{{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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There have been (at least) two recent threads ("Japan Revenge and World Domination" and "World trade") which seem a bit open-ended and "forum-style" conversations. Obviously there is a trade-off in that regard with most Reference Desk questions, but since these ones are on particularly political questions I wanted to know what people think would be the best way to handle them. --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 11:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the poster's talk page? Looks like a call to spar debate to me. I guess you can direct them to the "not a soapbox" cite at the welcome box (then put your fingers in your ears). Julia Rossi (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent links to the current threads on Japan Revenge and World Domination and on "World trade". My personal view too is that we shouldn't be encouraging questions that are loaded or seek debate.
And yet, in general there are acceptable ways to handle these questions without removing them. One way is to focus on the "referenceable" part (for example: socio-psychological studies on Japanese perception and public discourse of WW II, or an essay by Japanese author such and such ... literature sometimes has more succinct answers to offer than science ...). Alternatively, if you're familiar enough with the topic, (i.e. someone who knows what they're talking about, and there are such editors), it can also be be helpful and edifying to address the question directly, false premise and all, and give an well-rounded and informed but not necessarily page-referenced answer. What isn't that great (again in my opinion), is when people start opining and speculating with only a very superficial grasp of the matter. Still, I don't think these questions should be removed (not that I'm implying you suggested otherwise). ---Sluzzelintalk 12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a response at the "World trade" thread which hopefully stops a rambling debate usefully while not pre-empting a transformation into a legitimate question-and-answer thread. I'm not big on American politics, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to answer a specific question, but I'll defer to greater expertise if I get over my head as User:Sluzzelin comments. --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for clarification is never bad. I've often misunderstood good-faith questions the first time around, and annoying soap-boxers are swiftly revealed when obliged to specify their question. But I admit I still don't understand the World Trade question, even with its first clarification. ---Sluzzelintalk 12:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soapboxing is when the OP states an opinion, not asking an open-ended question. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't think that we should tolerate questions that ask for the answerers' opinions. However, questions that ask for notable opinions are acceptable, imo. So "What opinions do major economists have regarding whether US interest rates will change?" is okay but "What do you think . . . ?" is not. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many times questions are phrased that way that don't require an opinion, like "What do you think the largest bone in the human body is ?". StuRat (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add to the guidelines to the top of the computing reference desk page. It would say that if someone provides a solution to a question you ask, you should let them know whether it works and thank them if it does. I've found it frustrating when an original poster fails to reply. It feels like you wasted your time. You also worry that they may not have even read your solution. I've noticed that the responses on this forum are more detailed and accurate than on other forums, so the OPs need to say thanks.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC) [banned user Primetime][reply]
Well, I don't think we can force people to thank us, but certainly saying whether the problem is resolved or not would be extremely helpful (on most of the Reference Desks, in fact). --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 12:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world, yes. Usually it looks resolved, and sometimes the poster makes an effort to let the deskers know if it isn't. Otherwise I don't expect to find thanks it's just a bonus when someone says they're helped/pleased. My pov, but mostly wikidesks are about putting stuff forward rather than much to and fro-ing along the way chat fashion, tempting though it is when you're chillaxin. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a template that does that {{resolved}} - and I agree that sometimes it's annoying when they questioners give no indication that they have received a response that satifies them/does not satify them87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HInhbIsIcho, you can always request feedback either in your reply or on the querent's talk page, but I think the expression of gratitude is best left up to the individual editors, not to be dictated by the volunteers. As JR perhaps implies, if everyone posted a thank you for every answer, there would be a lot more polite but slightly redundant kB floating around. (And I'll admit that the chillaxing tos-and-fros, when entertaining, are among the reasons I'm hooked to these desks :). ---Sluzzelintalk 12:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I with Sluzzelin on that. Also feel that the resolved tick takes up kbs and possibly pre-empts further contributions (even an early thanks can do that) so letting it flow and continue to hook us -- oops forgot to finish -- is my take. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like consensus is against advising posters to say thanks. So I can just put a note advising posters to say whether the issue has been fixed. Most situations end up looking unresolved to me and it's hard to contact many of the posters (on the computing reference desk, at least), due to the prevalance of people editing under their IP addresses. Unfortunately, I can't seem to edit the template, though, since I'm not a sysop.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that adding a 'closed' tag to a question also means that incomplete or incorrect answers are less likely to be improved. I'd say that a significant fraction of my edits to the Desks involve the addition of clarifications, details, and internal or external references and citations to existing answers; more than a few of my responses flatly contradict (with sources) previous answers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like an argument against use of the closed tag. All I am asking for is an update from the OP about the status of their issue.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've resolved your own issue here Himhbisicho, in that you can ask the OP at their talk page about the status of their post –– you might even get a reply -- ; ) <low res resolved tick here>Julia Rossi (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you just wrote makes no sense. I'm the OP, so I should post a message on my talk page? It is also resolved because I already did post a message on my talk page? Could you completely rewrite your post so it makes sense?
