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 

"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)

Look folks, it was MY question, I took no offence to the use of the word 'victim'. If this thread continues, I will delete the question (and corresponding answers). How is that??? Just stop it, and grow up! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

KT, I (and possibly the collective "we") note your comment here. However, you freely license all of your contributions here, so this is no longer your question, you lost that right when you clicked on "Save page". That's not a put-down, it's just reality: your post caught the interest of a few engaged editors, and commentary ensued. Regardless of your own feelings, I think this has been a relatively productive discussion. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think KageTora's point is well taken, though — it's probably time we let this thread pass quietly into the dark night of the archives. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 11 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)

I'm still in support of this kind of proposal. Either merge with Hum or delete (i.e. merge with Misc). Any increased burden can be dealt with by keeping questions for six days instead of seven. But based on previous discussions, there is overwhelming consensus against this - most users believe that entertainment questions receive better answers with the current setup. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:27, 12 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)

He's not being told to "just consider the weight", he's getting a detailed answer and being asked for all the extra information required. There is a discussion further up this page where I think we reached a consensus that the medical advice rule should not be extended to everything where there is a remote possibility of harm. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think I'm finally ready to comment, my pulse-rate has gone down a bit too...

Tango, I disagree with your interpretation of consensus in the thread above. As I recall, my definition of "danger to life and limb" was not unfavourably received. You are discussing a thread re-initiated from one titled "How to safely hang a suspended sign like this one" - realistically, do you sense no danger here?

This does indeed though allude to the talk thread above which Tango describes as a done deal and also to the thread below. The crux is the not-fully-discussed theory of "possibility of harm", which to me should always be the overriding consideration. Medical questions are disallowed, yet the human body has a huge capacity for persistence. If our answer is wrong, the OP will feel worse over time and eventually talk to an actual doctor. Steel cables obey no such strictions, they fatigue and fail, often in a catastrophic manner. I've personally seen the results of steel failure, it's not pretty. I don't care how the question is rephrased (and I'm kicking myself for answering the second incarnation) - the question is how to hang something over innocent passerby heads which could quite likely kill them. People, that's not a "Science" question.

So yes, if extended discussion is required, let's do it. If the desks need to be shut down altogether, so be it. I'm reminded of that little battle a while ago where some innocent OP made the improbable case that the chemistry prof had assigned a project to use one of your own prescription drugs to distill out the active ingredient, which in the case at hand was hydromorphone. Curious that. The end result was that the "defenders of freedom" posted another thread with a link just to prove that you can indeed make heroin if you use the right solvent. That was the moment when I began to question the existence of the RefDesks. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You really think the existence of a few questions like this is reason to shut down the ref desks? If you value the desks that little, I don't know why you are here... --Tango (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Having worked in engineering for a couple of decades I have vivid images of catastrophic engineering failures in my mind just like Franamax does. What the question invoked can probably best be illustrated by an analogy to someone asking something like "How much sugar do I put into a cake for a diabetic." We'd probably guide that poster to things like glycemic index and tell them not to forget the other carbohydrates like the flour and that diet plans vary between cases. If the person then followed that up by a question "Just how much sugar, ignore the flour" later on, would you think that would be cause for worry? Hanging a sign is one of those things that look trivial and aren't. Certain facts like that it is usually done by professionals using appropriate software and materials, falling signs rarely happen to fall on people who happen to stand underneath, the police being quick at removing unauthorized signs and such accidents rarely making the news lead to a false sense of security. I'm not even against people applying for a Darwin Award for themselves, when affects others on the other hand... 71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with this question was that if asked as a hypothetical - it's a fairly straightforward business of calculating strains and forces and beam bending. That's entirely the kind of thing the science desk does very well. However, if asked as a practical engineering question ("I'm hanging this sign next week - how thick should the poles be?") then the answer is like that of a medical question "Go see a qualified structural engineer". What made this particular question difficult or controversial is that when first asked, the answer was "It's too complicated: Go see a qualified structural engineer" but when the OP didn't like that answer and re-asked it, it seemed like a simple science question that we could easily answer with formulae and numbers. Where it fell apart was that many of the respondents felt that they were still answering the first question...which in all likelyhood they actually were. I don't think any of us did the wrong thing. The clear conclusion to the second question was "In theory, here is the answer - in practice Don't Do That!"...it just took a team effort to get there. I think we did OK - there is nothing to be concerned about. SteveBaker (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

removed request for medical advice: orgasms

This question sought medical advice, and several (well-meaning) responders were offering it.

