: that thread just teaches anyone reading it not to raise questions of the United States or Israel's history which might shed these countries in poor light here at the reference desk. 94.27.244.146 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that thread illustrates that the Reference Desk is populated by regular contributors who are real, intelligent people, and can use common sense when spotting out-of-place content. I have never seen anything removed from the reference desk because it was politically objectionable. Some questions are removed because they are not requests for references - and do not belong on the reference desk. Nimur (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the fact that you appear to be in a minority of one 94 speaks volumes Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I didn't actually read the question until now. I have to say if it isn't trolling I have to say it's the leading candidate for bizzare question of the year. Heck even if it is trolling... Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Behaviour of Science Desk

Has anyone noticed that when you ask or answer a question on the science desk then publish it, the page appears then immediately begins to scroll up? It only happens on this desk and none of the others. What is happening and can it be fixed by someone?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I just replied to a question and didn't see any of that kind of behaviour. Have you seen it do this more than once? I'm using Firefox 3.0.1.0 on XP sp3; maybe it's a browser issue? Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I doubted it was a browser problem (Google Chrome on Vista SP1) was because it only happened on the one desk. It doesn't happen all the time, but actually most of the time. I don't want to open Firefox to check because I am on limited bandwidth and Firefox takes much longer than chrome to load (plus the incessant updates for addons). I'll do it when I get to a Wifi Hotspot and check then. Cheers. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen what I think is the same phenomenon on the maths desk when there's a lot of math markup, especially when using a link to a specific question from my watchlist. The browser loads the page to the anchor specified, but the larger math "characters" cause portions of the page above the anchor to become "larger." I notice there's some math markup on the RD/S now, maybe the same thing is happening? --LarryMac | Talk 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice this occasionally. I had always assumed that it's caused by images popping in and pushing the text down. APL (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I never see it when using a fast connection. David D. (Talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that normally when I go to a section of a page via a direct link (i.e. one with a #), it will immediately scroll up. Might these be related? Thanks, 99.224.117.66 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

troll question removed

Diff --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We've answered that before... or a variant thereof. Dismas|^(talk) 10:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realise that. If you think it's a valid question, please feel free to reinstate. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The question was added back by the OP. While I'm not going to remove it now, I personally concur with the original removal. I think the key issue here is 'variant thereof'. It's one thing to ask about how to hide a human body. It's a resonable thought experiment that easily results from TV etc. However when you add 'need a quick answer' that takes it beyond the realm of a serious question to just plain trolling to me. There may be a few odd cases where you'll need such an answer fast (e.g. your competing with someone to come up with the best answer) but 99.9% of the time... Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks rather troll-like to me. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone asking the question legitimately would instantly realize "how it sounds" and add something to the effect that their question was merely theoretical (even if it wasn't.)

This person added something about needing a "quick answer". It's pretty obviously a troll in my opinion. APL (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another 'colour of planets' guy's question removed.

This one. IIRC, this is banned/indef blocked User:Freewayguy. Feel free to restore if you think I'm in error. I won't mind. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, I don't need this question, and I'm not trying to ask about planets color. I was trying to ask something a little different but a quick one. I didn't know I was doing wrong, I'm just asking for a source to clear it up, but not about planets color. This question is probably just common sense.--69.226.39.79 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Scsbot holiday

For various reasons, Scsbot, the RD archiving bot, is not fully automatic, but rather, is manually kicked off by me each night. It is not quite reliable enough to run in a fully automated manner.

I'm going to be out on a boat for the next two weeks without, I belatedly discover, any Internet access at all. Therefore, there's no way I'll be able to archive the desks for those two weeks.

And of course two weeks is far too long for the desks to go unarchived; the high-traffic ones would be completely unwieldy if they accreted that much backlog. I see two options:

1. Someone (or someones) can perform a simplified fully-manual archive of the desks. (See below.)

1. If that's too much trouble or there are no willing volunteers, someone (or anyone) can do a wholesale deletion of swaths of old questions on the high-traffic desks. Then, when I get back to civilization, I can retroactively run the bot on the appropriate old revisions from the page history, effectively reconstituting the archive pages. (But until I did that, the "archived" content would not be visible except in page history; it would not appear either transcluded or on the appropriate archive page.)

The only tricky part about #1 is inserting the boilerplate header at the top of a new daily archive page. That's done with this template invocation:

<noinclude>{{subst:RD Archive header|day|month|desk|year}}</noinclude>

Oh, and I guess the other tricky part is creating the daily table of contents on the monthly archive page. Feel free to not link the individual questions (that is, feel free to settle for how the monthly archive pages used to look, for example this one from 2006).

If anybody falls back on #2, it wouldn't hurt to leave a note here indicating when you did it, and for which desk(s).

Finally, if anybody is able to step in and help out with some manual archiving, feel free to wander over to the Help Desk, which will be needing the same sort of attention. (The instructions are slightly different; see the Help Desk talk page.)

Thanks, and apologies for the inconvenience. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Things that are simple and easy are generally (in my opinion) not interesting. This seems to be complex and not easy. I'll help you out. Just tell me what i need to do, when i need to do it. and the mathematical formula explaining why the theory of gravitational propulsion could not make a fish talk to me. :) The only thing is that i really dont know how to do is to archive anything. Besides from that i wm fully willing to help you out. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I could maybe do some of type 1 (I've done it before), but I cannot create new pages. If someone else was willing just to create the new archive pages I could do some moving of content. 80.41.99.250 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For those who would like to do the Held desk ones, here is the template you should use

<noinclude>{{subst:HD Archive header|DAY|MONTH|YEAR}}</noinclude>– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:troll?

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Mouse_issues seems to be trolling. And in fact seems to be an exact repeat of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2009_January_1#Mouse_issues– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be significant that this IP made several edits to the talk page of a known Avril troll sockpuppet here. SpinningSpark 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote troll - there are enough posts that exhibit significantly more knowledge - mixed in with ridiculous quasi-humor like this one. So - we all know the procedure - right? No more feeding. SteveBaker (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I had this same problem called in from a lawyer. He did understand that he could lift up the mouse and move it to the center of the pad to move the cursor further to the side of the screen. His issue was that he wanted his mouse pad to be relative to his screen - never requiring him to lift the mouse. It is possible to do by changing the mouse speed. So, while this is possibly a valid complaint, I seriously doubt this questioner is being honest in any way. -- kainaw™ 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible to do with a larger pad. The mouse doesn't measure absolute position with any degree of precision - so over time, the position 'drifts' so if you put both the mouse and curson in the center of the pad/screen at the start of day - then after only a few hours of work, the cursor won't come back to the center of the screen when you move the mouse to the center of the pad. Worse still, if your mouse pad is big enough to allow the mouse to reach the edges of the screen - then as you slide the physical mouse past that position ("off the edge of the screen"), the screen cursor will move to the edge of the screen and stay there. If you move your mouse off still further - then move it a little back towards the center, the cursor will start to move immediately - it doesn't know that the mouse is "off the edge of the screen"...this kind of behavior will make your absolute position still further from where you expect it to be. So a bigger mouse pad will only delay the problem. It's basically a silly idea - mice are 'relative' devices and that's that. This is an oft-repeated stupid question and NOBODY who knows even the slightest bit about computers makes this mistake. Honestly - both the OP and the lawyer who called you were yanking your chain. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

With the addition of Matt Eason's comment that includes :this link it has become clear that this is an attempt at trolling. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now please don't take this as a personal attack, because I like you E smith2000, you help out at the desk and all, and I sincearly hope I've made a mistake with what I'm about to say. But I think there is something more going on to this. I'm not trying to point fingers here, and I'm only mentioning it since SpinningSpark brought it up above, but when 64.172.159.131 first edited User talk:82.43.88.87 I thought it was E smith2000 who had forgotten to sign in, as they posted very similar things, see here and here, and has also edited User talk:E smith2000 here. E smith2000 is also the OP of this thread. Coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ps the edit summary "repeating characters" attributed to my above post was not entered by me, and I've stated a thread at WP:HD to ask what the hell caused it

Very keen observations! I did indeed make those edits you mintion, but i did not add that question to the reference desk. The only explanation that i can offer to this phenomenon Is this: My daily commute takes me from the capital of California to the edge of Lake Tahoe. I commonly stop by coffee shops on my way to and from work. While there i browse wikipedia. I cant remember which shoppe i made those edits from. But i will compile a list of ip address of my most common shopps. And it is just a coincidence that i happen to be the one to bring this to the RD's talk page. But i do not think it is a coincidence that some edits from 64.172.159.131 were made to an artical i created; Here and Here, this will really help when trying to figure out what shoppe those edits came from. This edit i did mistakenly on my way home. And thank you for pointing this out to me! – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with this answer, I just thought it would best to point it out. Thank you for explaining.