Oh, well. It's not that big of a deal. It's not worth any more of my time. I'm a volunteer, in case you forgot. You guys aren't paying me $20 an hour to talk to you, so I'm not going to jump through hoops forever just to let you argue with me.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please cool down. We're all volunteers here and that's not easy to forget. Anyway, I think she was responding to your comment "All I am asking for is an update from the OP...", in which case you're not the OP and it does make sense. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above, I'd like to know why and for how long. If it's been a recent target of vandalism, that's a valid reason, but otherwise it should be available for anyone to edit. StuRat (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was targeted by the Avril Lavigne vandal. If you look at the template's history, you can see that it was protected by Zzuzz as a high-risk template (as a header transcluded to a high-traffic page). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing is that IIRC, we have a lot of templates, including templates transcluded into templates. Tracking down vandalism, particularly for someone unfamiliar with templates can be rather difficult Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This particular page has been the target of highly disruptive vandalism, through templates generally and the header templates in particular (for some months now). There is an argument that the templates themselves are high risk (read high profile) due to their use on this page, but it's really the established pattern of vandalism on this page by one particular vandal that is the direct cause of the protection. The current protection period is that of indefinite not forever, but the risk has not diminished significantly enough to warrant unprotection IMO. I refer you further to my previous comments[2]. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have a right to edit that template and I consulted the community before trying to make edits to it. This is what the {{editprotected}} template is for.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You also have the right to edit the main page, but unfortunately that is also not possible (for similar reasons). The editprotected template is for specific requests and not permanent unprotection. If you have made a specific request (like a sandbox mockup, or the wording to use and where to put it) then kindly direct me towards it. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the main page and that template are the same. In any case, I feel too humiliated and outraged to comment any further on this issue. Obviously I am not trusted enough to make even petty edits to obscure pages.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, I hope all the umbrage isn't heavy. The headers are most decidedly not "obscure", and the threat of additional vandalism is quite real. --LarryMac | Talk 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. If someone added the word balls to the template, it would be the end of the world, and the edit would go unreverted forever.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC) [Banned user Primetime][reply]
Actually, no one would be able to read the reference desk for a time lasting between minutes and hours. I'll also point out this edit made minutes ago. Simply make your request and it shall be done. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Rm indent)What is so hard about recommending changes to the templates here? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they were fully protected forever. If I wanted a change, I'd recommend it here, get consensus and an admin could make the final edit. Simple. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Incidentally, if anyone's wondering why these template are still protected, see the section further down this talk page at #avril lavigne. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who gets unsettled?
I hope it's ok that I've removed this bizarre question, per the guideline "The reference desk is not a soapbox". 20I.170.20 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did the right thing, If the question was however asking "do parrots exhibit sexual feelings towards their owners" then it would have been valid although pretty wierd! Jdrewitt (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That’s going in my best of the desks list. Reverted or not, it’s got to be one of the more bizarre questions we’ve ever had. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have several problems with this removal:
1) You should have posted the removal diff here, so we can see how you did the removal: [3].
2) You completely removed the Q. Instead, you should leave the heading and a note as to why the Q was removed. If you don't do this, the original poster will think there was just some technical problem and repost.
3) You should also have left a note on the original poster's talk page telling them why you did the removal (but note that they might not get this message, if they aren't registered and use a dynamic I/P).
4) You should have provided a link to this discussion at both the original poster's home page and the location of the removed question.
5) Your stated reason for the removal seems wrong. The full text of the "soapbox" rule is "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox." This Q does not start a debate or diatribe, so this doesn't apply. A valid reason might be that "Am I the only one who gets unsettled ?" is a poll question. However, I don't believe this is the real question, just a rhetorical form. Much like "Are you crazy ?" isn't really an inquiry into your sanity.
