Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 36

message: The reference desk process helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement.  If an article that could answer a question is lacking the relevant information, look for a way to work the information into the article.  This provides a lasting value to the project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Looking_for_an_article_.231
--Savedthat 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Savedthat is asking for someone to create the article. Whenever a question prompts a volunteer to notice a particular lack of information on the encyclopedia and add the missing info to article space, this is a cause for celebration. WP:RDAC is one attempt to bundle and encourage these efforts. WP:REQUEST is another place where you can ask for missing articles. (Simply repeating the question won't create the article as if by magic, the "look for a way to work the information into the article" is directed at every user here, including the questioner. :-) ) ---Sluzzelin talk 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of the desk (help)

message: Wikipedia as a whole has been discussed and critiqued a great deal in the media. I'm just wondering if anyone is aware of any media attention or critique focusing on the RefDesk in particular. Serinmort 04:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am aware of. Though I seem to recall that a question addressed at the desk led to an error being corrected in the New York Times, when a regular contacted them. Also, I believe one of our regulars may be being interviewed for an article in the near future, so perhaps that will lead to some media discussion. Rockpocket 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really, who is it? A.Z. 05:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The person may prefer to remain anonymous, so I'll leave it to them to identify themselves should they wish to. Rockpocket 05:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. A.Z. 06:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the approach is on my 'public space', Rockpocket, but I thank you for your consideration.  The said 'interview' has now been done, incidentally.  Clio the Muse 06:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, it was Clio the Muse. She had been my second guess, right after Rockpocket himself. A.Z. 06:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it be appropriate to ask just where and when would the article be available to the public? I'd really be interested in reading it! Serinmort 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was for a French periodical by the name of L'Histoire.  I have no idea if they will use what I wrote or not, or when they will use it.  It's really no big deal.  Clio the Muse 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The magazine has an article: L'Histoire. A.Z. 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RefDesk in the Media 

message: I think that the reference desk is comparable to the game at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Word Association. When I read the arguments to keep the game when it was nominated for deletion, I thought they could be used to save the reference desk as well, should someone suggest its deletion. A.Z. 04:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The various deletion discussions are indeed interesting. One of the things that has preserved the Word Association game is that it is in the sandbox, where a bit of silliness is expected. Another is that it seems to genuinely aid building of the encyclopedia, unlike the other games and variants which were deleted. On top of this, note that later deletion discussions only emerged after the game started sprawling over many pages. It became too big. Many of those pages were deleted. Skittle 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the fact that it helps building the encyclopedia is what saved the reference desk so far. I hope it will never be moved to the sandbox. A.Z. 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG! Salvation is us. - hydnjo talk 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it, despite the links. A.Z. 23:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  This might be a good opportunity to note that I have been recording exactly how the Ref Desk has contributed to the encyclopedia, here. I suggest we direct anyone who asks what good the Desk does there in future. Much of the content and translation into articlespace has been the good work of Clio and Ghirla. I urge anyone who significantly improves an article in response to a question, or even as a subsequence of reading a question, to add the appropriate templates to the question and talkpage. That way I can keep track of what the Ref Desk has contributed. Alternatively, feel free to drop me a note on my talkpage. Rockpocket 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this point there's no question in my mind that (a) the [1] primary purpose of the Reference Desk is to improve the encyclopedia, and (b) it's working quite well at this, but also (c) the side benefits of [2] helping people and [3] enjoying ourselves are working well as well.  So it's a win-win-win situation, and I don't imagine any attempt to eliminate the Reference Desks (if anyone was silly enough to try) would get very far.  But having actual, concrete documentation of the articles which have been improved is a very nice ace in the hole, so it's great that the RDAC folks are doing what they're doing. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word association and the purposes of the reference desk 

message: It should be דלפק ייעוץ & not דלפק יעוץ. Please fix it. GOER 17:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. By the way, the link is actually in the template Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header which is not protected. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, that wasn't correct. The hebrew equivalent of the Reference desk is :he:ויקיפדיה:הכה את המומחה, where :he:ויקיפדיה:דלפק ייעוץ is the equivalent of the Help desk. I fixed it to the correct destination. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hebrew link 