Consequently, I've removed this question: diff of removal.

For editors unfamiliar with our process in these situations, please refer to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the removal. Please wait for a consensus to form, don't take unilateral action. I don't believe there was any medical advice involved - that would require some form of illness or disease, and I don't consider a difficulty reaching orgasm due to perfectly normal problems with technique to be an illness. --Tango (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging sections. --Tango (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tango. I missed the earlier section. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion this recent thread on the miscellaneous thread is as blatant a request for medical advice as it gets. The OP describes an activity that "sort of hurts but I'm not sure" and several users have advised her to go on ahead. Yes, the activity is masturbation, but that does not mean that we can be relatively cavalier about ignoring the "sort of hurts" bit - especially since the OP is most probably be minor. If anything our answer should have been, "Consult a doctor. Don't ask us. Don't ask anyone on the internet". Any advice on how to deal with this now ? Should the thread be collapsed ?

PS: I am not interested in recriminating the responders for their good faith, though IMO ill-advised, replies.Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I lean more toward the removal side. Despite my own great interest in the mechanics of masturbation (sorry Rebecca, but it's true nonetheless :( ), that was clearly a medical question. What other interpretation should be attached to "it hurts"? I was disturbed to see the question itself pop up but luckily missed any answers. I'm staying in restrained-mode right now, but to me that was a candidate for immediate removal.

Tango, I'm not sure which playbook you're reading from, but the general mode of action on the RefDesks is to remove first and develop consensus to restore upon sober second-thought. Are you now switching over to the camp which declares that information must be free regardless, and we must allow ill-considered replies from all and sundry to the extant thread, so long as any one single editor wishes the thread to remain on the desk? I've not yet seen that viewpoint confirmed by consensus. Franamax (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the "general mode of action" I'm familiar with. We rarely remove requests for medical advice, we respond to them explaining that we can't help and advise the OP to seek professional help. If individual editors feel they can help the OP without giving medical advice, they are usually permitted to do so (the rule exists primarily to protect the people answering, so the choice is really theirs). Only in the most explicit cases, or where there is a consensus, do we remove people's answers. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I too am in favor of removal but am afraid of setting off a new dramatic episode. Tango, can you comment, if you still object to temporary removal till clearer consensus is established ? Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I object to removal even if a consensus is established that it is medical advice. A simple warning should suffice. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whom are we supposed to warn ?

• The OP who by her own description is a scared kid ?!
• Or the responders who gave a kid the green light to go ahead with a painful activity instead of advising her to consult a doctor, counselor or parent and rule out medical conditions like ovarian cysts or psychological issues ?

Anyway, I think it would be better to discuss the change in refdesk policy towards apparent medical questions separately from this particular incident. Would you revert again if I removed the questiona and left a explanatory note ? Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit war, so of course I will not revert again. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Tango, this guideline – calling for removal of the entire thread in these cases – was established long ago. If you have a quarrel with the guideline, you are welcome to open a new discussion and perhaps seek a new consensus on what our policy ought to be. Alternatively, if you believe I'm abusing the policy, you can also choose to seek a second opinion at WP:AN/I. In the meantime, I would ask that you not revert my removal of the thread.

Deciding that the original poster was feeling pleasure and not pain is a matter of personal opinion on your part, and a call that she should make in consultation with a trusted health professional — not on the say-so of a random individual on the Internet.

In accordance with the established policy, I've removed the thread and I would strongly discourage any edit warring to restore it. I am prepared to issue blocks to enforce this policy if it should be come necessary; I sincerely hope that it will be not.

Of late, we've all be been taking a fairly light hand with requests for medical advice on the Desks. The vast majority have been met with a recognition on the part of our helpful Desk Denizens that such questions are out of our scope, and we've generally been quite good about referring posters of such requests to appropriate venues. I've been quite pleased with our responsible approach. In this particular case, I noted both several comments offering advice that contravened the guidelines, and and the bubbling-up of an on-Desk metadiscussion about the appropriateness of the advice being offered. Consequently, I removed the thread to avoid both further bickering and futher offers of medical advice.