6) Finally, I don't think removal was needed in this case, just interpret it the way Jdrewitt listed above. StuRat (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I see and agree with your points with respect to housekeeping, I do still maintain that 170.20's removal of this post was appropriate since the question is clearly asking for our opinions / emotions, rather than making a specific request for information, such as what I highlighted above. Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem if you feel strongly that the question should be re-listed. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, your right, I probably shouldn't have just removed the question without asking first, and I'm sorry I didn't follow procedure when doing it. The main reason I removed it was the phrasing, and I don't think the OP's question was rhetorical as he specifically mentions that the parrot in question has these thoughts about him; "namely me?" But I'd be more than happy to add it back if you like, maybe tweaked a little so it's a more direct question, something like Jdrewitt's interpretation "do parrots exhibit sexual feelings towards their owners?" 20I.170.20 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a good idea, 20I.170.20. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this question totally obviously a joke (quite funny in my opinion), and so the onky reason to put it back would to let others experience the mirth? (I really don't think there is a need for big discussion here?)87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it as a joke. Getting into the answer a bit, many animals, birds included, have very simple sexual triggers, so anyone making the right gestures or sounds, or having the right smell "turns them on". Maybe this is what happened to the OP. It's similar to how baby birds decide that anyone nearby who happens to be handy is their mother. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who gets unsettled? : When discovering that one's pet parrot not only has sexual thoughts, but has sexual thoughts about humans, namely me? Just to look at a parrot, you wouldn't think it. I'm quite religious and this disturbs me a little. --
I've copied the question here so it can be studied in more detail, I think it's important that we try to retain a sense of the context.87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the question here per StuRat's points; it is not obvious trolling and is an interesting topic if taken as a request for information. 20I.170.20 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation
This started as a response to the tooth thing, but I'm just going to turn it into its own rant. This is not intended as an attack on any individual editors nor is it meant to offend.
Whether or not this tooth business was a medical question or not, and I don't feel that it was, I think we can all agree that this question has been a magnet for speculation. Although offering medical and legal advice presents a liability to the wikipedia project, the fact is that on a regular basis members of the forum offer up answers they (often admittedly) are unqualified to provide. Speculation has become, perhaps has always been, an epidemic at the reference desk. I myself am not innocent; it can be tempting to provide an educated guess. But I'm just going to throw this out there:
If you are starting your response with anything along the lines of "I'm no expert, but,"
or "I'm not sure but maybe," step back. Consider that you might be offering weak speculation.
I'm going off like this because I strongly feel that the energy exhausted patrolling the desk for potential medical advice and other liabilities would significantly strengthen the forum if it were redirected to patrolling for speculation. Instead of offering up an uninformed albeit otherwise educated guess, we can direct the OP to WP articles or outside links where they can do their own research. We often do, but I feel that perhaps not often enough. If we just don't know, let's give the OP the tools to do their own research. I'll admit, sometimes speculation is OK and perhaps even warranted, but I also feel that in general it should be avoided like the plague.
I am not trying to claim that the editor's of the RDs don't know what they are talking about. On the contrary, most of the editors seem to be very intelligent and many also limit their responses to questions that cater to their areas of expertise. They set the bar for the rest of us. Still, nearly all of us are guilty of offering up frivolous speculation once in a while, and I think we need to work together to improve the quality of our responses. In general I'm an eventualisticinclusionist, but when it comes to the RD I often feel that a bad answer is worse than no answer. --Shaggorama (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The immediate problem here is that someone can claim to be an expert and appear to be one without actually being an expert. I recently altered my user page to ensure that everyone knows I'm not accredited or licensed as a hedgehog expert. I've read every book, magazine article, and web page about hedgehogs I could find. I've studied a lot of vet journals about them. So, I know a lot more than most vets (who must focus on all animals, while I just focus on hedgehogs). That has led to others referring to me as a hedgehog expert without asking themselves what truly qualifies me to be an expert. I could have read all that material and ignored most of it and gone on with a belief that hedgehogs are baby fairies that sprout wings when they turn 5 and fly away to Neverland.