message: Following a query on my talk page, I just corrected my own answer to my own question in the archives! See here. I feel like I'm caught in some recursive storyline here... Seriously, is correcting the archives  like that the normal thing to do? Carcharoth 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with continuining to edit threads after they have been archived. In fact, that was a great idea. Now we have more than five days to address the questions! A.Z. 02:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded.  I pretty regularly add to archived threads.  The additions probably won't be seen by the original poster (or perhaps by anybody), so if they're frivolous they're not worth it, but if they substantially improve the completeness of correctness of an archived answer, then swell! (And see below.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're gonna be seen from now on. If the archives are alive, they get more interesting! A.Z. 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "from now on"?  Has something just changed? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section brought our attention to the fact that you people are editing the archives. I had no idea that people were doing that, and I guess I wasn't the only one. A.Z. 03:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  (But who's "us people", and who are y'all?) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carcharoth and you are you people so far, but I think there are more of you, editing the archives. Me and others are all talk page regulars. A.Z. 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edit the archives too although I've never gone that far back yet. And I agree there's nothing wrong, provided you don't change something especially in such a way that makes other comment confusing. Simply adding a response or saying ooops I was wrong is fine. As we sometimes direct question askers to the archives, it's probably going to be occasinally useful at least 10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting archives 

message: I just noticed that the whole "urinal etiquette" thread got removed.  I thought it was pretty silly, too, and I probably would have deleted the question myself if I'd noticed it before it got so many answers. But it did get a lot of answers, so apparently plenty of people thought it was interesting, and if so, one of you might like to restore it. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. A.Z. 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite interesting, by the way. I didn't know that chatting at the urinal was seen as unproper for men in other places/cultures. Where I live it's common. A.Z. 03:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - a reasonable question, asked in a reasonable way, with an interesting and enlightening set of responses. Replies were based on personal experience, but this will generally be the case with any question about etiquette, custom or usage. No good reason for deletion. Gandalf61 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  urinal etiquette 

message: I just noticed that there's a new talk-page-comment-signing bot, SineBot, filling in for or replacing the defunct HagermanBot.  (See discussion here.) It's in beta, but do we want to think about asking it to monitor the RD's too? —Steve Summit (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. A.Z. 01:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you support using it to sign the pages? Nil Einne 10:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ironically I came here because I just noticed it too and wanted to recommend it. I support using it to monitor the RD, will help out Scsbot amongst other things Nil Einne 10:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new signing bot available 

message: There are two separate problems being discussed here:
* Should there be a 'no medical advice' rule - and what should it say?
* What do we do when someone infringes on the rule?
The first question should be moot.  It has been discussed fully in the past - and the rule we have is the result of some kind of consensus.  As such, I'm not interested in discussing it further.  The second question is the problem at hand.  Even though I posted a strong warning on the thread (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Odd_vision_problem), people are STILL offering medical diagnoses in response to the guy with the blurry vision - we now have astigmatism, kerataconus and cataracts - as well as migranes.  My warning didn't even slow them down.  This isn't about correctness of advice given or the qualifications of the respondants or the verifiability of what they say or what the OP will or will not do in response to the advice.  It's about enforcement of a rule when a clear breach has occurred.
If a simple warning would work - that would be perfect - but it plainly doesn't - just look at the thread and you'll see.  So do you abandon a rule because it's unenforcable by a simple "Please don't do that"?  No!  If you did then we'd be allowing linkspam and all sorts of other nastiness that carries on despite warnings.  When a rule is broken, we take action of some kind.  So how do you escalate the warning to the point where people will pay attention?  I guess some sort of stern warning in a big red templated box would be a reasonable escalation - it would certainly wake people up to the problem and would be more noticable.  Asking people not to do it on their talk: pages might help - but if they ignore the complaint in-thread, why would they pay more attention on their talk: pages?  I think handing out a 24 hour ban to repeat offenders would be OK - it's not a serious punishment - but it's something that clearly screams "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR HERE".
But no matter what, we just need SOMETHING to make our respondants follow the rules here.
What sort of consensus can we get here?  How about everyone answer with one of the following options, escalating from minimum to maximum action.  Let's see what the highest level of action we have that pretty much everyone can agree on:
When someone offers medical or legal advice in contravention to the ref desk rules we should:
# Do nothing.
# Put a complaint into the thread then do nothing more. (This is current practice)
# Put a complaint into the thread and into their talk page, then do nothing more.
# Do the above repeatedly but do not escalate.
# Put a templated ("big red box") complaint into the thread, then do nothing more.
# Do one of the above - then consider some kind of 24 hour Wikiban for re-offenders.
SteveBaker 17:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to the subheading, this discussion seems to be, in part, a proposal for the creation of one or more policies. Therefore I propose that further discussion should be moved to WP:VPP so that it is more visible to the general Wikipedia community. Of dr.ef.tymac “Revised list” proposals 4, 5, and 6 would require some kind of policy or guideline in my opinion. --S.dedalus 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bielle expresses it well. It's about damage control. Just like with violations of WP:BLP, the immediate reaction (putting out the flames) is to remove the damaging posts from the desk. The long-term and sustainable measure (prevention) should be educating the careless and ignorant and discouraging their behavior. Polite explanations can work wonderfully here, while waving the big stick may ignite a whole new type of flaming (check November's archives, for instance.). The stick is a last resort, when assumption of good faith is spent, and the same editor's behavior has become disruptive. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's not about the nature of the rule - it's about enforcement.

