Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 33

message: Any idea what happened here? It's just on the science desk, and the header is identical to the one on all the other pages, so I'm at a loss to explain this one--VectorPotentialTalk 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks very much like what the RefDeskBot did the previous day to all desks, but I don't know why it would affect only the one desk now. StuRat 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see above, this diff to the Computing Desk and others like that (such as this one to the Humanities Desk and this one to the Miscellaneous Desk) by MZMcBride caused the bot to malfunction. StuRat made this change to the Mathematics Desk, this change to the Computing Desk, and this change to the Humanities Desk. These three diffs reverted whatever caused the bot to malfunction. However, this change, that he made to the Science Desk, seems to be somewhat different from the other three, and quite similar to the diffs by MZMcBride. I suspect that StuRat made the same thing that that the first diff that linked above did. After the bot deleted the header, StuRat did again whatever it is that MZMcBride had done on May 12, instead of reverting to the layout as it was before MZMcBride's changes. After StuRat's edition to the Science Desk, the links seem to be more "cluttered" on the Science Desk than on the other desks, and the links seem to be more "cluttered" whenever the bot is malfunctioning. I recently changed the links on the Science Desk yet again, to make them cluttered, so tomorrow we can see whether the problem will happen again to the Science Desk. A.Z. 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What about my idea stated right above on that big post? It says that the bot didn't malfunction because of changes to the header, but because of changes to the links to the header, located on each desk. A.Z. 04:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant. StuRat 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot is supposed to delete everyday only the link to the earliest page of questions. When you write all the links next to one another, it deletes the earliest page of questions and the header altogether. A.Z. 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  By "next to each other" do you mean "without a blank line between them" ? StuRat 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. A.Z. 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Plainlinks|URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&diff=131173824&oldid=131172713|NAME=diff?}} 

message: Someone removed technology from the Science header (it currently lists "Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Geology, and Psychology"). I'm wondering whether the word technology shouldn't remain somewhere (another option would be calling that desk Science & Technology, though I actually think that's an aesthetically unpleasing solution.) Or is it obvious to anyone with questions on engineering, technology etc. to ask these question at the Science desk? (unless, of course, they're about computer technology). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored ", and Technology" in the list of Science topics, and replaced "Computer science" under Computing by "Computing and Information Technology".  --LambiamTalk 11:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I think the various lists of topics look better now. One minor additional question: The topics are presented like lemmas: Initial letter of first word capitalized, subsequent words without capitalized initial letters. Examples: "Word etymology" and "Requesting translations" for the language desk, or "Video games" for the entertainment desk. My knowledge on usage of capitalization is vague, so I'm asking for clarification. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recommendation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style for headings is to capitalize only the first noun of a heading. For visual consistency with the style of other two-pronged topics listed ("Finance & Economics", "Linguistics & Language usage"), I'll make it "Computing & Information technology".  --LambiamTalk 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding ampersands, guidelines are always a challenge, and I just discovered Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Wording. Also, these lists don't really look like headings to me, but I guess they can be seen that way. Capitalizing "Word" after a comma, but then not capitalizing "etymology" bothers me a bit, but it's no big deal. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, per WP:MOS I now replaced the ampersands with "and" and removed the final indicator "and" on each list to avoid visual confusion.  ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology questions 

message: For anyone who cares, there are other question/answer wikis out there.  I think wikianswers.com is one of the bigger ones.  I doubt the existence of any of these would make people want to not have a ref desk at Wikipedia also.  I'm guessing many of them are very broad in scope, whereas Wikipedia is focused on being an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ref Desk is focused on answering questions, not "being an encyclopedia". StuRat 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And there is also the Wikiversity Help Desk, and many other desks there as well. A.Z. 04:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other q&a wikis 

message: Is the gremlin back at work?  Clio the Muse 04:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this or this? I posted a notice on RefDeskBot's talk page. Shinhan 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for notifying Martin.  I think we need the bot to be a bit more rigorous, looking for a phrase like "<RefDeskBot: Start archivng here>", instead of whatever it's doing now, which seems to break if any change is ever made to the Ref Desk headers.  Unfortunately, Martin seems too busy at the moment to make such a change. StuRat 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also my suggestions above at #RefDeskBot problem for a more robust approach.  --LambiamTalk 22:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot AWOL 