As for answering questions on the RD... I feel that it should be, above all, a reference desk - a place to get referenced information. It is not a discussion forum or an opinion poll. However, if it was strictly limited to just referenced, it would be boring. I personally like it when an answer has a little personality. It can have a reference and crack a small joke. It can have a reference and follow it up with funny nonsense. It can have a reference with sarcastic comments about the reference. It is when a reply is a joke and nothing more than a joke that we start heading into discussion forum world. That makes it hard for me to disguise my irritation with users in humor. For example, there was a recent question asking if it was safe to read Harry Potter. Anyone seriously asking that question cannot be capable of putting words together to ask the question. So, barring dumb luck at forming a valid sentence by a complete idiot, the question is obviously from a troll. Instead of giving a serious answer, which the troll wants, I replied with pure nonsense, derailing any chance of serious discussion. My humor doesn't go unpunished though. Just view some of the nice comments I've received at the top of my user page. -- kainaw™ 03:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I have met someone who would ask a question like that, a very sheltered... etc. I quite like an answer that dares them to the limit of their (un)thinking. It;s something like "give them enough rope..." -- there's a term in behavioural psychology (and advertising) for it and artistes of it were Ali G and Borat. *sigh* Btw, an expert doesn't have to be qualified by an institution, but maybe a professional does, so in my world, you're still the hedgehog expert, and David Attenborough is the professional expert (and still formally unqualified afaik). Julia Rossi (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are a large number of very gullible people who really do believe anything they hear. If they get an e-mail saying it's dangerous to read Harry Potter or that Obama is the anti-Christ, they believe it, or at least it creates enough of a concern that they ask others about it, such as us. We should take such questions seriously and not assume they are trolls. Calling the OP an idiot isn't a good thing to do either. StuRat (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for being an expert, I seriously doubt if we will get a response from anyone with more hedgehog expertise than someone who has read every book on hedgehogs they can find, so please go ahead and answer any hedgehog Q's we get. It's also useful to get answers from many perspectives. For example, if someone said they just came into some money and want some ideas of what to do with it, a stock broker might suggest a mix of stocks and bonds based on their age, while a financial planner might ask if they have a mortgage or other outstanding debts to pay off, and a non-expert might suggest they buy each of their friends and family little gifts (at which point I would tell them I'm their friend and give my mailing address :-) ). Each response has it's own merits. StuRat (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and our resident hedgehog expert (though he denies it), would no doubt suggest a large donation to Saint Periwinkle's Home for Wayward Hedgehogs. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first thing we could tell them is to not ask for investment advice from random people on the Internet! :-D --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 16:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Julia and Grey. When I said "expert," I didn't mean someone who is necessarily accredited in a field so much as some one who has studied a topic significantly and feels themselves qualified to provide an answer. I'm only asking for the editors of this forum to take a step back before they answer questions, to restrain themselves if they feel like they may be offering speculation where it's unwarranted. Given the nature of this wiki, it would be pretty unreasonable to ask everyone to wave degrees around. This is not scholarpedia. Maybe we could list areas of interest/expertise on that RD-frequent-editors page? I don't know if that would make any difference. Perhaps if a question was going unanswered, we'd at least know who to contact. In response to Stu: although an answer from many perspectives can be good, I think we should try to avoid providing answers from uninformed perspectives just for the sake of providing an answer. In the example you gave, the non-expert's answer is entirely the kind of frivolous response I'm talking about. --Shaggorama (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here we get to the core of the issue. You've judged one of the responses to be frivolous, while I, Franamax, Nil Einne (and potentially the OP, as well) see value in it. This shows how we also apply our own perspective when judging the responses of others. Your perspective appears to be more along the line of the stock broker, and that's OK, if it happens to correspond with the OP's perspective. However, unless we ask a lot of questions, we probably don't know the OP's take on things, so would do best to offer many answers from many POVs in the hope that one or more will "fit". Thus, we shouldn't ban non-expert answers, as they are an important ingredient in the whole, as are the expert answers. StuRat (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on this: I try to make sure my first answer is directly relevant and either has backup in the form of an internal or external link, or I know for sure I can back up my answer if challenged (the earth is round, butane comes out the top of a main fractionator, etc.) Then there are the exceptions: if I see a question sitting around untouched for several hours, I'll take a stab at it, just because I don't want the OP to feel neglected; if I see that the responses to-date aren't actually addressing the OP question, I'll venture something to bring things back on track (like the poster asking for free airplane designs who got a stream of places to pay money for airplanes); if I see answers that I find questionable, I'll add my own questions to the thread; and if it's a refdesk-regular asking the question, I assume they know how to parse us all and I figure all bets are off, I'll pitch in with whatever thoughts I have. And it's pretty obvious that I also enjoy riffing on a topic once the serious bits have been dealt with.