If a consensus develops that my removal was incorrect, the question will certainly be restored — to the bottom of the Desk, so that it will receive its full measure of attention from our helpful and wise volunteers. The reason why we have this process in the first place is to avoid harm and edit warring in cases just like this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removal. One illustrative comment was, "She does not seem to have a medical problem...". This sort of diagnostic reasoning is not appropriate for the RefDesk - the OP was asking about pain experienced under circumstances that are not entirely clear (and can't be over the Internet), wondering whether it was normal. I absolutely assume good faith here - I am just saying that this crossed the line into medical advice, and agree with removal of the thread. --Scray (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about what the guidelines say. I care about what common practice actually is, and common practice is not to remove requires for medical advice but to answer them in an appropriate manner. That's what we've been doing for months and I think it is what we should continue to do. There seems to be an unfortunate paranoia among refdeskers that is resulting in an ever increasing number of questions being considered too dangerous to answer - there is even a section about this on suggesting that hanging a sign is something we shouldn't help with, and that is representative of the kind of suggestions that have become very common on this talk page. While most of them do result in a consensus to accept the question, more and more and resulting in the opposite decision. I believe this is eroding the usefulness of the Ref Desk and would welcome a discussion from scratch on precisely what our policy regarding the scope of the Ref Desk should be. We've had far too many discussions recently about how to interpret current policy and I think that is a sign that current policy is inadequate and we need to formulate a new policy from scratch. Would my colleagues here join me in a detailed discussion from first principles on this matter? --Tango (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c, the following is seriously deranged by Tangos post above, but since I already typed it...) To follow up after ToaT's cogent response, but on a tangential point: Tango, yes, you caught a technicality on my "general mode of action" comment. Let me clarify that IMO the "general mode" is to do no harm. This means that if in the considered opinion of a regular contributor here an incumbent thread is likely to yield unfavourable results, the thread gets shut down first and discussed later. Whether that happens via thread removal or substitution of a template is immaterial. The essence is to prevent well-meaning but possibly harmful responses by other editors not necessarily part of the in-crowd of regulars.

And related to all of this thread and a few farther above, I interpret the medico-legal restriction rather differently from the standard legal/publicity responses. To me, these are areas where the relevant information has not been supplied. If you ask me how long it takes for a photon to cross the observable universe, fine, you've given me all the parameters. If you ask me whether you should be able to reach orgasm without pain within a given time - hey, wait, there's 100 different additional questions I need to ask, and very few of them are appropriate for a Science Desk. Blindly restoring another editor's removal especially doesn't strike me as a constructive way to achieve whatever goal it is you wish to achieve. Franamax (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit I did not intend to cause a shitstorm over this, I thought I had made it clear in the original question that I wasn't looking for "diagnostic or prognotic guesses". All I was hoping for was some links to revelant Wikipedia articles, scientific journals, web pages, or just a name for the problem so I could do some research myself. I thought that would be acceptable. I was not in any way trying to solicit a prognosis or courses of action. I only created this new account because it's an embarrassing question to be asking, but I've been around the Ref Desks long enough to know not to ask for medical advice. I'm deeply sorry that my question crossed the line into medical advice, that was never my intention and I agree with whatever consensus there is in removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 June 2009

(assuming the above post is from the OP) It's probably more of a tempest in a teapot than a shitstorm (wow, there really is a Wikipedia article about everything) ;-)

The sad thing is that if the question had been asked in a completely 3rd party fashion, like "I'm doing a report for my sex education class and I'm not sure where to start. Could someone point to some references on masturbation? Specifically, I want to learn about difficulty in reaching orgasm and whether pain is a normal part of achieving orgasm. I might just need help finding the right terms to do my literature search." Then you might have gotten the desired responses without a bunch of well-meaning but needless speculation. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything stopping the OP immediately recasting the question in those terms, then? The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly our common sense. Recall that the primary purpose of the guideline isn't some cowardly desire to hide Wikipedia and its editors from public embarrassment or legal liability, but to protect our readers from the serious physical harm which may result from poor medical advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry: it wasn't your fault for asking so much as it was other people's fault for replying the way they did. It can be difficult to know what is normal, and what other people's experiences are, because people don't talk about it much. So it can be frustrating when you want to know these things. On the other hand, we can't tell objectively what you're actually describing. We don't even have the benefit of gestures, like we would if we talked about it face-to-face. What would probably be best from your point of view would be if you made an appointment with your GP, or school nurse (if relevant), or some sort of sexual health/family planning clinic. Some areas, like this offer special sexual health services for young people. In others, you might want to visit a family planning or Well-Woman clinic. Whatever you do, you can speak confidentially with a health professional. That means you can bring up the odd (but normal) questions you naturally have and be confident in the answers. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish people