message: The first answer-seeker at the Computing Desk on May 17 screwed up his question, and the date header got deleted in the attempt to reformat the question to the standard formatting.  Thus, there hasn't been any bot archiving for the new day since May 16.  I added in the headers for May 17 and May 18 in the appropriate places, but I don't know how the bot will act when it runs again tonight. –Pakman044 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding those back in. StuRat 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computing desk date heading issues (5/16-5/18) 

message: I have been WP:BOLD (god, I hate having to link to essays and the like to justify my actions...) and created the Psychology reference desk.
A question had been asked on the Miscellaneous desk, about psychology. This clearly shows that people don't feel comfortable asking psychology questions neihter on the Humanities nor on the Science desk. I think we should leave the Psychology desk there for one month, to see whether people start to use it. If they don't, we delete it for the time being, and wait a few more months so we can run another test, when, perhaps, the demand for the psychology desk will have increased. A.Z. 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this; test it, certainly, but I'm fairly sure that it will be vastly underused. Take a look at the mathematics desk or the entertainment desk - these both cover huge areas, but only get one or two questions per day. Psychology covers only a sub-section of science, and not one which people can ask that many questions about - indeed, I can't see a single question about psychology in either humanities or science, and only one in misc. Of course, this may be symptomatic of the discomfort you mention, but more likely, there's just not that much to ask. Besides, people ask questions in the wrong place all the time: splitting the desks further will just increase the odds of this happening. Laïka 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How does one question asked on Misc "clearly show" anything?  People ask about songs and movies and tv shows and computers and birds and flowers on the Misc desk; does that clearly show that they are not comfortable asking those questions on the Entertainment, Computing, and Science desks?  --LarryMac | Talk 20:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it doesn't "clearly show" anything. Nevertheless, it could be a sign. A.Z. 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, go ahead, test it, and then go and interpret the results however you like, since what other editors thought three months and three weeks ago doesn't seem to impress you a lot, once you've made up your mind. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sluzzelin, there's no concrete evidence that people refrain from asking psychology questions, but there's also no evidence that people don't. You haven't addressed this particular issue. I didn't create a new desk alone, I am just testing it so we can have more information to further discuss the matter. I don't see any risk involved with merely running an innocent test. We should encourage more bold actions like that, which will never harm anyone in any way and, still, could turn out to produce great and useful things. A.Z. 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that psychology is within the scope of Science, and I never said it wasn't. I never used as an argument for creating the psychology desk the fact that it's not a scientific subject. I hope you have a new argument, otherwise I'll just recreate the desk. A.Z. 01:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I said there are too many History questions in the Humanities Desk. --Eptypes 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) That's a terrific argument for creating a new desk for History. It is not a good argument to delete the psychology desk. Congratulations and thank you for our new History Desk! A.Z. 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Why? A.Z. 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I quote from above Take a look at the mathematics desk or the entertainment desk - these both cover huge areas, but only get one or two questions per day. Psychology covers only a sub-section of science, and not one which people can ask that many questions about - indeed, I can't see a single question about psychology in either humanities or science, and only one in misc. --Eptypes 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I quote from the above Test it, certainly. A.Z. 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked at the last two discussions you created on this issue and I did not see consensus that this desk be created, one might even interpret the discussions as reaching consensus that it not be created, so i am surprised that you went ahead and created it. -- Diletante 02:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the arguments presented basically showed that there was lack of evidence that there was the need for a psychology desk and that there could be a risk that, in my view, is not to be considered, namely the risk that no-one will use the new desks and the pages will be harder to navigate. Everything here is reversible, everything I did can be easily reverted. I don't really see a good reason why not give it a shot, besides irrational fear. A.Z. 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You strongly oppose something just because a need for it hasn't been illustrated? A.Z. 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reactions to your earlier proposal were negative. It was not like "I don't see the need but let's give it a try". In the face of that, it was an ill-considered act to go ahead and do it.  --LambiamTalk 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology reference desk 