message: I've spent all night in another CSSing frenzy trying to get the RD header to look right. I'm trying to force the bottom of the (new) Contribute box to be flush with the bottom of the fat left column if the left column juts down farther. I had it perfectly laid out (I think it's this diff, but it's impossible to tell without making it live) but when I added "height:100%" to the Contribute box, it wouldn't take up the rest of the very available empty space at the bottom of its perfectly sized container. So the container is flush, but of course it's invisible so that's not much good :) Anyway with the firefox DOM Inspector I verified that the space is in fact free, and belongs to the direct parent of the contribute link box, and that absolutely no margin settings or anything are interfering. But "height:100%" has no effect.. so I chalk it up to a bug in gecko, since this is pretty easy, obvious stuff that's just not working. It's been reverted to its original, more elegant table-based code. 
So yeah, that's what was going on if you happened to load a ref desk and the header was in bloody pieces all over the floor. 
As always, the header is barf in IE. Use firefox please! And websites always look better windowed, I use a 1100 pixel wide window out of a 1400 pixel screen.
Frustrated with the layout, I just decided to document it, so.. there you go --⁪frotht 04:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you propose I alter the IT policies of a 30,000+ employee corporation so that they'll let me use Firefox at work?  --LarryMac | Talk 13:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my fault that internet explorer is non standards complaint. I didn't make it for firefox, I made it per web standards, which firefox follows. It still works fine in IE, but missing is my beautiful perfect-pixel precision. And what are you doing posting on the ref desk at work anyway? :) --⁪frotht 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ummmm, research.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  The desks look fine in IE6, and I do appreciate the time you've spent working on all this.  Perhaps I'm just bitter because Slashdot (once again) mucked up their main page so that it barely works with IE.  Maybe I'll just go "work" from home today.  --LarryMac | Talk 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord you're right about slashdot in IE. Remember thiiis? :) I don't get the polls though. Lucky that you mentioned it now so that I had the opportunity to see my political views reigning supreme in this week/month/year/forever's poll --⁪frotht 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy desks 

message: These really look terrible! They're way off to the side and cause too much whitespace between the header and the table of contents. I removed them before but someone put them back- can I get some opinions?
Note that something will have to be done in any case about the whitespace. The RD header actually is meant to be called like:
 
 __TOC__
or
 
 =August Whatever=
with no spaces at all in between- the header puts a line of whitespace in automatically as part of the container page, and the table of contents creates line breaks around it anyway. But in addition to those 2, two more are manually added at the top of each RD! I can't remove them because my internet connection times out when I try to save an entire RD page, so can someone else remove all of that whitespace? --⁪frotht 04:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the size of the color wheel to the standard "icon up there" size and took off the text (I wasn't the one who came up with that thing! :o), is that better? I'll take a look at the shortcut boxes in a second --⁪frotht 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better (the color wheel problem) - thanks Bri - hydnjo talk 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK all shortcut boxes have been fixed up. I tried my best to get the shortcut link floated on the left side of the ref desk title bar, but it just wasn't happening so I moved it up to be positioned absolutely on the upper right. Looks good in firefox for all viewing font sizes and resolutions, looks all right in IE. How's safari? I hope my fingangling to get rid of whitespace doesn't affect archiving.. --⁪frotht 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "shortcuts" box 