I am afraid that i know where that ip address resolves to; My office. One of my co-workers has been making those edits. This is now an internal matter. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An obvious joke/troll that several people have now fed. Can we just delete the thread and move on? Matt Deres (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I second the vote to delete that post. I am not really sure as to what preseduals must be followed when removing questions from the WP:RD. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make it crystal clear that if your account is used by someone else for making bad posts - Wikipedia's admin staff WILL hold you responsible and apply blocks and bans accordingly just as if you had behaved like that yourself. That is because it is considered your personal responsibility not to leave your computer turned on with screen not-locked when you aren't there - and not to use the "remember me" function on computers with shared accounts such as Internet cafe's. We have to hold you responsible because the "Oh! It wasn't me - my little brother did it." defense is old and tired and far too many vandals and other obnoxious people use it. So - be very sure you don't let this happen again - because we WILL assume that you're lying to us! SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The edits in question were made from the same ip, not an account. It's supposedly a work ip so would be shared among many people. There is no issue of a compromised account here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk • contribs) _{Added by Elliott}

Steve, when i commute/travel i take my laptop with me. My laptop has the bios password set, not only that but my Hard drive is encrypted. When i leave my laptop alone i lock it. When i leave my laptop alone for a long period of time i turn it off. I do in fact use the 'remember me' feature not only here, but on most websites i visit. When i travel i establish a secure and encrypted connection to the custom proxy i set up at my house. I don't know why the question of a compromised account came up but i can assure you that this is not the case. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Request for Medical Advice?

This thread (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Avoiding_sexual_arousal) on the Science Desk seems to be skirting medical advice territory. The poster says that a friend is easily aroused sexually and asks what can be done about it. The current responses seem to be very diagnosis-like in character. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this isn't "skirting medical advice territory". It is a clear request for medical advice. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Srsly you guys, need some help with archiving. You don't need to know anything about wikicode or html

Our usual automatic archiving is down at the moment, and will be for a while. This means we are back to manual archiving.

I have removed the last 3 transcluded pages on each desk set up by the automatic bot, so each page displays a week's worth of questions.

From now on, a day's worth of questions will have to be manually moved to the archives every day from each desk.

If you look at the archives for May 2009 for each desk, you will see I have added headers and links for days from 16th to 20th of May. Someone with a registered account needs to click on each of those red links and create the page (if you're not sure about archiving, or don't have time, just create a blank page so us anonymice can do it).

Once those pages exist, someone needs to cut the oldest day's contents every day from each desk and paste it into the archive page for that desk, for that day. Ideally, they would also create a table of the headers for that day and add it under the link to that archive, but that is an optional extra. It doesn't need to be the same person every day, and it doesn't have to be one person doing all the desks.

Please, just do whatever you can to help. If nothing else, please go to the archives for May and create blank pages for the red links.

Thank you. 89.168.85.22 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to put in the headers for the May Science archives but I am confused by this line in the archive code;

The page you are currently viewing is {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 March 13|an archive page|a [[Wikipedia:Transclusion|transcluded]] archive page}}

I would have thought that the date in the code should match the date in the archive title. That is what I will put in. However, looking back through the archives none of the dates seem to match and I cannot discern the pattern. The example one above, for instance, comes from the March 3 archive (not March 13). If I am doing it wrong, let me know and I will go correct it. SpinningSpark 16:39, 22 May 2009

(UTC)

I am playing around with the computer desk's one. I noticed that line too and i think that it is a template. I will let you know what i fine.– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

its odd, the page history for the archive pages does not show what the page was created with. But the post 2 posts up does say something about this headder:

<code><noinclude>{{subst:RD Archive header|'''day'''|'''month'''|'''desk'''|'''year'''}}</noinclude></code>

– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just tried that for 25 May and it put 4 Jun in that line. Either there is something screwed in the template code or I don't understand how this overcomplicated archiving system works. SpinningSpark 17:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Copy and past this code to the top of a page :

<noinclude>{{subst:RD Archive header|16|May|Science|2009}}</noinclude> – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No idea what the "no-include" tags are for (I know what the tags do, I just don't understand how it relates to this archive, but I guess they should go in, they must be there for a reason. However, it makes no difference to the date in the line of code I highlighted, that always looks at the archive 2 weeks in the future of the one it is in to decide whether this archive exists or not! So I am still confused whether that is right or not. It also definitely screws up on the last day of the month, the month nav links reading May/May/July instead of Apr/May/Jun. I changed that manually because it is obviously wrong. SpinningSpark 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The no-include tags make the template appear on the archive page but not transcluce onto the actual ref desk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

so far its looks like your doing a good job! :)– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So now that all the pages has been created, and the headers added, how do we add a 'transcluce' page to it?– Elliott(Talk|Cont)  18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think trying to manually transclude is too ambitious. I'd say a reasonable workload is just cut/pasting the questions to the archive as needed. So, some time after midnight UTC we need to cut the questions from 16th May off the desks and paste them into the archive pages created for them. At the same time, it would be useful to add a header for 23rd May to the bottom of the desk (for tomorrow's questions). If you're feeling ambitious you could also add a list of the question titles to the May archive page.

Thanks for helping guys. You're really making a difference. 80.41.35.98 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Already done that for the Science and Computer desks (except for the new day headings) plus I've provided the links on the monthly list. As for transclusion, I don't even understand where it is supposed to transclude to so I probably haven't got that bit. SpinningSpark 21:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother with the transcluding; it's something fairly easy for a bot, not really worth it for us.

Oh and it isn't a big deal (given that people don't usually offer many replies on the last day something is up), but try not to archive too soon! :) Thanks 80.41.124.242 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just adding, I really appreciate the help, but I think you're making more work for yourself than you need. It's okay not to link each individual question title; if we're manually archiving all the desks for a while, I don't want you getting burnt out! 80.41.124.242 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Scsbot is still adding date headers, so we don't need to worry about them. My connection has slowed right down, so I can't guarantee how much I can archive. Help gratefully received. 80.41.6.138 (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm using a semi-automatic process to generate the monthly links. It uses the daily date heading so can you make sure you include this when you archive a day. Thanks. SpinningSpark 10:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't personally see any reason not to manually transclude if you don't want to wait to archive (e.g. it may be easier for someone to do 3-4 days at once then to do one page each day). It's arguably the easiest thing to do presuming you've archived the section probably, all you have to do is add {{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2009 May 16}} or whatever as so [3] Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you'd like to do that, that would be great. 80.41.42.73 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

Why isn't this page linked with other languages? We are having a discusion over it hebrew and I'm about to open a new discusion in spanish. aghnon (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the lingual reference desk but apperently they all have the same discusion page. aghnon (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, we do link...? The language reference desk you mention currently links to Basa Jawa, Magyar, Nederlands and Suomi. You're welcome to add the Spanish or Hebrew language reference desk if one exists, I don't speak either myself so don't know if they do nor would I know if I have the right page if it's pointed out to me Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We do currently have links on the language desk because someone added them to the May 19th section. I personally wouldn't mind adding them, but I think we need a wider discussion first, in particular what sort of page do we link to. I don't know if any other wikipedia has a reference desk. They may have desks suitable for asking questions about language although I expect more likely these will be focused on translating stuff etc for their wikipedia (which we also have) rather then for general questions. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We do have interwiki links, but most other wikis do not have their reference desks split into sections. For that reason you will find the language links on the ref desk main page rather than the individual desks. SpinningSpark 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the interwiki links under May 19, I have converted them to normal links. As it stood, the interwikis would have eventually ended up linking to an archive page which makes no sense whatsoever. SpinningSpark 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