message: The following post was posted on an older thread, and probably few people read it. I (A.Z.) am copying it here and creating this section because perhaps people would like to discuss this, or, at least, get to know the idea.
I like the idea, but I think the French Oracle is a lot similar to the English reference desks, except that it takes forever to load and that the regulars seem to be called habitués, which is much chicer. Also, everyone seems to start their questions and answers with bonjour. Anyway, it's clearly not a separate project. A.Z. 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference desk independence 

message: There has been no discussion and consensus gathering. Contraversial changes within Wikipedia should always be discussed first. The split of the Humanities desk should be discussed, and while that is ongoing, the status quo should be reverted. --Dweller 07:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has happened very quickly and has been quite fractious. I see no real support emerging for either of these two new desks and, at the very least, we should put them up and see if there is questions posted there, rather than move questions across to populate them wholesale. I support Dweller's proposal. Rockpocket 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding volume: All desks show the past four days. The Humanities desk had 25,949 bytes before fragmentation, less than the Mathematics desk (28kB), quite a bit less than the Computer desk (47kB), and far less than the Science desk (over 90kB). In terms of number of questions, the Humanities desk had fewer questions than the Miscellaneous and, again, the Science desk do. I also support Dweller's request to discuss first before performing major changes to the desk, especially when other users have raised their concerns here. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my bad, I thought it went without saying that history is more often included in the humanities than not. See also Wiktionary, Cambridge Dictionary,The National Academies Press. Of course, this alone isn't compelling: the study of languages is also part of the humanities, but that split-off seems to be justified, because the questions asked there don't reach into other humanities such as philosophy, art studies, religious studies, political studies the way history does. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the meatime can anyone fix the formatting at :Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header? Our friends who created their favorite desks added in the links and screwed with the formatting. They resisted attempts to revert until it could be done properly. I tried to fix it as best I could, but its beyond my limited skills. Thanks. Rockpocket 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the status quo should be the situation as before these splits, and that we should have a proper discussion first. At the very least, the questions that were moved unilaterally must be moved back.  --LambiamTalk 08:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much favor the restoration and then a discussion of the change. Granted, nobody 'owns' these desks, but those who use them should have a say before the remodelling. Would you want someone to rearrange your office and then tell you why it was a great idea?--killing sparrows (chirp!) 08:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Let's discuss these proposals fully before implementing them (if that indeed turns out to be the consensus, which may well not be the case).  JackofOz 08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here, let me get you some cookies and a nice cup of tea, and while you are drinking the tea you can read the above discussion...--killing sparrows (chirp!) 09:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not argue at all that the change was done with any but the best intentions, but part of WP:BOLD is that bold unilateral moves are likely to be undone. That should happen here. I will not attempt it because iI do not want to screw things up, but woiuld someone please stick ther desks back together as they were pre-move and delete the new pigeonholes. Thanks. Edison 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's check that we have consensus on this; see below.  --LambiamTalk 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanities Ref Desk split 

message: *I've posted at WP:ANI to notify admins about this dispute. 
*I strongly urge all editors to remain civil and discussive here - and on user talk pages. 
*Losing your temper will not help you persuade others that your view has merit.
Please keep calm. --Dweller 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep calm 

