Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 40

message: This post was just put on the RD.  Nobody has jumped on it as a request for medical advice.  It is possible that the person has throat cancer.  It is possible the person has been exposed to asbestos.  It is possible that the person has pneumonia and is about to die.  Yet, by answering this question, it is possible that someone could cause the person to either stop taking aspirin as prescribed by a doctor for heart disease or start taking massive amounts of aspirin and adversely affect some other medication he or she is taking.  So, providing an answer here could be DISASTEROUS!  How is it that this is a "safe" question and "What helps a person burp?" is a banned request for medical advice?  All I see is a terrible double-standard.  When someone wants to call it medical advice, they absolutely refuse to comprehend anything different.  When they don't think it is medical advice, they absolutely refuse to comprehend anything different. -- kainaw™ 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree, I'm afraid. Assuming good faith, there is no reason to believe the question is anything other than a request for information to help improve the Aspirin article, or perhaps a student attempting to learn more about the mechanism of Aspirin action. Nowhere does the OP say he or she has personal symptoms, nowhere do the ask for advice on how to alleviate those. If you are suggesting we do not answer questions because of a possibility it might be inspired by a medical symptom then we may as well stop answering every question that is related to human biology. I, personally, didn't have an issue with the answers to the burping question, but there is a key difference: that question was phrased specifically: "Whenever I have a stomach full of gas, I have a hard time burping it out." Rockpocket 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical advice double standard 

message: Can we please all come back to the question posed by the OOTC (Originator Of This Thread), namely, whether we support a replacement text aimed at questioners (an issue to which the appropriateness of the – possibly overeager – behaviour of question responders and removers is not particularly germane)? I have repeated the proposed text below. For easy comparison, I also give the present text, all made festive by the application of the Season's colours  --Lambiam 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the original question 

message: It looks like we're not getting any more suggestions for "The RefDesk Contributor's Barnstar" - so I suggest we vote between the options offered:
  Image:Refdesk barnstar candidate1.png | (A)
  Image:Temp_refdesk_I_need_you_Barnstar.png | (B)
  Image:Temp_refdesk_Chocolate_Barnstar.png  | (C)
  Image:Temp_refdesk_Librarian_Barnstar.png | (D)
  Image:Temp_refdesk_Hairy_Barnstar.png | (E)
  Image:Temp_refdesk_Hairy_Flower_Barnstar.png | (F)
Please reply with "* Support (x) ~~~~" to support image (x) above or "* Reject ...reasons... ~~~~" if you don't like any of them or if you hate the idea of there even being a RefDesk barnstar (or if you are just having a bad day and are feeling generally curmudgeonly!)...if there is one you like but feel a small variation on it would be better, then please support and explain what you think would improve it rather than rejecting. Also, remember that this is an award to be given to worthy contributors - not the 'logo' of the ref-desk itself or anything like that. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed this discussion on my watchlist, and not that I'm a regular ref desk contributor anymore, but... F is hard on the eyes. Really.  I think it has too many hard edges and to much noise.  I feel like my eyes are going to explode.  I think it'd be my favorite if the options were to have 400x400 barnstars or something, but as small as it is, its just too much I think, maybe it's not so much the edges, but the lack of white space and the "WTF IS THAT!?!" aspect of it.  I don't know. (Should this be moved up with the other votes as a Reject(f)?? If so I give whomever permission, Thanks.)  Root4(one) 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a certain "'WTF is that?" quality is rather appropriate for a ref-desk barnstar! DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the WikiProject Supernovae barnstar obviously :/ --⁪ffroth 02:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, go for it, looks good. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar - Vote. 