somewhy this page (of all help pages) is very disconnected interwikily and it should be extended. aghnon (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DAW! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No-one did... "interwiki" is the standard name for those links. --Tango (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has one general knowledge desk, de:Wikipedia:Auskunft. I would support linking to that page and any similar desks in other languages. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Such for the english reference desk and the hebrew page who is called consultment who links every help page (not a community portal}ץ I suggest we pubkish problem in english and maybe in foreign languages because they lack interwiki(pedia) in that page, too. Probably because they translate all from english. aghnon (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, the German reference desk is already linked on the project page. And if ויקיפדיה:הכה את המומחה means reference desk then so is the Hebrew one and a couple of dozen others. SpinningSpark 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The only unlinked page (actually not completely linked) is The Language reference desk. aghnon (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? None of the ref desks have interwiki language links. All the links are on the main project page. I feel either I am missing your point or you are missing mine. SpinningSpark 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I may understand what Aghnon is referring to. It seems there exists a He:ויקיפדיה:ייעוץ לשוני which from Google language tools [4], is a lingual/language desk for help with the Hebrew language and also for translating foreign languages (well at least common ones, they recommend you seek help from people who are experts in less common languages with a linked page) into Hebrew as well as with misc stuff like with transliteration. From what I can tell, it's not restricted to asking for help related to Wikipedia (although I'm guessing a significant amount of stuff is). It currently interwikis to the Reference Desk/Language and I guess that is the closest desk on the English wikipedia that I know of to it purpose. There many be similar desks on other wikipedias and there could be some merit to interwiking them from the RD/L (well basically all together). It does seem like something others may not have made part of their RD. P.S. Someone, I'm guessing Aghnon added an interwiki to es:Wikipedia:Consultas/Consultas lingüísticas to the RD/L at the top Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Another candidate is hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal (helyesírás). It is one of the "Kocsmafal" pages ("tavern", something like our village pump), but it assists with spelling, style, naming, and transliteration. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Aghnon: If I understand the purpose of the consultment page you linked to correctly, a better interwiki would probably be Wikipedia:Questions or Help:Contents, or perhaps Wikipedia:Help desk/Are you in the right place none neither of which currently has an interwiki link to Hebrew Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is, that people get messed up looking for exact help pages, so I think it would be better connecting them interwikily. I know if someone comes from Cebuano to English by interwiki he might think he came to a help page about the Cebuano language, so if you want that could be clarified. aghnon (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Abusive Person

I'm not sure how I can explain this, but there is a person called MalcolmXIV who is generally very argumentative. This is normally fine, but he does tend to ignore reality, and I have noticed other Wikipedians commenting on this. He tends to argue against anything that is written on the RefDesks. However, he has suddenly become abusive to me. He 'attacked me' on my talk page, and it inflamed me so much that I attacked him back, unfortunately using language that would not normally be suitable for an encyclopaedia, but it angered me so much that that was the only way I could talk to him. I'm not asking for him to be removed from Wikipedia, but I would like people to keep an eye on him, as his statements have (in my experience) only ever been inflammatory and born of ignorance. Can we do this? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

KageTora, consider the possibility that you have not come out that 'discussion' particularly well. Perhaps consider what an ideal editor would have done in that situation.

If people think a user is causing problems, or has a particular pattern of behaviour, then people generally do keep an eye out for these things. That person will often notice that several different people have suggested that they find some aspect of their behaviour problematic. When that person notices that several people point out the same problems in different situations, hopefully that people will stop and consider that maybe these people have a point, and work to avoid this problem in future (We, of course, assume good faith on their part).

If the person unfortunately fails to pick up on these comments, then it does tend to get escalated. Someone who finds that person's behaviour particularly troublesome might put in a WP:Request for comment or report the situation to the admin's noticeboard to see if other people agree. Many people on these desks have experienced a lot of these situations, and work hard to deal with these situations without aggravating them. 89.168.96.79 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually do agree that I didn't handle it very well, and I will not make excuses or try to defend my position. I will take no more action on this point, unless something similar happens again, and then I will take it up with Admin. My language was offensive, and I do understand that, and that was in response to what I perceived as a threat, so at the risk of getting us both banned, I will not hesitate to take the issue to Admin if it happens again. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories

The subjects listed under the reference desk categories aren't consistent with the subjects' classifications in academia. For example, Economics is a social science, not one of the humanities. Finance is neither a social science nor one of the humanities. Plus, why do we specifically list finance but not the other major functional areas (accounting, marketing, operations)? We probably are not well served by a proliferation of categories. But, we should consider either adding one or two to capture the miscategorized subjects or changing the name "Humanities" to something else. Wikiant (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the categories is to keep the number of questions in each category reasonable and in line with the interests and abilities of askers, readers, and responders, not to define an ontological framework for all knowledge. This issue comes up frequently, usually generating more heat than light. --Sean 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's the point of the categories, then we'd be better served naming them "Category 1," "Category 2," etc. Why use terms from an ontological framework if we're not going to impose the ontological framework? Wikiant (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The categories are more guidelines in laws engraved in stone. Some questions are in between some of the categories, so people just use their best judgment to get it into the closest one. Otherwise, we could create dozens of categories. And many people who answer questions don't read all categories. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being serious, but I'm retiring from this conversation. --Sean 18:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There are many ways to skin a cat, and more ways to classify stuff than those used by academia. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If Sean is correct that this issue comes up frequently, then it appears that it is indeed broke. I'm not advocating the use of academic classifications. I am pointing out that the terms we are using *are* academic classifications and that we're using them incorrectly. The goal of an encyclopedia is to present an organized compendium of knowledge and the tool we use is language. On this page, the goal and the tool are in opposition. Wikiant (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are using the terms incorrectly. We're merely saying that this particular web page is the place to ask questions about this subject and that subject. We aren't saying this and that are the same thing - or even necessarily related to one another. The choice of which questions go where is a pragmatic one that has settled into this pattern as a result of the kinds of people who answer these kinds of questions. It would be dangerous indeed to mess with this structure. SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, if you have a specific and serious proposal for changing the names or definitions of the Ref Desk categories then we can consider it and discuss its merits. However, as has been pointed out, you would have to make a very convincing case for change because the current system has the major advantage that it actually works most of the time for most people. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the categories is *most definitely not* to make sure that the questions are correctly classified into the right academic structure so the academic integrity of the ref desk organisation is maintained. That is a mere superficial artefact of no importance whatsoever - after all, the answers here will never be used as references in a published paper. The real purpose of the categories is to bring together the questioner and people who want to answer that question. So do we have any evidence that questioners are consistently going to a desk where they do not get a good answer, but would likely have done if they had gone to another desk? If that is happening then there is a problem that needs addressing, if not, changing the categories will at best achieve nothing and at worst disrupt a working system. Those proposing change need to present evidence that there is a problem with getting answers and that re-categorising will solve the problem. SpinningSpark 11:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnote: judging by recent performance, economics ought to be categorised under entertainment rather than humanities. SpinningSpark 11:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I moderately disagree with SpinningSpark. With respect to providing a place to ask questions, how we categorize subjects clearly doesn't matter (i.e., the list of subjects clearly shows the questioner under which category to place a given question). With respect to encouraging editors to provide answers, however, we might be able to do better. For example, an editor who would otherwise be interested in answering finance questions may decide not to monitor the Humanities page because of the plethora of questions that have nothing to do with finance. To the extent that the topics in a category are more closely related, the hassle to an editor of monitoring that category declines. So, to answer Gandalf61, I propose that:

• We add one category titled "Social Sciences";
• The new category contain the subjects: Politics, Law, Economics, Commerce (to replace Finance), and Psychology.

Wikiant (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that finance questions are not being answered because finance experts don't want to monitor the Humanities desk? If not this is pointless. The number of desks should be kept to a minimum, originally (and still on most other Wikipedias) there was only one. If every question and every expert neatly pigeonholed into one narrow field, I could see the benefit, but that is not how it is. I do not often look at the Humanities desk, but whenever I do I am always surprised by how much Science is being discussed there, and sometimes I can give a useful contribution. This is because questions and answers will always cross over boundaries. This kind of thing will only get worse if the desks are further divided. The more the desks are split up, the more our resource will be divided and diluted. It is more about managing the size of the pages than about categorisation and we are not having a problem with pages becoming too large at the moment. SpinningSpark 13:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By definition, the evidence does not exist -- how does one find evidence for an answer that would have been given but wasn't because the answerer was unaware of the question? Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what's the potential for improvement here? How many questions can you identify that went unanswered for want of a knowledgeable answerer? How many of those might have got a different result on another desk? If the answer is %vanishingly small then their is no justification in the disruption. You mentioned finance questions as if you had hard examples of things going wrong. I took a quick scan through recent Humanities questions and did not immediately see a problem with getting answers on that topic. Nor do I see a queue of economists lining up here to complain about all the art questions they have to wade through. SpinningSpark 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Social Sciences" in addition to "Humanities"? Could you give a one sentence summary of what the difference would be, and more importantly, how we would convey the distinction to the people asking questions, a number of whom are still in elementary school? (because that's who decides which board to use - the questioner.) Would your objections be satisfied by renaming the Humanities board to "Humanities and Social Sciences"? (like the Computing board is technically the "Computers and IT" board) *shrug* Category names and designations are somewhat superfluous in the first place - we tend to answer any question on any topic on any board, to the best of our abilities. If we think that posting at another board might get a better response because of the people who monitor it, we'll generally suggest it, usually without chastising the questioner about "misplacing" the question. The boards are there just to make the number of questions more manageable, and the reason we call them Science/Humanities/etc. instead of Category 1/Category 2/etc. is to have a suggested theme. But "suggested" theme is all it is - no one is running around with a ruler, "imposing" a framework and rapping knuckles for posting in the wrong category. -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

From humanities: "The humanities are...disciplines (that) study the human condition, using methods that are primarily analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences." The distinction is most easily conveyed by the examples listed below the heading. Again, the benefit lies in attracting more editors (SpinningSpark wants to know how many -- the only way to answer that is to try it and see what you get). For example, I'm an economist but for a long time answered only questions on the science and math desks because the questions asked there tended to be more relevant to economics than the questions asked on the humanities desk (which has economics listed as an example topic). In summary, I suggest that the current categories may contribute to questioners and answerers missing each other by locating at different desks (or by the answerer not locating at all given the large volume of disparate topics on some desks). Wikiant (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be one Reference desk with a multitude of perhaps 25 sub-categories, or sub-Reference-desks. They could be categories that more accurately describe their subject matter.