message: If I wasn't involved in the thread myself, I'd probably be deleting much of the second response to the Q (and therefore the third, as it'd be meaningless) as being OR and borderline offensive... and not an answer to the question. However, as I'm involved, I'd rather not step in and welcome consensus. --Dweller 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be removed, in my opinion. I asked the editor to provide sources or remove the reply. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's more appropriate to -- if anything -- strike it out with a note that it's unsourced nonsense than to just remove it.  Removing things does no good and smacks of censorship.  --TotoBaggins 15:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It did. It's time for you to stop. Now. Your tiny-minority views on race and Phrenology are not reasonable for inclusion on the reference desk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem was that you were saying that the Nazi's actually were able to tell Jews from non-Jews by their physical characteristics, when it is really very well documented that they couldn't. They thought they could, but they couldn't. The reason that they couldn't is because there are no reliable physical differences between Jews and non-Jews, because both 'groups' are quite diverse and similar. "Every race has its own characteristics" implies that you think race is something other than a social construct, which is the assumption that is really upsetting people, along with the apparent belief that the Nazis had some real scientific basis for their actions. I'm not saying this is what you meant, just that this is what it looked like you were saying. I hope this enables you to understand why what you wrote caused the reaction it did, so you can avoid making this mistake in future :-) Skittle 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that, if an incorrect statement was made, that should be corrected by follow-up responses, and there is no need to remove the incorrect statement. StuRat 05:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point. The reason for suggesting removal was to avoid disruption. Sometimes removal is clearly best option. Sometimes rebuttal. Obvious trolling is best removed asap. I tend to agree that this was better rebutted than removed, as it was not trolling, obvious or otherwise. If I'd been sure, I'd have removed it myself, despite my involvement in the thread. Cheers. --Dweller 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it was neither trolling nor disruptive, so should remain.  I also see that martianlostinspace has now lined it out, apparently "to avoid controversy", even though he believes those statements to be correct.  I would only suggest lining out your own edits if you are convinced they are wrong, and not to "avoid controversy".  Many true statements may be controversial, but should remain nonetheless.  For example, if the question posted was "Is there any evidence that the Creation, as portrayed in Genesis, is correct ?" and there was an answer stating "there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting the universe having been created in 7 days, and ample scientific evidence against this notion", then this statement would be true, yet controversial (to certain religious individuals, at least).  Such a statement should not be lined out, merely "to avoid controversy". StuRat 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish Aryan" thread on Humanities Desk 

message: Poll 1: keep separate Psychology section?
The question is:
:Should we keep, at least for now, a separate section Wikipedia:Reference desk/Psychology, or should its creation be undone and the contents (if any) be merged back into the Science section until consensus has been established, after proper discussion, that it be created?
I think 24 hours is long enough for this. Please recommend below either Keep or Undo.  --LambiamTalk 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we keep, at least for now, a separate section Wikipedia:Reference desk/History, or should its creation be undone and the contents (if any) be merged back into the Humanities section until consensus has been established, after proper discussion, that it be created?
I think 24 hours is long enough for this. Please recommend below either Keep or Undo.  --LambiamTalk 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Disprovable? So what is your argument against breaking the science desk into mulitple desks? David D. (Talk) 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean. Try to explain it with a few more words, and elaborate just a bit, please. A.Z. 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are breaking the ref desk into more focused units.  If this was done for all desks to the same extent we would have tens of different desks. Why is that rationale for not forming a history desk, in your own words, "easily disprovable"? David D. (Talk) 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *How much discussion do you want,?  I see tons of discussion on this issue, how many more pages should we write?  YOU need to realize that there is consensus against this change, and you should submit to that consensus even if you disagree, if you don't ... you start to operate in bad faith. -- Diletante
*Undo. Consensus is clear. I would undo it myself now, but would prefer someone with a bit more technical know how untangle this mess. Please do. Rockpocket 17:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls on new desks (closed) 

message: We seem to have lost the list of the other Ref Desks that used to sit at the top right-hand corner of this Humanities' page. Is this a deliberate move or an accident? If it is a deliberate move, could someone lead me to the explanation? If it is an accident, could someone who knows how these things work, fix it? Thank you. Bielle 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --TotoBaggins 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Parts (moved from Hum. desk) 

message: It doesn't seem to be there - jumps from May 15 to May 17 ... Adambrowne666 10:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  --LambiamTalk 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also fixed the archives of the other sections of the Ref Desk (:except for Pychology and History:), as well as of the Help desk, all of which were missing May 16.  --LambiamTalk 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Lambiam!  Now I guess the question is, did all the recent activity with new desks created and deleted somehow affect the headers, thus making the bot malfunction?  I will try to look into this, but I'm really not sure where to start.  --LarryMac | Talk 15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason (which, is not not clear to me) the bot did not run in the wee hours of May 18, when it would normally have archived  May 16. The next day it did archive May 17, but not May 16. (On some desks, May 16 was later erased together with the transclusion of May 17.) The first split-off was created 18:18, May 20, 2007 (UTC), more than 42 hours after the first time the bot was running while May 16 had become archivable. So the hiccough happened well before the recent troubles started.  --LambiamTalk 18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 16 Science Desk Archive? 