Please stop feeding this thread, there is a plea for AGF and that the questioner may just be misguided. It is certainly possible he did not know, but it is as statistically unlikely as the million monkeys thing given that this user's second edit (right after this one) was to initiate an AfD, a complicated three step process that a newbie is unlikely to find, let alone get right, and whose third act on Wikipedia was inserting this nasty template. I agree with what Temphill said, troll, and we should stop feeding it. SpinningSpark 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So that's the one who put the silly AfD on the Garden Gang? I'm sorry I every spent any time on the Polish people question. I think I'll take the trouble in future to look at the recent contributions of people with questions which might be a bit dodgy. Dmcq (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that 'Britfags' banner an actual template somewhere? If so, it needs to be deleted. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re unintentional rubbish now corrected, my notebook sometimes moves the cursor because of a dodgy toutchpad. I try to fix it by ctrl+z but something obviously went wrong this time. It's very annoying, I see other people have the same problem but no fix and the company has repairs that don't work. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed post

Wikipedia is not for dispensing advice on the best methods to commit suicide. Anyone who restores that content after being warned may be blocked for disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. It's in the nature of the Ref Desk that people sometimes ask questions about things that are not nice. Clearly this person was not asking for advice on how to commit suicide, and in any case, our article on suicide methods includes information that's far more useful to someone who wants to commit suicide, especially as -- unlike the question you removed -- it doesn't deal with very unlikely hypothetical situations. Why is that not a problem, then?

In any case, thank you very much for the threat. That was a nice little cherry on top. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, and we're discussing this removal, BTW.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between writing about a topic in an WP:NPOV way, and answering questions about how to commit a crime. If somebody asks, how did Lizzie Borden kill her parents, you can say "with an axe". It's a very different matter if somebody asks the question, "Suppose hypothetically my friend wanted to kill his parents. What sort of weapon would be the best one?" When an inappropriate question is asked, it should be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And this relates to the original poster's question -- that is to say, "whats the best method of commiting suicide if you are locked in a room whit absolutely no tools (only your body)?" -- how, exactly? Clearly, the original poster was not in that position (as evidenced by the fact that he was using a computer, as he himself pointed out). It would be pretty unreasonable to assume that he plans to get locked up so he can commit suicide. In any case, we get all sorts of hypothetical questions not unlike this one all the time, and there's no reason to assume that the original poster is suicidal. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Per common sense, it's a bad idea to give people advice on how to do things that are illegal. If somebody asked, "Hypothetically I want to break into a house. Can you tell me what tools I should buy?" that would be another example of an inappropriate question. Why don't we start a discussion in general about how to respond to questions that may be inappropriate. If people have been answering questions like these, I think that's a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what was asked wasn't comparable to "can you tell me what I need to buy so I can hypothetically break into a house". Seriously, it wasn't. Now, it's not a nice topic, I'll happily grant you that, but do you honestly believe that he's locked in a room and only has his own body at his disposal, and he wants to kill himself, but can't figure out how? (Also, suicide generally isn't illegal, nor is attempting it -- depending on the jurisdiction, of course.)