I'll generally agree with Shaggorama, we do need a focus on providing good responses. There is a devil in the details though: firstly, if someone asks what to do with their extra money, suggesting they give it away is not at all frivolous, it's as equally valid as recommending a stocks/bonds split - in fact, that poster may be a qualified counsellor, priest, charity worker or just plain clued in to money vs. happiness; next, I do support patrolling for speculative answers - but what do we do when we find them? Remove them? Leave a note "this editor is just guessing"? Especially given that anyone, i.e. IP's can edit here, we can ask for relevant answers, but we really have no way to dictate them; a minor quibble that no-one's effort is "exhausted patrolling for medical advice" - volunteers are free to exhaust themselves in whichever activity they wish. Humm, I think that's it for now :) Franamax (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that we patrol ourselves, not set-up a "speculation task force" or something like that. But I'm glad you raised this idea of OP abondonment. I think it's better to have a perhaps completely unanswered question than a question where all the answers start with "I'm not sure but maybe," or "wow, i have no idea, but my guess would be that..." Providing recliner-scientist answers like this belittle the quality of the desk in general. Periodically I see a question left entirely without responses because the question was so esoteric that quite simply no one knew the answer. I feel that perhaps we should allow that to happen more often and worry less about the OPs feelings. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Franamax and StuRat here, I don't see anything wrong with someone suggesting an OP give away extra money if they simply asked what to do with it, that's perfectly resonable advise, not something I would suggest or do unless we were talking about a multi-millionare but still perfectly resonable. Now if they had specifically asked how to invest their money (which isn't really a great RD question anyway) then it would be going off topic (although still not friviolous) to suggest they give it away but that wasn't the hypothetical example. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking Canada might solve your Avril problem, but we have Celine and Shania poised to strike, and we've got Joni as deep reserve. :) Franamax (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
funny thing is the talk page seemed entirely normal..87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look hard enough. The 'normal' content was inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, the vandalism inside <includeonly>...</includeonly>. Algebraist 13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good - I apologise for responding to it - which I couldn't resist.87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I often stifle the urge to remove silly threads after someone (especially a regular) has responded - I'd like to remove them but I guess I'm not bold enough. Would it be okay for me to assume that people who reply won't mind the removal of the entire thread (along with their posts)? Note that I'm not referring to valid questions asked by OPs that are later found to be trolls and I won't report the removal here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so yes, it's clear from the 'quality' of the answers what the value of the question was...87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think not in every case; someone who took the time, however misguided, to type up a thorough response to a question only to see it summarily deleted might be understandably upset (I would be). Excersing good judgement and common sense shouldn't steer you wrong in general though. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an EntDesk regular but I think the removal was appropriate. It was a silly question <plus no-one answered with any valuable tips! :).
I may be marking myself out as a hardliner lately (!) but I wouldn't worry about removing replied threads, even if it's a regular who replied. BRD-cycle, if the regular puts it back, don't get bent out of shape; post here; post to the responder talk page and explain; there are many options that allow removal with ongoing consideration. As long as we don't edit war.
