Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask

message: The #wikipedia-desk channel has, in my honest opinion, been successful in the past few weeks helping with enquiries. There have been plenty of people happy with the service it has provided. I therefore believe that we should extend this positive service to as many people as we can help and add it to the header, similar to the help desk. Per WP:CCC I will be bold and add this if there are no objections given in the next day or so here. GDonato (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly consensus can change, but in this case nothing has changed that would make that a good idea. The objections listed in the archive are as valid now as they were a couple months ago. I guess the bottom line is that we already have a reference desk on Wikipedia and we shouldn't be sending people off Wikipedia, IRC is just a collection of chat rooms without any official connection to Wikipedia. wikipedia-desk isn't Wikipedia etc...RxS 22:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People should be able to see the full options available to them and just because IRC isn't Wikipedia doesn't mean Wikipedia can't link to it. GDonato (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they should have a range of appropriate options and IRC isn't one of them. Like I said, nothing has changed in the last couple months that would make it a good idea, we covered all these issues recently. RxS 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One very important thing has changed, the channel has been proven to work successfully. Countless queries have been answered, and I can't think of one person has recieved a response that is inaccurate or one they are unhappy with. GDonato (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no way to evaluate that claim because there's no oversight. But in any case, the objections went further then just the effectiveness of the channel. RxS 05:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do what you want in your chat room, but please do not advertise it here.  The Wikipedia reference desk is the Wikipedia reference desk, not the IRC reference desk. Friday (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Friday, the only thing I'd like to say to that is that this has only ever been intended as a supplement not a replacement (see above and archives). If it clear that the community as a whole does not want this I will drop it. GDonato (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  However upon reading the old discussions again, it seems clear to me that this "supplement" does more harm than good- it fragments the reference desks, and provides little advantage to offset this disadvantage.  It's a lot like suggesting we make Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science/2 to supplement the current Science desk.  Calling it a supplement implies enhancement- I see no enhancement here, only fragmentation.  Friday (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's different to that becuase it is a different medium of communication (and better in some cases thus a supplement/enhancement) - nobody has to use it, I would still expect the vast majority of people to use the wiki - it just gives people another option, especially good if they are looking for a quicker answer than the wiki, the successes so far have been feedback, for example, someone was asking the name of a film they saw, it took a few attempts to get the right one, feedback on the answers like that is much, much harder on-wiki. Imagine that question on-wiki, would the questioner have got the answer they wanted? Perhaps not. Real-time communication has its advantages. Finally, there is a link back to the wiki ref. desk in the topic and often in answers so the seem freedom of choice is gien back if they feel the users answering questions on-wiki would be more helpful. GDonato (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting it right is more important than getting it fast.  But, I suspect we're just repeating the old discussion- I don't think either one of us has said anything new.  Friday (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important new thing I was wanting to say was that this channel has now been proven to work very well in certain situations and I do not believe that answers have been any less accurate than at WP:RD. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we have nothing but your word for it, due to the inherent disadvantages of the medium.  As pointed out above, there were objections to this that did not relate to effectiveness.  Friday (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can come and look if you want! :) GDonato (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and it's not that I doubt it.  You say it works well in there; I believe you.  I still just see it as balkanization, which I don't think is a good thing.  Friday (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I think it's a good idea. Friday what is this "inherent disadvantage" to IRC? That it's not logged so that we can go back and scrutinize everything someone says? I feel a lot more comfortable in an IRC medium than in a WT medium- the person asks and I have a conversation with the person about it rather than waiting for hours for them to reply and update the section. This does have a less "academic" feel but who cares? They can get their answers faster and topics can be better explored. The channel is on freenode along with WP:IRC, which is advertised across wikipedia as a support medium for the project. This isn't some ref desk fansite, it's an important part of the wikipedia community that's already being used. --⁪frotht 18:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The disadvantages of the medium have been discussed here and there, but briefly: IRC provides no way for me to review recent questions and try to answer them.  It provides no way for me to see answers that were given when I wasn't in the chat room.  Go set up a question/answer chat room all you want- I won't complain.  But please do not advertise it here.  It has nothing to do with Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a terrible idea.  Someone can give simply awful advice - and there is no means to correct that, provide an alternate viewpoint or even discover that it's happened.   If someone wants to start a helpline independently of wikipedia, that's fine - there is nothing we can do about it.  But the name 'Wikipedia' is copyrighted and you just can't start using it for something else without foundation approval...and trust me, you won't get it. SteveBaker 16:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of discussion 

message: The other day I posted a request at the Ref Desk talk page here, and I was redirected here.  I'm afraid I'm not too sure what happens next.  I'd have thought that various editors would have views on this suggested wording change and might want the chance to comment.  But I, for one, never even knew about this page till yesterday, and I've been a regular on the ref desk for coming up to 5 years.  Enlightenment, please?  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for re-wording

message: This page needs a line something like:
* You should check back on the progress of your question at least once a day because sometimes the respondants may need to ask you to clarify some aspect of your question.  Replying to such requests quickly will help you get the answer you need.
SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer requests for clarification. 

message: 'If you are considering suicide or self-harm, please talk to a doctor, friend, or counsellor, or call a hotline.'
I'd add a link:
'If you are considering suicide or self-harm, please talk to a doctor, friend, or counsellor, or call a hotline.'
anon, 21:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: - This needs consensus before being added. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  add link 

message: Propose adding an archive search box to the reference desk pages. Specifically, the following code on the  howtoask
* Yes, you can search first. Please do this. Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search. Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia.
should be replaced by
* Yes, you can search first. Please do this. 
:* Search the reference desk archive to see if your question has been asked and answered earlier.
bgcolor=
type=fulltext
prefix=Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search reference desk archives
:* Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia.
:* Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search.
See earlier discussion on the  Reference desk talk page. Abecedare (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong support: Yes coz we have the same questions coming up again and again! --KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections in a few days so  Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive search box 

message: I propose that their should be an explanation of what a reference desk is, either at the top of this section or immediately above it.  It would look something like this:
The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to those of a library reference desk. Questions posed by users are answered by other Wikipedians.
Is there any way I can get a faster answer?
* Yes, you can search first. Please do this.
.
.
.
Yaris678 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of what a reference desk is 

message: Per discussion at RD talk, the line:
:Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search.
should be changed to:
:Please try searching the web using a web search engine.
Because this page is protected, I cannot make the change. -- kainaw™ 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the editprotected template to speed this up. To the admin: here is a link to the discussion on the refdesk talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search engine change 

message: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 200#How to search just the technical village pump archives? (now an archive link). It may be found in the archives there by the time you read this. Scroll down to the discussion concerning the Reference Desks. 
See Special:Diff/1108768023. Now the search box and search label is on one line. Search suggestions now do not block the search button on my monitor. This happens when the search button is below the search box. 
I greatly increase my text size in my browser. That makes the search box and search label even wider. So further efforts have been made to allow search to work well in even narrower devices. Without the search button wrapping below the search box. See 
Special:Diff/1109066550.
The 2 search forms will wrap to 2 lines on narrower screens, or large enough text. Method is described here:
*Help:Table#Side by side tables. Narrow your browser window to see below:
type=fulltext
prefix=
break=no
width=30
placeholder = Search Wikipedia
searchbuttonlabel = 🔍
   
type=fulltext
prefix=Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/
break=no
width=30
placeholder = Search  archives
searchbuttonlabel = 🔍
To see it in use see: 
*Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.
Or go to any of the other topic pages linked from here:
*Wikipedia:Reference desk.
--Timeshifter (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search box and search label need to be on one line