People have an interest in obtaining information, and some if it is unpleasant information. Why do they need it? Well, people write books and work with fiction, for example. Some people want to understand how things work. Some people like puzzles. The function of a reference desk is to provide information to interested parties, and the idea that people have to justify their need is ridiculous when we're not dealing with topics that impact national security, or others' privacy, or information that is otherwise restricted. And sure, in some cases that information should probably be denied, when there's reason to believe that it's not a good idea to give it out. But even then, the information itself isn't harmful -- or if it is, our article on suicide methods really needs to be obliterated, and it's certainly not the only one. I've said this before on this talk page, but I think the idea that it's okay to provide the information in an article but not when someone actually expresses interest in it is pure hypocrisy. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman has followed procedure by removing the question and posting a notice here to initiate discussion and establish consensus. However, their threat of a punitive block is heavy handed, provocative, and does not encourage calm rational discussion. I agree with Captain Disdain - the removal was inappropriate; the question is not about an illegal act; and refusing to accept the questioner's statement that they were asking for information only shows a lack of AGF. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gandalf61 and Captain Disdain, and have restored the question. Algebraist 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call; I agree with restoring the question and I'm disappointed that an admin with little or no experience on the RefDesk decided to post threats of this kind. I would direct the remover to the essays WP:Bully and WP:NOEDIT for some refreshers about how we work by consensus. Matt Deres (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well (with the restoration - we don't exclude bad ideas - and the above comments on Jehochman's heavy-handed pre-emptive threat). Feelings escalate rapidly enough here without beginning the conversation that way. --Scray (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to echo what several have already said, it is inappropriate to open a dialogue with a threat of a block, especially to a group of editors like those at the ref desk who take their responsibilities very seriously. I would also comment that the rationale that advice on suicide should not be given because it is illegal is far from correct in all jurisdictions, and is therefore flawed. My understanding from the article Legal views of suicide#United States is that suicide is not illegal in the state of Florida, the jurisdiction in which the Wikimedia servers are located. SpinningSpark 23:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Couple more thoughts. Up above, Jehochman wrote, "Per common sense, it's a bad idea to give people advice on how to do things that are illegal." But this is a slippery argument. Certainly it's generally a bad idea to actively help people do things that are illegal. But it's not necessarily a bad idea merely to give people information on doing things that are illegal -- giving information (on 'most any topic) is what the Reference Desk is all about.

On the "hypothetical" card: if someone asks us a hypothetical question, I believe we should assume good faith and answer the question. If we started trying to second- and third-guess the every possible dark intent behind every question, we couldn't answer anything.

Finally, even if it is the case that common sense precludes giving advice on illegal activities -- our guidelines don't! We have a (reasonably) well-established policy for removing medical and legal questions, but not "illegal" ones -- I think those have to stay, unless/until the guidelines are broadened to prohibit them. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this poster a known troll? If not, how his or her intent determined when this post was removed per WP:DENY? Locked room puzzles are not exactly reference desk material, but they're certainly within the scope of normal, non-disruptive conversation. APL (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In many countries suicide is not a crime. In fact I support the decriminalization of people who assist in a suicide provided some protective rules are followed. On the other hand it does sound like some puzzle for a puzzle forum. Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, you went overboard deleting the question and thread, and you went way overboard with the threat. Tempshill (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is so obviously hypothetical and unrealistic that I can't even see why we are discussing this. This is similar to a question along the lines of "In [insert Bond movie here] James Bond kills someone by [insert incredibly unrealistic method in incredibly unrealistic situation here]. Would that be possible in real life?", and I doubt anyone would dispute that we should be free to answer that question. --Tango (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, we're discussing this because Jehochman removed the question. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ANI. User:Frank Bruno's Laugh has been indeffed, and he's been found to have operated at least two sock puppet accounts. Where there's smoke there's often fire. Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, poo on him. He sucks. But -- and I don't mean to beat a dead horse here -- as far as I know, he had nothing to do with the original question, he just reported it, and you took the bait. I mean, I didn't take issue with what went on between you and Frank Bruno's Laugh, I took issue with your removal of the question. (At the time, I didn't even know why you removed it, except for the WP:DENY bit you cited in your edit summary.) You barged in and snipped out the Ref Desk question based on a WP:ANI report made by a sock puppet jerk. It's not your fault that he fooled you, but frankly, it doesn't really cast your actions here in a different light. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved from page