I'll ask for consensus here: if anyone (or sub-case, if a regular) sees fit to remove a thread, should we always leave the header with a "removed" note, or are there cases when the entire thread should be excised? Offensive language in the section header shouldn't stay - but should it be removed entirely or reworded to "Question removed"? This relates to courtesy, the difference between just vanishing a (possibly good faith but dopey) question and leaving it there with a note that "we don't answer those questions". Franamax (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was asked in GF (like most requests for medical advice), then something should remain but trolling (like this) and other nonquestions should be entirely removed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that whether a question was asked in good faith is very much a matter of opinion. Uneducated people may ask questions that educated people find to be absurd and assume to be a joke, for example. Or a clarification might be in order. For example, "Who is the President of the United States ?" might seem like a stupid trolling question, but perhaps they meant something more like "How do you list the name of the current President Bush so as to distinguish him from the former President Bush ?", which is quite a valid question. This is what assume good faith is about, we should always err on the side of AGF, and not jump to conclusions. StuRat (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This question is silly, but there's no rule against that, at least no rule requiring immediate removal. I'd have left it there with the following reponse: "The Ref Desk is not the best place to seek dating advice, I suggest you try elsewhere". And, when a removal is done, you should always leave the header, removal notice, reason for removal, and a link to this discussion page. If the header itself is offensive, then, and only then, reword it. "Sex" is not an offensive title, so that could stay. You should also notify the OP on their talk page. As for removing the replies, I also would be upset if I went through the effort to write a reply only to have it immediately removed because the question was judged to be "unworthy". Just as the question shouldn't be removed just because it attracts bad answers, neither should an answer be removed just because it's in reply to a substandard question. StuRat (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully others will keep chiming in? To StuRat, I agree with the first part, until notify the OP on their talk page - the OP is either an IP, where notice is of questionable utility, or a reg-user, where we can assume a minimum familiarity. In either case, per your comments, as long as the trace is there on the Ref page, why does it need to be followed up? Presumably the OP will be coming back to check at this page. - Next topic: if the question is deemed unworthy, it may be because it's unworthy. The fact that you (or I) have gone to the trouble of responding does not confer any sanctity or legitimacy on the question. You or I may have just displayed an over-abundance of good faith and got trolled. We always have the option of one revert - but that needs due consideration with the avoidance of thoughts of "you blanked my answer? I had a good answer. By crackey, I'm putting the whole thing back!" And I apologize here to all those whose good faith answers I've removed from Ref pages, I did it for reasons of principle, thanks for not warring over it! Franamax (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it does indeed confer legitimacy on a Q if a legit answer is provided. That means that at least one person thought it was worth answering, and was able to do so. This can be viewed as a vote to keep the Q. It seems quite presumptuous of a would-be deleter to decide that the person who responded to the Q is wrong (as was the OP who asked it), and that they are right, so they are going to delete it unilaterally. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that threads (i.e. questions that received comments or replies) should normally not be removed. If I recall correctly, I only once removed an entire thread in the past two years, here. I notified users who attempted to give helpful answers, and also posted the removal here, on this talk page. No one complained at the time. On one other occasion, I hid a thread, because the racist trolling went on and on.
Now, as for this case (and I'd prefer to stick to this case, and not extrapolate to analogies that have nothing in common with it)
- The title Sex is not offensive. Of course it isn't. I agree, and it didn't prompt any reaction or removal.
- The question "what is the most comfortable way to hunt britty lady in order to spend one night with me?" was asked by a newly registered account with no other contributions. I'll let the vocabulary of the question speak for itself.
- Then, the same editor restored the question and added "Does 'britty' mean 'british' or 'big-titty'?" and "To hunt a lady one must first obtain her, then you can hunt her at will. Hope that helps."
- Another user added "Search and destroy, my friend. Having some kind of game would also help."
- Finally, a third editor complained "Could somebody remove this revolting denigrating crap?"
Please explain to me how Wikipedia or the reference desk suffered from having this question (not some virtual question about the President of the United States) and subsequent comments (not virtually helpful answers or fictional comments about us not being a dating service) removed. ---Sluzzelintalk 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(note) by "vocabulary" I was referring to the words "comfortable" and "hunt", not the substitution of "pretty" with "britty". (And, obviously, I'm not letting the vocabulary speak for itself anymore now). ---Sluzzelintalk 16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OP posted in bad faith and this was a good removal. If the post was in good faith then we should be courteous but if it was in bad faith then we should remove (without reporting, imo). If you can't tell then assume good faith. But using WP:AGF to promote equal rights for trolls is hardly the way forward. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it was pretty conspicuous trolling, of the sort that we're hoping to discourage (so we can get on with providing useful responses to people who are interested in our help). WP:AGF doesn't mean we bury our heads in the sand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
archive
It is possible that the archiving bot could, on archiving, replace instances of wikilinks with the correct link within the archive, as well as replacing any instances of 'what links here' eg Pages that link to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk[5] with the archive link?