The person posting a question could be expected to pick one category at time of posting. (There could be an "Un-categorizable" category.) The categories could be watch-listed by checking them off individually (selectively), or all at once. This requires a software solution. I think that optimally, ample flexibility should be built in to how one's watch-list displays Reference desk activity. But at the least one should be able to watch-list activity by category.

This eliminates the troubling shoehorning of subjects into other subject's areas. I think the categorization of subjects is consonant with Wikipedia's mission.

I think at present there are too few categories. I think the option should exist to watch-list Reference desk activity in a more tailor-made way. This I think would afford one a greater likelihood of spotting a subject of interest, and following as it is responded to. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Solution in search of a problem! Pigeonhole-based thinking! Extensive software alterations required! Little to no benefit to the person asking the question, coupled with making the entire process far more complicated and likely to put off the people most in need of this sort of human-run help!

Or, were you engaging in reductio ad absurdum? The reference desks do not exist for the benefit of the people answer questions; they are here to help the people asking questions, and to build the encyclopedia. Anything which makes things more difficult for the people asking questions needs to be fully justified with clear benefits for the actual goals of the desks. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to WP:Bold? Throw in the Social Sciences category and see if, after a month or so, there is a change in the number of people asking and answering questions. If not, then I've been proved wrong and when the subject comes up again in the future, we can say definitively that expanding the number of categories has no effect on participation. But if the number of participants increases, then we've improved the help service. The cost of running this experiment is orders of magnitude less than the cost we've already incurred debating what might or might not be the outcome. Wikiant (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It works currently. None of the proposed improvements would actually help the purpose of the desks. The status quo may be intellectually unsatisfying, but I quite prefer that the questioners be intellectually satisfied instead. --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the "it currently works," "no it doesn't" armchair theorizing isn't very useful. Let's look at some actual data. For the last 100 edits to the Humanities page, here's what we see:

1. On average, 20.6 minutes elapse between edits.

2. The 100 edits cover 53 topics (going by the unique edit summaries).

Projecting these estimates, this suggests that the Humanities desk is averaging 70 edits on 53 topics in a 24 hour period. Assuming that an editor looks at the most recent change (i.e., the change that comes up on the watchlist), an editor who checks the Humanities desk five times per day will be alerted to 7% of the edits and 9% of the topics. Maybe "checking 5 times per day" is unreasonably small. I don't know -- one might argue that people who care about answering questions will check more frequently; one might conversely argue that people who have the best answers also have the least time for checking. Nonetheless, if our goal is to maximize the likelihood of people-with-questions encountering people-with-answers, then we want these proportions, ceteris paribus, to be larger rather than smaller. Wikiant (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would someone looking to answer questions only look at the most recent change? I go through the whole page, from where I last stopped, looking for questions I can help with. I keep an eye on the history pages to make sure I spot following up questions and further answers to questions I was interested in/helped answer, but not to spot new questions. --Tango (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If one edits a lot of pages relative to the time one has to spend reading, then one will tend to use the watchlist as a guide for contributing. This may not be the way you edit; it does tend to be the way I edit. Beware the confirmation bias. Wikiant (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All there needs to be is one Reference desk -- call it the main Reference desk. Behind this one Reference desk should sit a number of sub Reference desks. A person asking a question should come to the main Reference desk and ask their question. They should be prompted to pick a category into which they feel that their question best fits. The list of categories should be displayed, so that the questioner can check off one box. It should be brought to the attention of the questioner that there is also an "unclassified" box which they may use if none of the categories seem right. It should also be stated that they need not pick any category -- in which case the question will automatically go into the unclassified area of questions. The number of sub Reference desks would have to be more numerous than the number of Reference desks already there now. This is because of at least a couple of reasons. One is that several of us feel that the names of categories should be correct and meaningful. Some of us feel that the correct naming of things is a worthy goal in itself. I think that the use of correct terminology is very much consistent with Wikipedia's mission. But there are, I think, good reasons beyond this, for increasing the number of what I am now referring to as "sub Reference desks." At present a dizzying amount of activity occurs on one's watch-list for the Reference desks. If one does not check one's watch-list frequently enough, one misses much activity on the presently existing Reference desks. Also, that activity covers a broad range of subject matter. I am suggesting a greater number of "sub Reference desks" in order to reduce the amount of watch-listed activity for a given Reference desk. And also, that resulting activity on a greater number of sub Reference desks will be more targeted to a users needs, resulting likely in a more refined matching of user to question. With a greater number of sub Reference desks, a user could fine-tune their watch-listing to include those areas they are interested in, and exclude those areas that they are not interested in. Each sub Reference desk should have the separate ability to be watch-listed or not. In fact, managing one's Reference desk watch-lists should ideally be done in one place. That logical place would be the main Reference desk. That would involve software, but if that is too difficult, it can be done without. The total number of necessary, or optimal, Reference desks is unknown at this time. We should add a couple at a time, and monitor their activity. A Reference desk that continues to have too much activity is a candidate to be subdivided -- but this certainly isn't mandatory. Conversely, a Reference desk receiving only sparse activity is a candidate for being combined with another Reference desk. Its title only needs to reflect the two or more topics contained within it. Throughout all this attention should be paid to proper nomenclature. That is a Wikipedia goal -- the dissemination of correct information. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you really forgotten what it was like to be new to this? What it was like to want to know something, and not even really know how to ask? And do you really think we provide the best service for the askers and encyclopedia only when registered users with a narrow range of interests answer well-formed questions from people who know the correct nomenclature and categories?

If you don't have a lot of time to contribute to the desks, the watchlist is inefficient because they update so often. If you don't have a lot of time, you're better off skimming the latest entries to the desks to see if you can help. The watchlist is only useful on high-traffic pages if you're spending a lot of time, and expect to be checking most edits as they appear. Otherwise, it's best suited to irregularly updated pages.