message: It might be because you're playing silly bugggers on the Reference Desk.  Please stop, and the situation should resolve on its own.
----
Most questions seeking medical advice are removed from the Desk without comment and without controversy.  Occasionally we have a mess, and I think it might be worthwhile to look at what went wrong and what might be done differently in the future.  This post mortem is on a question posted under the heading can't wait to pee . . . then can't pee.  I have listed all of the edits to the thread here, save for typo corrections and SineBot edits.
*First post was by an anon about a day and a half ago: .
::This is something that I have happen a lot (no smart comments here! lol): I'm driving home and part way there, I gotta pee. Of course I have to hold it. The closer I get to home, the worse I have to pee. By the time I get inside and up to the toilet, I can barely hold it any longer. However, once I am in position to actually have a pee . . . it takes forever to begin! Any suggestions (physiologically) as to why this might be?
*The first response (38 minutes later)  came from a fairly new editor, , who asked a clarifying question ("Are you male or female") to aid in diagnosis.  I have referred Saukkomies to the appropriate guidelines.
* asked a related question and offered a wild guess about the mechanism: .
* noted that
::Second, we have to be careful not to offer any medical advice, if the questioner is a middle aged or older male, other than if it concerns him he should speak to his doctor. 
:I assume that Edison is trying to rule out prostate cancer.  It's a good thought, but young people who have difficulty urinating may also have medical problems requiring intervention.
* told him to "relax", and to keep "an empty bottle in the car for emergencies": .
* offered up his diagnosis "it's kinda like a painless muscle cramp": .
*Following the instructions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines and the criteria at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice#What does this guideline apply to?,  removed the thread about nine hours after the question was asked.  He did not use the {rd-deleted} template, but left a short explanatory note.  Incidentally, he's also the first editor in this entire thread to have used an edit summary: .
*Two hours after SteveBaker closed the thread,  reopened it, rephrasing the original poster's question as a physiology question but describing identical symptoms: .
::So physiology questions are now medical questions? OK, let's phrase it obviously as a physiology question. Multiple people have observed that if they refrain from urinating for too long, it is a bit difficult to start the flow going. These are healthy people with no relevant medical problems. What is the physiological basis for this delay?
*, upset that Jpgordon explicitly flouted the rule, gave the extremely POINTy (and cruel) answer "Undiagnosed bladder cancer": .  
* expressed incredulity at Milkbreath's response: .  Both Jack and I have warned Milkbreath not to do this sort of thing again.
* opined that "...it's obviously not a life-threatening illness of some type": .
*Finally, the original anonymous IP poster removed the thread himself, out of frustration: "ok, this isn't going anywhere useful, sorry".
----
*Correction (added 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as one of the problems, I made a mistake. I didn't consider the OP when I made my pointy reply. Next time, I'll take it to talk.  --Milkbreath (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that deleting the question only causes the OP to post it again.  That is why I do not delete the questions.  I simply state that we do not answer those questions and tell him/her to see a professional.  Deleting the question indicates that there was some weird database error which caused the question to get lost - it does not indicate that the we do not answer it. -- kainaw™ 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the removals can be confusing, especially when no boilerplate template is added. Even then, I think the question's title should remain the same, maybe with "(question removed)" added at the end of the title. I'd support kainaw's suggestion, provided it still would be acceptable to remove subsequent answers offering diagnoses and the lot despite that statement saying that we do not answer them. In any event, back and forth removals and reopenings constitute an edit war, which doesn't suit the desks well. If you disagree with a removal, I think it's preferable to discuss first (either here, or on the remover's talk page) before reinserting. Final point: I believe discussions or comments referring to whether the question is asking for medical advice, on guidelines, as well as on how and if to implement them, should not be held at the desks themselves, but here or on user talk pages. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing the title is wrong - it leaves the OP thinking that somehow their post "didn't work".  Replying with jokes is dangerous - one man's joke is another man's serious advice to be followed immediately. Do we actually have an official template yet? SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's :Template:RD-deleted. (My current favorite anyway.) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's generally agreement that the section header should remain; only the question itself should be removed (with an appropriate explanation left in its place).  In this particular case, the entire thread was removed by an anonymous IP; I would have corrected the error myself, but I was working under the (mistaken) impression that the person who removed the thread was the original poster. TenOfAllTrades(talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having trouble peeing? 