Is there anyone with the time and skill to do this?87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide one or two specific examples? Keep in mind that when I say specific, I mean that I might be able to derive a rule and do what you want - but it will only be what you specifically say. No mind-readers at this keyboard! Franamax (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the same process for all pages with links linking directly to the archived part..
That's the basic idea - did I explain well enough?87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing up the inter-RD links upon archiving is definitely a feature I've wanted to add. Thanks for the reminder; I'll work on it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks totally doable (I could do it IF I knew the computer scripting language you use etc..)
And maybe ignoring peoples talk pages etc.. Maybe the bot-speed is far better than I imagine and this is not a problem.87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this would be quite a valuable addition to the bots. I find it intensely annoying when links are broken by the archive process, making it difficult or impossible to follow the original links. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be possible to repair the archive links (in most cases), but again, requires someone willing and able to do it.87.102.5.5 (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my note of 12:50, 2 August 2008 above: I agree, and I've been meaning to add this. I'm going to have gobs of spare time over the next week or so; perhaps this is something I can work on. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your going to do both! that's great, I'm out of gold stars at the moment, but you (will) deserve a reward.. Perhaps there's an article you want someone (me) to write?87.102.5.5 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may be able to find a spare gold star or two, if Steve actually pulls off this major improvement. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
archives a bit garbled again
The bot had trouble with July 29 and July 30, but I'm working on it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remove
Instead of responding as I usually do I suppose I should ask - should this be removed ?
I don't see any particular need to remove this. It isn't obvious trolling (and I assume it isn't non-obvious trolling...?), nor is it needlessly offensive. This seems like a good opportunity to discuss topics like the current limitations of genetic engineering. It might also be worthwhile to note that the easiest-to-design flying pig wouldn't have front legs—existing birds and flying mammals have co-opted the bones and musculature of the forelegs to support the wings. Off the top of my head I can't think of any non-mythical creatures that have exactly four legs and two wings (cfcentaur). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not by any stretch of the imagination. What guideline do you think it violates? It seems like a legitimate and interesting question about genetic engineering. Also please sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I just assumed it was silly "pigs might fly" etc - and was wondering if the desk was being super hard line on joke questions..
"What has four legs and flies" - that's an old joke isn;t it...87.102.86.73 (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there probably are editors here who would like to revert questions for being “silly,” but fortunately I don’t think we’ve gone that far yet. :) Generally we try to revert questions that might result in danger to the questioner, or questions which are obviously not intended to be good faith requests for information. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archive header -> links to other Ref Desks ?
Currently each archive page only contains a link to that Ref Desk. It would be useful to include links to the other Ref Desks, as well. Here is my reason why:
If, during normal edits, I find myself on a transcluded page, I usually take that as a sign that I've gone back far enough on that particular Ref Desk and would like to go on the the next Ref Desk. However, from an archive page I must first go back to the current Ref Desk (and wait for an eternity for it to load), before I can pick another Ref Desk from the header.
What do you think, is this a reasonable change to the headers ? StuRat (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I suggest bolding the current Ref Desk to distinguish it from the others, if this change is made. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. Many editors unfamiliar with the Reference Desks might well find themselves in the archive after answering an older question, and wounder how they got there, so a link back would be very helpful. A smaller version of the right navigation panel might work, to distinguish between the archive and desks while providing easy links to the current desks.
Would adding something like the above to the archive header work? 20I.170.20 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
suggested response removal
I would like to recommend the removal of the responses so far to this thread, as I'm sure the Markendyulu family (and, yes, it's a real name) will be pretty unimpressed if they check back and see that. On a related note, I think it's time I took an extended break. --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide us with a diff that shows the responses you've removed. StuRat (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The responses were getting a little bitey, and while it might have been a good faith asking for feng shui advice, it failed to actually ask a coherent question. If nothing else the personal information should be removed. 20I.170.20 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I'd say a response calling the poster a stupid troll is more than a 'little' bitey, and could safely be removed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misc desk
For some reason I cannot edit that Misc desk to answer them - can someone move this response there?