I fail to see why we should render the desks less user-friendly and more compartmentalised just because some registered users operate in an inefficient manner. 80.41.123.51 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How is what I am suggesting less user friendly? I fail to see that. Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's drop the topic. There are equally valid arguments in both directions, so the question can only be resolved via an experiment. I proposed one. The owners of this page don't want one. So, we're done. Wikiant (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This page has no owners. The lack of desire to debate things in depth can sometimes mean consensus that either something doesn't need fixing or that the approach being proposed is not welcomed. For example, if I proposed here that we ban all discussion of literature on the ref desks, I wouldn't expect a lengthy debate, because I'd anticipate very few editors would read that and think "yes, that's a great idea, discussion of books is really disruptive". However, we do (for example) have problems with dealing with queries that are similar to medical or legal ones and discussion occurs here fitfully about the best way to deal with these, because a genuine problem exists. To be frank, I think that the biggest problem a newbie has regarding these desks is finding them in the first place. Once they're discovered, they're quite easy to navigate, even if the logic isn't rigorous. Proposals for how to find the desks more easily may well prompt more discussion - and more enthusiasm. Don't be disheartened - Wikipedia has developed because lots of ideas have been thrown up, most of which (including lots of very good ones) were discounted for one reason or another. If people stopped offering ideas, we'd stagnate. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But, I still think the best way to represent this feature of Wikipedia is as a "Reference Desk", in the singular. If it is felt that finding this area of Wikipedia is especially important (and I agree about that), why not have a prominent link to "Reference Desk," perhaps right beneath "Current events" and "Random article," under "navigation," on the left hand side of the screen? Notice that only one term is necessary: Reference Desk. When arriving there, a user would post their question exactly as before, but they would then choose a "sub Reference Desk" onto which it should be placed. Forgive me for droning on. I just feel there is logic to arranging the area this way. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why's that significantly better than them finding the existing Wikipedia:Reference desk page and then choosing where to go before posting their question? --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the logic of first finding the place to ask any question, and then only secondarily choosing the more specific place to place the question. Doing things this way dovetails with solutions to a couple of other problems too: An increasing number of reference desks would more easily be dealt with, or not dealt with at all by the original questioner, by the use of one main reference desk. The increased number of reference desks would alleviate certain problems. An increased number of reference desks (sub reference desks) could be more correctly labeled. That is a beautiful thing in and of itself. Nomenclature is inherently educational. Furthermore, an increased number of sub reference desks would allow for more fine tuned watch listing. Any user could check or uncheck any reference desk for watch-listing, more correctly reflecting their interests. And still furthermore, the increased number of reference desks (sub reference desks) would each carry a smaller load of activity, making monitoring them an easier and more meaningful activity. But I have one more proposal: Ideally users should be able to choose how to watch list activity in the Reference Desk area of Wikipedia. I know this is asking a bit much, but in recognition of the disagreement over this, wouldn't it be best if people could watch-list things in more than one way? It would be nice if users could combine sub reference desks for combined watch listing, or leave them separate, for separate watch listing. I guess I just see software as a solution to this, at least to some degree. Don't ask me to write the software, because I haven't got a clue. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what you're proposing. "first finding the place to ask any question, and then only secondarily choosing the more specific place to place the question" is exactly how Wikipedia:Reference desk works. Slow down and someone might agree with you, but you're offering solutions before I understand the problem. You're also unlikely to find consensus emerging on this proposal at the foot of a section which is dealing with an entirely different proposal that's not found favour. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've only skimmed this discussion (i.e. read every word but didn't stop to ponder each point). I share the concern that law, finance and economics are lumped into Humanities. I don't watch Humanities because these (literature, religion) are more in the philosophical arena where I'm sure much more knowledgeable editors than I can comment. On the other three topics though, while by no means an expert, I could offer commentary and research. I generally agree with another category containing "practical" topics - not necessarily named "Social Science" and not including Psychology (which given some of the proposals for DSM-V could rank with Economics for the comedy page) This desk would deal with somewhat real-world questions which are not science, computing, math or language-oriented. Some of these questions currently end up on the Misc desk (or at least that's where I see them) because, to me at least, asking what the formula is to find the effective annual compounding interest rate is for a strip-bond is not a "Humanity". Franamax (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about dividing the topics into fire, air, earth, and water? Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot heart. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is aether that is the one missing from that list. SpinningSpark 09:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - then I have to vote for Oopsie, Cheer, Funshine, Grumpy, and Share for the correspondingly renamed Talk: pages. SteveBaker (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How about What's that button do again?, I should have paid attention in science class..., PIE IS NOT SQUARE!, Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?, Whatchu say?, Like, OMG, she did what?, I have no idea whats going on..., and Over the hill.Drew Smith What I've done 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally a strong supporter of fewer-desks-plus-more-frequent-archiving but some of the points above by Wikiant and Franamax are quite compelling. 1) Economics is a social science which is distinct from humanities and 2) Finance is neither. 1 can probably be dealt with by renaming Humanities to "Humanities and social sciences" (which is what it turns out to be in practice) or something like that. Regarding 2, I think we should not encourage finance questions to go on the humanities desk - imho they receive better answers on Misc anyway. I vote we remove the reference to Finance from the Humanities category on the front page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe that renaming "Humanities" to "Humanities and Social Sciences" or, to follow up on related comments, "Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences" would improve what we have now. This still doesn't solve the problem that the frequency of postings limits the likelihood of potential answerers being aware of specific questions, but that's a different matter. Wikiant (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Providing Executable Programs on the Reference Desk

In response to a request on the Computing Desk, User:Andreas_Rejbrand provided a (very helpful) response in the form of a compiled binary program. I'm worried that this might set a dangerous precedent. Because our desk has uncontrolled access, if we make a habit of providing binary programs, the desk might become a fantastic place to disseminate malware. While I recognize and can evaluate the risks of running untrusted programs, many of the readers who come to the desk probably cannot make that judgement call. I'm wondering if we need a policy regarding the creation and distribution of binary programs in response to requests. At the very least, source-code and a checksum or a cryptographic hash should be provided so that the user or some third-party can verify the contents of the binary. I only bring this up because it is not standard procedure for the Reference Desk to design and provide executable programs in response to questions. If we decide to make this a precedent, we might be inviting a lot of less-than-helpful responses by people who want to release their malware onto unsuspecting users. (This is in no way meant to disparage Andreas' response, but this is a legitimate worry on a public forum). Nimur (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Andreas provided a link to a compiled program on his own server. We frequently provide links to programs available for download on various more or less trusted sites, when people are looking for software that can perform a given task. Why do you feel that it is more troubling when the site is a server controlled by a wikipedian? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

While the RD could be used to traffic trojans, I seriously doubt that it will become a problem. It is much easier to spam the world with "J.Lo Nekkid - Click to open Video" executables than it is to get thousands (millions?) of people to install the program from the RD. -- kainaw™ 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

can you provide a link to that please? I am interested in downloading SpinningSpark 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nimur's objection, but think there's less a risk of malware vendors than pranksters replacing the link to the helpful program with one that does "rm -rf /" or similar. Any talk of checksums seems silly, since anyone sophisticated enough to use them can certainly also run a compiler. --Sean 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, if someone is silly enough to download and run some program off the internet without checking it first there is not much that source-code and checksums will do for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with your statement "Any talk of checksums seems silly, since anyone sophisticated enough to use them can certainly also run a compiler". While I could run a compiler, and have done so in the past, it's not something I enjoy, (particularly when I have to find 50 different libraries and then the thing still doesn't work but that's a bit OT) nor do I have a compiler installed on my computer that I'm aware of at the moment (well not counting Java and Perl potentially, I don't have cygwin). However I use hashes all the time. I suspect this applies to some extent to many, many people I know. And using hashes to verify e.g. some Windows 7 beta, or some Vista Service Pack or a large variety of other legal, perhaps legal, and definitely copyright violations is resonably common. Many people can work it out easily. They could probably also work it how to compile a program, if they really wanted to, but I suspect you'd find people are a lot less willing to do that then they are to work out how to hash something. Of course many of these may not do so reliably, e.g. using a hash without considering the reliability of the source; or thinking a CRC or checksum is suitable for authenticity verification or to confirm you very likely have the same thing that someone else said. Plus they may not be aware of things like because MD5 is broken, it's possible the source generated two different versions of the same file one which is malicious and one which is not with the same MD5 and other stuff like that. In other words, it's definitely possible that many people capable of using hashes could easily be tricked into doing something stupid. But the point remains, there are definitely a lot of people who could at least use them, but won't know how to use a compiler, nor will they have any desire to try. You are perhaps forgetting that in the Windows world, binaries are the norm. It's quite rare that non programmers will use compilers, even if they are resonably or even highly adept users. (If they need to script, they may use something like VBS or whatever which doesn't require compilation.) Many of them could learn, but they have no interest to, which is ultimately their right. Of course in the *nix world, things are somewhat different. I use FreeBSD sometimes and I do use the port collection and am fairly used to 'make install clean' and have even compiled something which wasn't a port once or twice (although again, if it doesn't work, I may not get much further). But that's a different world (and arguments about which one is better is irrelevant). Now I'm not saying the hash either has great merit, one of the obvious issues is that the people most likely to fall for something stupid won't know how to use a hash at all, and are probably not easily capable or willing to learn. But that's a quite different thign from claiming everyone who can use a hash will use a compiler Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand your concerns. If consensus is that such links should not be used, I will of course stop adding them. Sometimes, however, I just feel that people seek software that is probably very hard to find on the Internet (too specialized), but yet very easy to write (perhaps only 5-15 minutes of my time)... --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I also understand Nimur's concerns. Nevertheless, I repeat my observation, which was the first response to Nimur's post: We frequently provide links to programs available for download on various more or less trusted sites, when people are looking for software that can perform a given task. Why should it be more troubling when the site is a server controlled by a wikipedian? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand Nimur's concerns, too. But I think that an external link to a web page is as risky as to a software. Actually, I had encountered many times that some external links in Wikipedia articles to web pages, even to an official web site, were infected. A good example is the official site of Unified Communist Party of Nepal. In fact, there are thousands of infected external links in Wikipedia articales without checking or warning. --百楽兎 23:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that Andreas was nice enough to write the guy's program, but no one expects him to constantly monitor that his external link hasn't been changed to http://delete.my.shit.com/right.now.k.thx.bye.exe . --Sean 23:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Right - and the reference desk gets archived. Those archives persist, and search-engines deep-link into them, and nobody can be expected to patrol a 6-month-old link. Maybe this should be the job of a bot? Nimur (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the reference desk does get archived! Welcome back to Steve, and thanks for running the bot :D 80.41.31.27 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with providing a link. I wouldn't want to see binaries being directly downloadable from Wikipedia - that would be bad for all sorts of reasons. But links oughta be OK. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a python equivalent provided, short bits of such code are easy enough to check by eye for malware. I'd have thought executable downloads should be deprecated and users encouraged to download a system like Python or a compiler or Javascript and run some source code through that. Compiled code is not educational and is dangerous. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the person who provided the Python examples, and I confess that when the OP asked for a .EXE I was momentarily tempted to brew up one that ground their disk for a few seconds and then proclaimed "all files deleted on drive C:" or something, just to remind them that running binaries from people you know is generally a bad idea. When Andreas supplied his, I wouldn't have been surprised if that's what he's done. Still, we already have more than enough refdesk rules, and I suspect that prohibiting uploading them will become another reason for the overly blunt to chide the ignorant but innocent. 87.112.85.8 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In the long run, it is not our job to not provide executable code which might be dangerous. It is the job of an operating system to not make it easy for users to install or run untrustworthy code. Netwide, computing infrastructure will never be secure as long as it's possible to click one link (to a web page, or an exe file) and get infected. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an illustration of the problem. A well-meaning ip editor 82.44.54.169 posts a link to a google search in response to a question of mine. The first ghits are torrent sites and eSnips, and it is not clear where the software has originated. I'd say this sort of thing is a lot more dangerous than a wikipedian posting a link to code on their own server, code which they wrote and compiled themself. I see no obvious solution, maybe a template with some words of caution whenever links to executables are posted?? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