message: So, this was an epic cock-up.  We have
*Two questions about the OP's basic medical history;
*One wild guess about mechanism;
*Three estimates that the symptom was harmless;
*One admin who ought to know better trying to skirt the rule;
*One POINTy diagnosis; 
*No attempts to violate the policy in a way that actually referred to useful on- or off-wiki sources;
*An anonymous IP who's given up on us in frustation.
On the plus side of the ledger, we have
*JackofOz, who had some sympathy for the OP; and 
*SteveBaker, who actually followed the guidelines.
They both deserve applause.  (Heck, they also deserve recognition for using edit summaries.)
So, what caused the rest of the problems? How do we fix them?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as one of the problems, I made a mistake. I didn't consider the OP when I made my pointy reply. Next time, I'll take it to talk.  --Milkbreath (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that deleting the question only causes the OP to post it again.  That is why I do not delete the questions.  I simply state that we do not answer those questions and tell him/her to see a professional.  Deleting the question indicates that there was some weird database error which caused the question to get lost - it does not indicate that the we do not answer it. -- kainaw™ 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the removals can be confusing, especially when no boilerplate template is added. Even then, I think the question's title should remain the same, maybe with "(question removed)" added at the end of the title. I'd support kainaw's suggestion, provided it still would be acceptable to remove subsequent answers offering diagnoses and the lot despite that statement saying that we do not answer them. In any event, back and forth removals and reopenings constitute an edit war, which doesn't suit the desks well. If you disagree with a removal, I think it's preferable to discuss first (either here, or on the remover's talk page) before reinserting. Final point: I believe discussions or comments referring to whether the question is asking for medical advice, on guidelines, as well as on how and if to implement them, should not be held at the desks themselves, but here or on user talk pages. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing the title is wrong - it leaves the OP thinking that somehow their post "didn't work".  Replying with jokes is dangerous - one man's joke is another man's serious advice to be followed immediately. Do we actually have an official template yet? SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's :Template:RD-deleted. (My current favorite anyway.) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's generally agreement that the section header should remain; only the question itself should be removed (with an appropriate explanation left in its place).  In this particular case, the entire thread was removed by an anonymous IP; I would have corrected the error myself, but I was working under the (mistaken) impression that the person who removed the thread was the original poster. TenOfAllTrades(talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having trouble peeing?  Have your say 

message: The barnstar is now 'official' (well, I added it to WP:BARNSTARS).  To award one, go to the victim's talk page (NOWHERE ELSE!!) and add the following:
  
Replace 'your message' with a sentence or two of explanation and/or thanks.
The result looks like this:
		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Awarded for your utter failure to answer any medical or legal questions today. SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar now available for use! 

message: Under which subdesk would geography fall? I think we should add this to the topic list under relevant desk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to pinpoint it. A lot of geography questions, particularly physical geography and environmental geography belong at the science desk. Others, such as questions on cartography or regional geography, could arguably also be posted at other desks. Human geography questions often reach into the realm of the humanities desk. I'm not strictly against adding geography to the science desks's list of topics, as long as it doesn't mean that all geo questions asked elsewhere automatically get moved there. Psychology, for example, was added to the science desk a while ago too, despite the fact that some psychological questions might better suit the humanities or even miscellaneous desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A point that I made at the time, if I remember correctly, Sluzzelin.  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, how could anyone forget threads of the psychology desk saga! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Being the outsider, as I see it - since it's not alloted anywhere, it goes to the misc desk. Is it how it should work? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  07:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for any appearance of cliquishness, Piotrus. There are no outsiders. I merely pointed to psychology as an example of another field that permeates several desks. The cartography question you asked at the misc desk would have received good answers at the science or even math desk too, I'm certain. Currently the science desk only features "geology", but questions on hydrology, glaciology, oceanography, or palaeogeography belong there too. If you have a human geography question seeking hard statistical facts on population geography, you might choose the science desk as well, but if you're looking for more essayistic answers on Westernization or economic regionalization, the humanities might be a more adequate desk. Linguistic geography questions belong at the language desk. Finally, the miscellaneous desk is a catch-all when the querent doesn't know where to post a question. The desks were split because the sheer number and volume of questions would otherwise make them unwieldy or very short-lived. Even if we cover every single conceivable discipline and pigeonhole it to a certain desk, the split will still remain unsatisfactory, and some questions simultaneously reach into topics of several desks. You're not the first to point out that geography is missing as a topic, but can you think of an easy solution? Either we distribute all geographical sub-branches at the expense of simplicity, or we merely add "geography" to a particular desk, and risk that certain questions won't be posted at the optimal desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to aplogize, I appreciate prompt reply by experts, and I see your point. My original point was that it is unclear where to ask geography, and we may want to make it clear. Indeed, the misc desk worked out well, and if we are ok with that that's great - but I wanted to make sure it was not an accidental or easily rectifiable omission.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  08:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the misc desk is supposed to work for any type of question. Some specialized volunteers frequent the miscellaneous desk as well as "their" desk, and it would be fantastic if even more looked in once in a while, in order to give the "lost" questions the best possible answers they deserve! ---Sluzzelin talk 08:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: Is there a userbox like "This user is a Reference desk dweller."? --Taraborn (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I found one - it is   . DuncanHill (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see it on my page here User:DuncanHill#Some_boxes. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I feel like we, "RefDeskDenizens", are very much like a subspecies of the genus Wikipedian. --Taraborn (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a cat :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk, which Steve may wish to make his boxes put people into. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh - cool!  I was looking for a Category like that!  I've added it as an 'includeonly' into the template.  So - for those who don't understand this stuff - if you add any of the above userboxes to your User: page, you'll automatically be added into the Category: of "Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk". SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the first one.  But can "respondant" please be changed to "respondent" - that way, it won't look too odd when juxtaposed with the userbox below.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So sorry!  All better now!  (Of course you could have fixed it yourself...Be Bold and all!) SteveBaker (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Second one is all niced up so it has parameter options and suchnot wot eh, see page noinclude docs for a the how to --⁪ffroth 04:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference desk userbox 