Dear friends, the article you need is Vastu Shastra. --65.92.124.188 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain that this anontalk stuff is coming from the AT. And it's not just the name, I think he used a similar bot (or something) to vandalise my userspace. I don't know about Tor and checkuser, but would it be possible to use these IPs to find potential accounts he may have created? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving
Why do we still have 26 July (and, for that matter, the 27th, 28th...) on the desks? July 29th isn't archived and transcluded, either. Gwinva (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Summit mentioned above some problems with July 29th and 30th but it looks like it's been fixed (Special:Contributions/Scsbot) for the Science and Misc desks at least (which also only go to the 28th or 30th respectively). The other desks still seem to be having problems, perhaps he's still working on it or hasn't noticed the other desks are broken since he's busy working on adding the wikilink function he didn't see the error log? :-) Is there a different archiving period based on size or expected traffic for each desk? Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Maybe it thinks july is a leap month?)87.102.5.5 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I thought I might have time to work on the new feature is that I'm out to sea for a couple of weeks, although so far the job I'm out here to do has been something like 120%, instead of the 10% I'd overoptimistically assumed. But, while I do have an internet connection of sorts, its bandwidth is spotty, which is why the ongoing archiving is lagging. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the bots work, but does it have to run from your comp ? Is there a way we could request that Wikipedia run it from one of their servers instead ? StuRat (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, for the duration of this trip, I am running it from another, permanently-connected computer. But it doesn't seem to run as well on that computer (not sure why), and furthermore, lack of bandwidth from here makes it difficult to double-check or clean up after it, as I'm sometimes obliged to. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caught up (for the moment), I think... —Steve Summit (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RD/Comp copy edited
How do we feel about this? Seems well-intentioned, to be sure, but also contravenes the general "don't touch others words" thing. --LarryMac | Talk 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely well-intentioned but the top of each desk says to only edit "formatting errors that interfere with readability" so I left a note on the user's talk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Zain. I was going to leave a note myself, but wanted to make sure I wasn't overreacting. Still gunshy from some previous incidents, I guess. --LarryMac | Talk 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, while well-intentioned, fixing the spelling errors of others should be avoided. One reasons is that we may make the wrong guess at what word they were trying to spell, and thus completely change the meaning. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes, don't youeven want to leave your own typos to take a break from editing so particularly at all times? Over tampering's not on. (sez I until I swing into mo-ooves.*groan*) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or have desks such as science, language, help and entertainment been merged with misc -- and is there a leedle leedle loss of morale on the desks that they haven't been redirected? I may be wrong -- been away three days. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I once moved a question to the OP's detriment so I guess Larry isn't the only gunshy one. Anyway, my diagnosis is that the problem is a lack of tinkering whimsical inspiration :). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, a reviving cup of tea all round then. (a nice reminder) (And Zain, yours was just a one-off mixup, y'know...) : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mad Refdeskians forcing the sleepy OP's heedless head into a teapot
haha, count me in. (That one! No, no, that one's mine!) : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit section bizareness
On the Science desk, I find that clicking an "edit" link at the top of a section is opening a different section (sometimes the section below the one I want, sometimes the one above.) This make responding rather hit and miss. Any ideas what is causing this? DuncanHill (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, and am standing here waiting patiently to know. It was happening to me on more than one desk three days ago. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this and also sometimes get "Section does not exist" when I pick edit, even though it still does. I think this is what happens:
1) First I go to (or refresh) the page, which apparently assigns a sequential number to each section. Let's say the section I will edit is assigned sequence number 100.
2) One or more section is added or deleted before the section I'm interested in. This can happen due to archiving, a careless deletion which fails to leave the header, or if a question is split into two.
3) I pick edit, and the editor goes and looks for the 100th section, and either finds another section or none at all.
The cure, when this happens, is to do a refesh/reload of the page, so that the sequential section numbers will be reassigned. StuRat (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I've seen formatting problems caused by large images that extend across section boundaries; the [edit] links would get pushed down to the next section headline, and the problem could propagate down the entire page. Sometimes you'd also see sections that had accumulated two or more [edit] links. My understanding is that the MediaWiki software has been tweaked in recent years so that this is less of a problem, but your mileage may vary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BUNCH on that one. On the desks, {{-}} is probably the best solution. Algebraist 15:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove numbers from TOC
Has anyone considered removing the numbers from the table of contents? "August 7" would look better than "6 August 7". Putting
<div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div>
at the top of the page will remove these numbers. --Bruce1eetalk 09:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which then eliminates the numbering of the individual sections and that looks kinda naked. -hydnjotalk 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)