normal archiving resumes

I'm back from the briny, and scsbot is catching up on the RD archiving. Thanks to the volunteers who took care of manual archiving during my absence, and apologies to all for the inconvenience of some bloat along the way. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve archives the desks

Thank you Mr. Ummit, really  :-) hydnjo (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My resumé has long since been archived, in the filing cabinet in the attic. Edison (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Could we possibly get a link to WikiProject Resource Exchange‎ somewhere on the refdesk page? The project has a few active members, but a very slow trickle of questions. I think a lot of people could see this project if we put it here, and with the added traffic from a link here this project could take off and really benefit wikipedia in general. Any thoughts?Drew Smith What I've done 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:REX is intended to assist Wikipedia editors in writing articles, by providing access to paid sources. This is arguably a fair-use exemption for use of copyright material. Advertising the library as a general resource for readers of Wikipedia would push the envelope much further. I think the better strategy is just to make sure that our editors know the library is there, by word-of-mouth. Once an article writer gets a resource there, they never forget where the page is... Franamax (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fungus on leaf, pimple on ass

When someone says she has noticed a white bump on her perineum, she is told we do not give medical advice, and that she should see a doctor. If someone says his cat is acting odd, he is told to take it to a vet. So is it permissible to diagnose and recommend treatments for plant illnesses, such as the SciDesk question "How to cure fungal plant pathogens?"Edison (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a slippery slope argument. First, we rationalize that the life and well-being of a plant is equivalent to an animal (including humans as animals). Then, we can argue that bacteria is equivalent to a plant. Then, we can argue that the atoms themselves are equivalent and finally pose the argument that diagnosing a problem with a computer is something that we should avoid. Personally, I just put the cutoff with animals. Doctors and veterinarians are common. Plant doctors are not. Where should the questioner go? The WalMart plant center? -- kainaw™ 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and Legal practice are all regulated professions. I know that's not the only reason we don't give these types of advice, but it's a handy yardstick. Fribbler (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The potential for harm is much less. People generally value the lives of individual people and pets significantly more than the lives of plants. If the OP indicated that this plant was particularly valuable (very rare or has great sentimental value or they are a farmer and it's their whole crop in danger) then we would probably advise seeking expert advice, but if it is just someone's garden and they won't be too upset if the plant doesn't survive, then we may as well help them. --Tango (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still good advice to tell them to go to a qualified expert, but yeah, I agree that it's less of a big deal than, say, medical advice. Friday (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Better this way than the pimple on the plant and... --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Most engineering professions and some trades (like gas fitting, electrical contracting) are regulated, but we give advice on those, dont we?--ThrobbingTrousers (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason we dont give advice in relation to human life, and to a lesser extent animal health, is to avoid a lawsuit against wikipedia. It has happened in the past (well, someone attempted it, but I don't believe it went very far). I really don't think anyone is going to sue over a pipe re-breaking, or a plant dying.Drew Smith What I've done 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would advise against giving any "how to" advice on gas or electrical fitting (especially gas), at least, not without strong disclaimers attached. Unqualified questioners should not be encouraged to do this kind of work themselves, and I would point out that to do so is actually illegal in many jurisdictions. SpinningSpark 16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Gas and electrical are also covered by building codes, which vary by jurisdiction, so specific advice other than "contact a pro" could well be wrong too. General questions are fine, but wrong answers to specific questions can be just as dangerous to life and limb as wrong medical answers. If someone asked "I don't have any brass fittings, can I use a steel fitting on my gas line?" and someone else answered "Sure, you'll hardly ever get a spark", I'd be all over that in capital letters. Luckily we have enough reviewers here that a wrong answer will get pretty quickly corrected. Franamax (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To break it down a bit:

We generally don't answer questions asking for specific medical advice, because of the following risks:

• Physical harm to the querent, the querent's acquaintance, pet, etc ("life and limb" as mentioned by Franamax)
• Legal harm to WP or volunteers
• Harmful publicity about WP in general or the reference desk in particular

Now several types of questions have been identified which may entail some of these risks as well, particularly engineering questions on accidents waiting to happen. I am guessing that most people wouldn't classify the risk of answering a plant-fungus question as "physical harm to life and limb of the querent's apple tree", but, per Tango, there could be financial or sentimental risks. Other inanimate examples could include spilling something over an expensive (or dear) work of art. Or giving advice on how a querent should invest his money, for that matter. So we can perhaps add another type of risk to the list above (and it can be argued that this is part of the reasoning against giving medical and legal advice as well).

• Financial harm to the querent
• Psychological harm to the querent (damaging something of sentimental value, e.g., but also scare diagnoses in medical questions, or interpretations of genetic tests, as discussed a couple of months ago)

I don't want to write guidelines around these risks (nor do I claim that my list is complete or without error), but I do think it is worth thinking about why we would or wouldn't want to answer a certain type of question at all, and refer to professionals (with names and qualifications, and with accountability) instead. Basically, we don't want to cause any harm. Period. If I see a reasonably likely negative risk to my answer, I try not to post it. It's up to our shared but variable common sense, and I think most editors do think (and even empathize, because that's part of understanding the question) before they hit "Save page". ---Sluzzelin talk 00:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I love the Science desk!

"Penile's Erectiom Angel" - fantastic section header! :) --Tango (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

archiving

The archives for the last few days are empty (or were, last night). What's up? —Tamfang (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I just removed the top three days of archive links 'cause my browser is dying presumably on the page size. I'll reboot and take another look. Franamax (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of empty archive pages were created in advance, I think with the idea that even anonymous (IP) editors could then perform manual archiving during the "scsbot holiday". The bot is now gradually backfilling those empty days. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Using loaded words"

On the Science desk, a question was asked about executions by lethal injection. User:SteveBaker posted a response which addressed the question but referred more than once to the person being executed as a "victim". I think we all agree that Steve is entitled to his opinion on the subject but that the Reference Desk is not the place to debate it. I posted a short response:

Please avoid attempting a debate here by using loaded words like "victim".

To which Steve replied:

Please avoid being uneducated in the use of the English language...pick up a dictionary sometime. From Wiktionary, meaning (2) for the word "victim" is: "Anyone who is physically harmed by another."...being killed by the state executioner certainly counts as being "physically harmed". I chose that word with great care. I you choose to pick a different, and perhaps more 'loaded' meaning - that's a debate of your own making!

Steve is usually a most helpful Reference Desk contributor, but this time he seems to have gone off the deep end -- this response is disingenuous, insulting, and implies a POV, and I'd like to see some other people tell him so.