message: Where do you ask questions about PC games? Do you ask them here or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.178.129 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment would be the best place - there are usually several questions about PC games, as well as people who can answer them. DuncanHill (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gotta depend on the nature of your question.  If it's "How do I install this patch for this game to run on my Intel 740 graphics chip?" - then the computing desk is the place.  If it's "How does the story arc of Mario and Princess Peach compare to Shakespeare vision of idealised love in Romeo and Juliet?" then we REALLY need that to be on the humanities desk (or at least SOMEWHERE where I don't have to answer it!).  If it's "What easter eggs are there in Halo3?"  then ask the entertainment desk. SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's something like is Halo 3 better or BioShock the best thing would probably be to ask somewhere else not on the WP:RD Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Oh god, yes!  There are places that are MUCH better to ask that one...Yahoo Answers sounds like the perfect place to me! SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I think this should be somewhat expanded. Perhaps making the statements "no guesswork", "factual accuracy" and so a little more visible could improve the overall quality of the Reference Desk. --Taraborn (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: whereas you can lead a horse to water, increasing the size of the trough may not be any more efficacious in making it drink. And, actually, come to think of it, it is as likely that most of us rush past the header, never giving it a thought. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Header? DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thing at the top of the page. C'mon, Duncan. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean we're meant to read it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easier to read then this shit... ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to start a new fad then --⁪ffroth 23:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Much of the text of the RD header is in a font that is so small that it is an effort to read it. As an experiment, I've turned it all into normal size. What do you think?  --Lambiam 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My god, it's so much better. Actually readable now. Amazing how going back to default makes things look so much cleaner. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 13:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blame the people from 5 years ago, we've been using small text in the header for ages. Also, warning will robinson, lambiam is taking the first steps that I took when moving the header to a beautifully-templatized monstrosity --⁪ffroth 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How to answer a question" 

message: This is the third time I've brought this up; the previous two times, my suggestion got buried under a load of arguments over medical advice.
Can we please change the wording of the warning on medical and legal advice to eliminate the references to "regulated professional advice?" This appears to be a meaningless phrase under American law and leaves open the possibility of people asking troublesome medical or legal questions under the premise that it's not illegal to answer those in the person's jurisdiction.
This is more than just a legal issue; it's an ethical issue, and the warning should be phrased that way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – I already made that change some time ago.  --Lambiam 08:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... however, the change did not come through. Since some time each section of the Desk has been transcluding a different header, which comes from user space (User:Froth/speedyX for X one of C, H, E, L, M, MA, and S). I had not noticed that the text of How to ask/answer had been copied to each separate header instead of being transcluded there.  --Lambiam 16:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, since something changed on the servers and the RD (among other pages) became unusable due to its very deep header demplate, we've been transcluding in content from my userspace to serve up the header. I used one of the special pages that allows you to flatten pages that contain templates.. of course they also flattened the how to ask and answer section --⁪ffroth 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good, Lambiam.  My apologies to Mwalcoff that his – reasonable and legitimate – concern kept getting lost in other stuff. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, guys. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning wording 

message: When I try to post a question on the Language Desk, it gets put on the Computing Desk instead. Is there a problem with the new question button? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Looks like a cut & paste error when making templates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed on all templates :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an interesting experiment. In each header on the separate section pages, there is a button labelled "After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here." For about 8.4 hours, you could tell whether questions intended for other RD sections than Computing were posted by means of that button in the header, or by generic wiki editing methods such as the "edit this page" and "+" tabs. Out of 16 new questions posted in that period, only 3 4 used the header button.  --Lambiam 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see what happened to the article A the last time there was a glitch?? :) --⁪ffroth 03:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Cough. --⁪ffroth 03:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the use of  expensive?  --Lambiam 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how it possibly could be --⁪ffroth 03:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?