I've moved this here, as it just takes up space without being either scientific or a real question. Answering questions with ill-informed opinion is bad enough, but such questions are clearly disruptive and just fill up the page and watchlistsYobMod 16:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That is right up there with a person asking the ref desk what color their aura is. Contributions/65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a rather pathetic attempt to soapbox. See the questioner's user page. The user is a vegan and states that his (or her) hunger is not the purpose or part of any creature or some other nonsense. It is really hard to tell because the user doesn't have a firm grasp of the English language. -- kainaw™ 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i thought there was something WP:POINTy about it, i just couldn't figure out what the point was. It seems more an argument for starvation than veganism - if animals should not be eaten because that is not their "purpose", then i guess neither should most plants, leaving a limited form of fruitarianism (that includes only the fruits that must be eaten to germinate the seed).YobMod 09:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But I think we are being inconsistent. See Course selection. It would be hard to compare the two questions, but they are both not quite straightforward, information-seeking questions. Bus stop (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A closely related question was posted to the Language Desk by User:87.232.46.250. I removed it and requested a checkuser investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RTG‎. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I've seen a user who went by the name RTG before...and with the same style of signature and similarly painful habits. The present RTG is a fairly new account - but early in its history there was a rash of username change requests with confusion over uppercase and lowercase versions of the account name. This may have disguised something nefarious. It's unusual for such a new user to have a custom signature block and a knowledge of the account name changing processes - which is also suspicious. SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A new account does not imply a new user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.90.144 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I share that nagging feeling... --Tango (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the checkuser request was turned down - but look at the edit histories - they are both editing pages about Irish rugby players...it's circumstantial evidence - but the odds are good. SteveBaker (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

... especially as RTG came out and admitted that he was the one who asked both questions: [2]. While the original question was pure nonsense, I think it is a little unfair to accuse him of sock puppetry and attempting to "avoid scrutiny" [3] by posting while not logged in. I think we're a little guilty of breaching WP:Assume Good Faith by assuming that RTG intended to disrupt the reference desk, especially given the English language difficulties. I can easily see the second question as asking for clarification on why his first one was found to be unacceptable. -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Life and meaning

The purpose of which part, of what creature is my hunger? ~ R.T.G 09:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mongoose tail, definitely. Try it stewed with fresh basil and chewing gum. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I do know that the Internet Oracle can definitely answer. Tempshill (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The part is commonly known as the stomach, and the name of the "creature" is known as you. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As a riddle, even the most hard-core vegan should accept "Your mother's breast" as a solution. APL (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this... ?

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Can_the_Lotus_position_be_bad_for_your_knees.3F OK? Just trying to calibrate. hydnjo (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer this question completely, it is not necessary to give a diagnosis, prognosis, or form of treatment for the questioner. It is asking if there is a correlation between the lotus position and knee problems. It is possible to rationalize that by "your knees" the questioner meant the questioner's own knees. However, I don't feel it is proper to change the question and then debate about the imaginary question that I just made up. I try to stick to the question that was asked. -- kainaw™ 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of question that should probably be answered by just giving a reference to a study on knees and yoga (I'm sure one exists somewhere) and quoting the relevant part from the abstract. --Tango (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Link at top right corner of page

Why does the ref desk template put a short-cut link at the top of the page? This is just a self-reference (via a redirect) and is not very helpful to anyone. Also, if you have the gadget turned on that lets you edit the lede as if it were a section heading, then the link written by the template gets overwritten by the edit link generated by the gadget making a horrible mess. I'm sure there must have been a good reason for putting this in but I can't think of one. SpinningSpark 22:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a nice little reminder of the various internal shortcuts to the desks. I like it, but as you say there doesn't seem to be a reason for it other than it's kinda nice. Oh and as for those gadgets, I guess that problem is only affecting more seasoned wiki users with accounts, and those people probably won't be confused by the mess as they've been around long enough to know that sort of thing

Yes, it tells you what the shortcut is, but it only gives you the shortcut to the desk you are already on. There is no point at all in making it a link, clicking on it gets you nowhere - other than confused. If you want to advertise the shortcuts I would have thought working them into the sidebox somehow next to the full desk names would be better. SpinningSpark 00:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see wat you are talking about, however the purpose of posting the shortcut is so people can easily nacigat back to tat specific refdesk by typing the shortcut into the search bar. I could remove it(if the template isn't protected), but I think I'll wait for consensus.Drew Smith What I've done 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made a test edit to the science desk that removes the shortcut. I have undone the edit, as there was no actual consensus to remove the shortcut, however I felt it would be good for people to see what the desks would look like without it. Also, lookin at the diffs, it appears we may be able to add a shortcut to the main refdesk, instead of a shortcut to the same desk.Drew Smith What I've done 04:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Shortcuts are listed at the top of many pages, not just the Ref Desk. Is there a reason the ref desk should be different to all those other pages? If not, this discussion should take place somewhere more central. --Tango (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)