(Signing myself in the RD as) --Anonymous
(Currently, but not always, posting from) --208.76.104.133 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but I won't be telling him anything of the sort. What part of the definition of "victim" quoted by Steve are you taking issue with? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the subject, the Reference Desk is indeed not the place to debate this. I fail to see how refering to the victim of a procedure that kills that person as the victim of the procedure is POV or loaded, but I do see the attempt to exempt them from 'victim' status as POV. Steve can occasionally stray into insulting (as can we all), but this is not the case this time; his first sentence could have been worded less abrasively, but he is responded to the perceived tone of your comment. Maybe make yourself a cup of tea, read something unrelated, and come back refreshed. Skittle (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the disagreement is understandable. I think we all need to try to tone down our language, to chose words that occupy middle grounds between outposts of incendiary issues. If the issue itself is not of issue, we shouldn't make it an issue by implication, in the choice of terms we use to express ourselves. I don't think anyone is right or wrong. I recognize that "victim" refers also to some person injured by the person presently being put to death, in this particular subject under discussion. The dual use of the term can easily be understood to set off sparks in someone's mind, depending on their perspective, depending on their experiences. In these situations the middle ground is the most valuable. I will pose one question, though. Which is the word that best replaces "victim" in the context used? Or, should the context used be changed, to accomplish once again sticking to middle-ground areas on incendiary issues? Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)²

Perhaps you could explain further. It seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable to speak of the "victim" of an execution to refer to the condemned prisoner and it's less unwieldy to say than "condemned prisoner". The only caveat would be that in many situations (but not this one) it could be confusing as the condemned prisoner presumably has victims of his own.

It appears that this usage appears twice in the "Execution" article, once refering to an illegal child execution, and once referring to legitimate 19th century executions. The usage appears twice in "hanging", but never in "Lethal Injection".

I'm not familiar with whatever PC "terminology wars" are occurring on the topic of capital punishment, but considering the plain english meaning of the words, and the understood connotations to the general public, I don't see any problem at all with using "victim" in this context. You may not see the condemned prisoner as a "victim" in the greater sense, but he is definitely a "victim" of the process that killed him. (Isn't everyone?) APL (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would we tell Steve that? As others have noted, he's sometimes a bit abrasive, but you – the anon – were the one who decided to poke him with a stick here. If anyone here was looking to start an inappropriate debate over capital punishment, it was you, with your overly-sensitive reading of Steve's comment. Per Skittle, I recommend dropping the matter and making a cup of tea. For future reference, there's a convenient shortcut: WP:TEA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref deskers, particularly on the science desk, have a tendency to be rather literal. I think it is an advantage in what we do. The literal interpretation of the word "victim" does fit this situation. I can see how one could interpret the use of the world as implying that the execution was immoral, but, knowing Steve, I don't think that is how he meant it. He just used to word to mean what it means. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that "condemned man" is better terminology. It more specifically relates to the person in question. There can be no disagreement as to whether or not the person being referred to is a condemned man. But there are certainly people, depending on their background, who can logically be expected to take exception to, or be offended by, a reference to the condemned man as "victim."

As an extreme, supposing you casually mentioned to a family member of a person brutally murdered by the condemned man, that the "victim" was now being executed. Would not an element of conflict or confusion arise in the mind of that family member who more than likely reserves the use of that same word for their dear deceased family member, and not for the person who took that family member's life?

I find no fault with SteveBaker's use of the term "victim." But I also find merit to the point made in opposition to this particular choice of term. Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't say "the victim is now being executed", that would make no sense. He's the victim of the execution, so if you are using the definite article that means you must have already said he's being executed, so the sentence is redundant. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's the victim of the execution, but a better term is "the condemned man." No one is at fault here. "Victim" was innocently used by SteveBaker, but someone else pointed out that it was not the best choice of words, and I agree. But it is not such an egregious error. In point of fact I read it before reading the complaint about it, and it didn't stand out as problematic. But at the same time I think the person complaining about it makes a valid point. Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Only up to a point. If Anon's issue was solely that Steve used an inappropriate choice of words, I'd probably agree - but then, it would hardly be something worth spending any effort discussing. But he/she went further, by assuming that that choice was made with the intention of provoking a debate. There's no evidence that that was Steve's motivation. Anon did not assume good faith, and that's a worse sin around here than a less than ideal choice of words. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it seems to me that taking the polite request "Please avoid attempting a debate here" and responding to it with "Please avoid being uneducated in the use of the English language" is rather brusque and insulting. Steve didn't assume good faith, either; he basically called the anon an ignoramus, which probably is not the case. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure SteveBaker only intended his answer to apply to executed men? Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no requirement on the reference desk or the talk pages for a neutral point of view. That requirement is for the articles. SteveBaker addressed the question and was polite and those are the main requirements. A neutral point of view would be an impossible requirement when nobody else may have said anything about a subject. SteveBaker was obviously not trolling so I would suggest the OP grow a slightly thicker skin and be a bit more respectful of other peoples points of view. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, I am the OP, and this debate has nothing to do with me, as I didn't start it. I think you have misunderstood something in this whole thread. Somebody else found fault with what Steve said, not me. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I presumed Dmcq used "OP" to refer to the original poster in this thread, here on the talk page. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way I find 'put down' when referring to killing animals a bit prissy. Dmcq (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I personally wouldn't use the term 'victim', I see nothing wrong with Steve's use of it. If you were offended by the word, it's better to just ignore it and move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I read the sustained allegations against SteveBaker by user Anon 208.76.104.133 as an attempt to create discord out of one word of a sensible, helpful and relevant answer given to an OP on the Science desk. SteveBaker responded sharply but correctly that Anon's objection is invalid if one accepts a dictionary definition. Anon's subsequent post here attempts without providing any new argument to inflame us with a nonexistent issue. Two telltale signs of manipulative rhetoric by Anon are 1) the sentence that begins innocuously "I think we all agree..." as a cover for alleging that SteveBaker abused the Reference Desk to debate his (unspecified) opinion on the (which?) subject and 2) the sentence that begins innocuously "Steve is usually a most helpful..." as cover for a torrent of abuse "he seems to have gone off the deep end -- this response is disingenuous, insulting, and implies a POV". That last is pot calling kettle black. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough one. --Anonymous is a very helpful editor here and so is Steve. As we all know, Steve can be a little brusque at times. Steve, please don't personalize comments on the RefDesks themselves, editors have talk pages and Anon's IP doesn't change very often. Anon, please don't take a small breath of air and try to inflate a large balloon with it. You could have instead posted "I personally would not have used the term 'victim'" rather than making what amounted to an accusation against Steve. Now you two please shake hands and exchange flowers and chocolates. We need you both out on the desks, doing what you do so well... Franamax (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my original comment I should have said something like "what sounds like a loaded word". However, when Steve said that he "chose that word with great care", I could only think that he was admitting to choosing it because it was a loaded word, and then disingenuously justifying it in terms of an interpreteation not the one that most people would think of. Frankly, I still think he was doing that, but you may consider that that's just me going off the deep end, and I'm happy to drop the point now. --Anonymous, 20:07 UTC, June 7, 2009.

I was the one who asked the question in the first place, and I personally have no issue with the use of the word 'victim' in this case, no matter what my views on the actual subject are (which I have not stated, nor do I intend to). As has been stated before, linguistically, it is a valid choice of words, otherwise 'suicide victim' would also be inappropriate at best, or, if not, nonsensical. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've remedied this by turning back the hands of time here. Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rolled back your change. While it was well meant, it was unlikely to be helpful — changing the signed comments made by another editor to make it appear that they said something which they did not is just not acceptable.

As well, it looked like there wasn't any remedy required. The matter had died due to lack of interest; there's no point in kicking over the ashes now. Further, your fictional post introduced at least one error, inadvertently describing "victim" as more cumbersome that "the condemned man". If you would like to go to the involved editors' talk pages and invite them to shake hands then you may, but please don't put words in their mouths. (Personally, I would recommend letting sleeping dogs lie at this point.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK -- maybe you're right. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Never edit other people's signed comments except for trivial formatting changes. If you are going to make an exception to this rule (WP:IAR always applies, so you can) you had better have an extremely good reason. --Tango (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this is piling it on, but there is no "maybe" about it. What you did was a serious breach of both etiquette and the talk page guidelines. We realise it was done in good faith, but please do not do it again. SpinningSpark 11:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was accused of using a "loaded term" - that's not a nice accusation. So it had to be put right. The meaning of the word is perfectly clear. Where I come from (the UK) and where I live (Sunny Texas) there is nothing "loaded" about saying that someone who died was "a victim". We have victims of crimes - victims in car crashes - victims of diseases - and victims of death sentences. If you feel strongly otherwise - please remember that subtle nuance of language varies between dialects and nationalities - practically every word in the dictionary has a handful of alternative meanings.