message: :I like the above idea by Sluzzelin; putting under Miscellaneous: Sports, Movies, Popular music, Video games, TV shows and all other subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories.
:Since Language desk has very less volume we could merge Language to Humanities, as language is still part of culture.
:What do you think? 
:--Hirakawacho 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, removing the entertainment reference desk and merging the subjects into other desks as proposed by Sluzzelin and Hirakawacho is logical and would make the desks easier to use both for the questioner and the answerer. S.dedalus 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is my memory playing tricks on me, or were there actually many more entertainment questions before that area got a separate section?  --LambiamTalk 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose, because the merger of Language and Humanities makes, in my opinion, no sense. When you want to know about grammar, but there's no Language desk, I bet you go to Miscellaneous. When you want to know about roots of certain words, you go to Language. Humanities is about history, the beliefs and traditions of certain groups of people, and how people behave. As for Miscellaneous and Entertainment, the people who answer questions at Entertainment have a better specific knowledge of pop culture and the like, whereas Miscellaneous is the one desk that I think everyone should watch, just so they can Google themselves up an answer, or even to learn from the interesting questions. In fact, oppose any merger/split of any desks until it is proven that we would benefit from a re-arranging of things around here. - AMP'd 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm, actually I didn't and don't propose merging the Language desks back to Humanities at all. In fact, I think that's a bad idea. I meant I'm not opposed to getting rid of the Entertainment desk, but nor am I opposed to keeping it (while, again, perhaps removing "Novels" from that desk, and adding "Music" or "Musicology" to the Humanities desk) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Sluzz, someone seems to have tacked your name onto their own proposal. I wouldn't mind the merger of Entertainment as much, either, but the idea that Language would be obliterated was too much for me. My apologies, AMP'd 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose - Misc is for things that aren't easy to categorize - entertainment subjects are very easy to categorize - our questioners seem very able to keep entertainment subject out of the misc list and that's a very good thing.  If someone passionately wishes to answer both sorts of question, they can easily watch both lists.  I for one don't want entertainment stuff cluttering up the misc list.  I don't see what the benefit is.  Feel free to shuffle stuff back and forth between entertainment and humanities - but don't do that in such a way as to wind up with an empty entertainment desk - it's just too useful. SteveBaker 01:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is 2 separate proposals in one, but I oppose them both.  I don't mind Entertainment being separate from Humanities, but it does not belong with Miscellaneous.  I oppose Language being merged with Humanities, for the reasons stated above.  --  JackofOz 03:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose  Entertainment questions tend to be fluff, like which character on Happy Days' said which catchphrase. Some of the questions could be moved to more appropriate desks, such as moving to Science a current Entertainment question: "Could Batman's famous batarang actually act like a real boomerang in real life?" and occasional questions about Mozart which might benefit from perusal by the usual Humanities crowd. Language questions often ask for simple translations and need speakers of various living languages more than the scholarship typical of Humanities questions. Little benefit and some detriment from the proposed move. Humanities editors with a working knowledge of several languages are free to scan for Language questions. Those who are not do not waste their time paging through them. People interested in languages can concentrate on Language and not have to page through Humanities questions they do not find interesting and are unlikely to answer. Edison 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose both - Per Edison. I like the current arrangement, and see no reason to change it.  I rarely read the Entertainment section, since my knowledge of Pokemon and video games is limited, and would rather not have those queries in sections where I might inadvertently learn about such things.  --TotoBaggins 16:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Entertainment to Miscellaneous & Language to Humanities 