What mostly bothered me about this was our anonymous critic was not assuming good faith. WP:AGF is a pillar principle. It would have been MUCH more sensible to have actually checked in the dictionary to see if there was perhaps a non-loaded meaning of the word (as indeed there is) that I might have intended rather than jumping in with a nastygram. In truth - I really did want a carefully neutral word and 'victim' is a perfectly cromulent one. So - either we must assume that an unjustified breach of Wiki netiquette was aimed at me - or that the anon poster simply fails to understand subtleties and inherent ambiguitues of the English language. I chose to AGF and assume that this was merely a failing of the previous poster's language abilities - so I supplied a correction - and I decided to indicate my displeasure by reflecting the poster's own language in my reply. Bottom line though - if you're going to attack a fellow contributor on the public-side Ref Desk you'd better be sure of your ground. SteveBaker (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, CONGRATULATIONS STEVE on using "cromulent" in a post on Wikipedia, that's been a longstanding ambition of mine which you've now wrecked. :)

Second, it's not strictly correct to say "our anonymous critic". We are talking about "-- Anonymous", who uses that unique sig for their own reasons. See the discussion here.

Thirdly, no matter what the provocation, you replied in kind on the public-side. Please don't do that, leave a neutral response and go to the talk page of the editor. I only recently managed to do that myself, rather than leave an acid comment in a public thread, I went to a talk page. Still shaking fist at Tango! :)

Steve, you know as well as any of us how important it is to stay professional where the public is reading. I followed up on Anon's talk page and they indicated they don't want to discuss any further. One way to interpret that is that someone else is thinking they may have made a mistake, but don't yet want to plainly say "Yes, I made a mistake". Or not, whatever, they've mitigated their position in the comment above ("Fair enough"), maybe not to your satisfaction, but that's life.

Please keep the counterattacks over here on the private side... Franamax (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Taxa

Taxa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Taxa has returned to the ref desk, and Taxa's recent nonsensical edits caused me to review the totality of Taxa's edits - as far as I can tell, this account has been used solely to ask a bunch of argumentative nonsensical questions and berate refdeskers who reply with more screeds of gobbledegook. Surely this account just a troll, one refdeskers have been inadvertently feeding for more than a year? 87.112.85.8 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember there being some discussion about this user last year, maybe someone would like to dig through the archives and look for it, it might be relevant to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.191.210 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole divide by zero argument that's going right now is remarkably nonsensical. I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_48#Around_the_block ... that particular IP address has been discussed many times. Here is one example with a couple of links relevant to the reference desks. There are many more. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a huge family, by the way: apart from the puppets mentioned in the thread I linked to above, there is also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julie Dancer. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all those archives, so I'm just basing this on the current question. "Troll" implies bad faith, I see no evidence of that. All I see is a misguided and somewhat arrogant person with very confused ideas, which I would like to try and clarify. In my experience, such attempts generally fail, but every now and then you manage to get someone to start thinking reasonably, which makes it all worthwhile. --Tango (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I applaud that approach. As has been mentioned before, some of the best questions are born in caves. This just happens to be an editor with a massive history of giving us the runaround and entangling us in long and twisted threads, sometimes flaming ones. There is plenty of evidence of bad faith in his history, and I think it is appropriate to let volunteers know for whom they are expending their time and brainpower. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't long past my bedtime, I might even read some of that history! Maybe tomorrow. Thanks for the links. --Tango (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that interesting a read, unfortunately. I wouldn't want to stop people from giving good and educative answers, no matter who asked the question. One of this project's important and effective principles is not to care about who wrote something, but to focus on what they wrote instead. It is only when people start wondering about the "what" when I feel the need to point out his history. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to give him simple, correct answers. He's an out-of-the-box thinker, he can probably reason his way through the explanation to his satisfaction. Nimur (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle I think that's right. But it would only work if there were a means of closing the thread immediately after that answer. Unfortunately, the reality is that other volunteers will not be able to resist engaging in debate which is what this questioner really seems to want. SpinningSpark 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"No" doesn't teach anyone anything. Debate can be a very effective educational tool. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in the case of this user, the only thing he is learning from a more detailed answer is better ways to tie you in knots. SpinningSpark 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to get rid of the Entertainment desk?

I haven't been around long enough to know what the discussion was like to bring that desk into being, but I've been a RefDesk regular for a few years now and it seems to me that, in all that time, the Entertainment desk has never been a busy one. Further, it seems that a number of entertainment-type questions are being asked on other desks, such as Humanities and Misc. I can't comment about other posters' motives, but it seems to me that they're using those other desks because of a feeling that they will get better answers that way. Speaking for myself, I know that if my question can possibly be suited for a different desk, I use a different desk over the Entertainment one. When I am reading/answering the desks, I also usually have that desk as my last stop, as there is seldom anything there that I can help with. There's obviously a feedback loop there.
My proposal is simply this: remove the Entertainment desk and expand the Humanities desk into "Arts & Humanities". As it is, I think there's a false split between the two. "Art" is with the Humanities, but "music" is in Entertainment? Questions on classical music get posted to the Humanities desk anyway.
My feeling is that, by combining the desks, we can provide better answers for those people who do have questions based in popular culture and, as a side benefit, repair a split that may have outlived its usefulness and thereby make it clearer where all questions of that type can go. What do you think? Matt Deres (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No opinion rendered on the proposal, but just wanted to cross reference the Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Categories section above which proposed splitting the Humanities category in two, in case you missed it. -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the most recent discussion on this topic. Franamax (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I didn't see that earlier thread; I musta been on RefDesk break or something. To be honest, while there were some rather vehement opposes in there, I'm not sure I detected an actual argument against the merge ("It would offend the regulars' sensibilities to see questions about anime sandwiched between questions about important things" seemed to be the gist of it, which I consider a non-starter), while the arguments in favour of a split seem to still be in effect, if not more prevalent. There were 126 questions asked in May 2009 - that's only four a day - hardly a burden to any of the other desks. In May 2008, there were 175 questions asked. Maybe May (I just used it since it was the last complete month in the archives) is an outlier, but to me it illustrates that the perceived ghetto-ization of the Entertainment desk has at least some basis in reality. Matt Deres (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to know what some of the original discussion was like, this, this and this give you a flavour. Ah, misty water-coloured meeeeeeemories. (The horror! The horror! We had issues with the archiving bot going down, people wanted to split desks to add their own topics, Steve saved us all, Should we split the desks? Splitting maths off, Splitting off computing, An ambition splitting/recategorising proposal, Society? Culture?!, Let's rework the whole thing! Has someone expunged all mention of seagulls from the archives? I couldn't find the contemporary discussion of the History and Seagull desks, among others. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Refdesk for business

I often see many queries on the Humanities Reference Desk that deal with business. Would it be practical to start a RefDesk specifically for business matters? Or is that too narrow a spectrum? I may forget to check this page next time I am on ikipedia, so please send a copy of your reply to my talk page. Thanks!--Ractogon (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but I'm not sure how real the benefit is. Is there a gain you're trying to achieve or a problem you're trying to solve? FWIW, "business" stuff (economics, finance, marketing, etc.) seems a more natural split from the Humanities than Entertainment does (IMHO). The problem is that we only have - at most - a question or two a day, so far as I can see, that would qualify for a business desk. That hardly seems worth the effort, but I admit we seem to be getting more business questions lately.

Normally, I'm a splitter by nature, but in the RefDesk I think clumping is usually more appropriate. Perhaps we could make up a variety of flags that OPs and respondents could affix to questions to indicate what kind of information is being sought. Folks only interested in business questions would scroll through the table of contents to find the dollar signs, while film buffs would look through the same table to pick out the film reels or something. Matt Deres (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto the sentiment, and as for the little logos, I could whip some up. This could be useful on all the desks...Drew Smith What I've done 08:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd welcome a business desk. I hope the "If you build it they will come." factor will apply to posters and respondents. At the very least we should have a list or something that tells people what questions go where for the less obvious stuff. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It would help to define "many" - that is, if you're serious about the proposal, dig through the archives and figure out the number of questions per month that you feel would fit the new Business Desk. I can't imagine it would be all that many, especially if you look long term. While there may be a recent flurry of business-related activity, there is a possibility that it's temporary, and will quiet to near nothingness in short order. Secondly, business questions, by their very nature, tend toward the legal/financial advice realm. I'm not sure RefDeskers, as endearing as they may be, are the best ones of which to asks "business" questions. (Or do I misunderstand the proposed charter of the desk?) -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspend a weight between two poles - how strong must the cable and poles be? (Science desk question)

I'm more than a tad worried by this. We don't give medical advice, but we happily give advice to this guy how to gauge cables and poles for a sign to hang over peoples heads with only part of the necessary forces considered. When we did Structural analysis in school such problems had narrowly defined conditions and quantities. The calculations required were still a heck of a lot more complex than "just consider the weight" There's software that does that kind of thing. He wants an answer that meets what he thinks the answer should be. IMHO this is a case where if everything goes according to plan, nothing will happen. If things go wrong you get a terrible accident. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Franamax has told him off meanwhile - sigh of relief. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)