message: Should we start a F.A.Q for each ref desk? I know on the computing ref desk every know any again we get asked the same question (eg. How do I download clips from YouTube?), It would get answer quicker and allow the answers to be improved. --Lwarf 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Few, no, very few will use them. ~ hydnjo talk 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we've sort of tried this before. The main problem was people getting round to making and maintaining the pages. I seem to remember we were supposed to add a question and answer when it got asked a third time. I agree it would be handy, since you could combine the best bits of the answers and refer people to it whenever the question got asked, removing some of the 'pot-luck' nature of the desks. I don't think it would stop people asking the questions, but we would be able to provide a more thorough answer, quicker. However, people would have to put in the work and be bold. For all I know, the previous work-in-progress FAQs could still be around somewhere. Skittle 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we can do one better than a FAQ.  We could make an entire encyclopedia, if we wanted.  Then, we could answer questions by referring people to those articles.  Sorry, couldn't resist.  Friday (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of "not being able to resist" check out this link ("Page Title" section if #... is broken) from two summers ago when AlMac coined iFAQ for infrequently Asked Questions. And while you're there look over some of the rest of the page for that warm Déjà vu feeling ;-)  ~ hydnjo talk 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, what I felt was vicarious nostalgia. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That was ... odd... Many names I'd forgotten. Made me wonder where they'd gone, although I see HappyCamper is still active, just not here. Skittle 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: An earlier attempt is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/faq, categorized by Ref desk section. Apart from the lack of maintenance, a problem with the approach was that it just collected the answers as given at the desk, which were not necessarily quality answers. Also, often what seems to be yet another instance of a frequently asked question actually has a twist to it that makes the canned answers not fully satisfactory.  --LambiamTalk 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you put frequently asked questions into an FAQ list, then people who read the FAQ and get their answers will not ask those questions.  Thus those questions are no longer frequently asked and therefore, by definition, should be removed from the FAQ.  In the meantime, other questions will have earned status as FAQs, meaning they should be added to the list.  And the cycle starts again :-)  --LarryMac | Talk 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F.A.Q? 

message: Does anybody know why the HagermanBot stopped signing unsigned posts on the desks?  It seems to have quit on either the 16th or 17th of May.  --LarryMac | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems not to have been signing any unsigned posts anywhere at all since 19:47, May 16, 2007 (UTC): Special:Contributions/HagermanBot.  --LambiamTalk 21:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hagerman himself appears very irregularly. He hasn't made any edits since 29 April, when there was a brief flurry of activity after a two-and-a-half months' absence.  --LambiamTalk 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HagermanBot / Unsigned posts 

message: I've been WP:BOLD.  Can anyone deny this is right and necessary?  No, they cannot.  --TotoBaggins 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL! Someone will probably delete that - but bravo! Would you consider expanding it to include 'my pet bird just did this... why?'-type questions? There seems to be loads of them on the science desk... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can an editor please explain to me what this section is about? The first post looks like mine announcing that I had created the Psychology Reference Desk. I think I understand what TotoBaggins means, but I would like to be sure, because I can be wrong. A.Z. 02:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He created Wikipedia:Reference desk/Seagulls ("Seagulls, terns, albatrosses, and related avians of the littoral zones") and moved one of my questions there. --Kurt Shaped Box 02:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! He is not criticizing my creation of the Psychology Desk, then? (by the way, I'm using a new screen name, but I'm A.Z.) subsequent fallout 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: He meant to move it (to /Misc, I assume), and accidentally created a page. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A point, a point, a palpable point! Bielle 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? subsequent fallout 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean my nickname, then I don't think it harms the project at all... subsequent fallout 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not if you keep it, but if you change it to something else (or back and forth) its a pointless distraction, for no reason other than to make a point. Rockpocket 03:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you think the distraction would be harmful somehow? I was thinking that I would keep the nickname for one month or so, so I can make my non-disruptive point, and then change it back. subsequent fallout 03:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think so - just teasing me for being a gull fanboy as far as I'm aware... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again!! A lot! subsequent fallout 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important new desk