message: My browser (Safari) and my preference (Classic) are and have been for some time now disallowing proper rendering at the upper right corner at all of the desks and this talk (color wheel overlaps). I bring this up at this time for the obvious reason; is there an end to this or is it to be perpetual? Thanks to Froth for initiating this bitching opportunity! Oh, and BTW, I plead guilty for those awful shortcut boxes. Please improve at will. - hydnjo talk 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the size of the color wheel to the standard "icon up there" size and took off the text (I wasn't the one who came up with that thing! :o), is that better? I'll take a look at the shortcut boxes in a second --⁪frotht 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better (the color wheel problem) - thanks Bri - hydnjo talk 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK all shortcut boxes have been fixed up. I tried my best to get the shortcut link floated on the left side of the ref desk title bar, but it just wasn't happening so I moved it up to be positioned absolutely on the upper right. Looks good in firefox for all viewing font sizes and resolutions, looks all right in IE. How's safari? I hope my fingangling to get rid of whitespace doesn't affect archiving.. --⁪frotht 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Even worse

message: I noticed this  (see number 17) which I've corrected here. I'm lazy to look into it but could it be a bot bug? I note someone mentioned a abortive bot edit  so alternatively perhaps that's why. Nil Einne 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've noticed those a few times too.  I haven't figured out what causes them.  (But they've been happening for a while; they have nothing to do with the problems last night.) I don't feel too bad about them, because all they do is leave the subject entry un-hotlinked (and strangely punctuated), but prior to this month, those subject entries were never hotlinked. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scsbot problem?

message: I think it's pretty clear when a great answer has been given to an interesting question and it's worth saving for posterity.  I suspect that all we really need to do is to create a page called 'Best of the Ref Desk' (or something like that) and let people edit it in true Wikipedia style.  It's going to grow - and it'll doubtless accumulate cruft - and someone will periodically clean it up.  It would have a 'discussion' page where people may choose to passionately argue about what should and shouldn't be there - and polls may occasionally happen when there is debate over whether some article should be there or not.  But I suspect that in the end, the standards for what makes it into the page will be quirky and that the quality you'll need to have to make it into the page will gradually grow over the years.  It is likely (as with most Wikipedia pages) that one or two people will come to informally 'own' the page and keep it alive and relevent.  Whether it contains witty (but irrelevent) answers or off-topic (but clever) answers - or merely the ones that helped the OP the most, is anyone's guess.  But this way it can evolve and grow into whatever we want it to be.
This approach is taken with lots of other 'Best of' Wikipedia pages such as Wikipedia:Unusual articles.  Voting adds red tape and is not 'the wikipedia way'. A weekly pick would mean that in some weeks a basically weak choice has to be made because there was nothing better - and on really good weeks, two excellent answers have to fight it out to be included.  The 'Benevolent Dictator' model only works when more or less everyone agrees with the dictator - there is no easy way to ensure that we have the right person for the job.  
A less formal mechanism would be much nicer.  Let's just make a page and let people populate it - it's the WP way.
SteveBaker 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (And while we're about it - a Ref Desk FAQ would be handy too.  There are a bunch of questions we get very frequently and a succinct pointer to the FAQ would often save everyone a lot of time.) SteveBaker 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominate Steve to write a FAQ answer about torque curves and mechanical advantage as they relate to car acceleration.  Friday (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a Reference desk/FAQ, only nobody is maintaining it.  --Lambiam 18:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not exactly well advertised is it?!  I couldn't find a single link to it other than in >8 month old archived questions.  The link labelled 'frequently asked questions' on the main Ref Desk page links to WP:FAQ which is not at all the same thing?  It's really, really hard to contribute to something you don't know about!  But anyway - that's just an aside.  We're supposed to be talking about a 'Best of' page. SteveBaker 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Much Simpler Proposal 

message: On page Wikipedia:Reference desk the category
::Category:Non-talk pages with subpages automatically signed by HagermanBot
should be changed to
::Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed
 --Lambiam 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, shouldn't we be as specific as possible  ? StuRat 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because user:sinebot does the signing?87.102.18.14 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Hagerbot has been superseded and the category in question is intended to be empty, with the ref desk being the only link it in (due to protection) Kuronue | Talk 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the editprotected request, since this doesn't involve any edits to protected pages.  There is no such category on Wikipedia:Reference desk. Nor is there one on Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header, the categories are all manually added to each Reference desk page, and have, as of this date, all been corrected.--69.118.235.97 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added it, as I don't believe the problem has been resolved. As of this writing, the page Wikipedia:Reference desk includes the category Non-talk pages with subpages automatically signed by HagermanBot. It's right there at the bottom, beside "Wikipedia help forums" and "Wikipedia resources for researchers". And that category still includes the page Wikipedia:Reference desk. - Eron Talk 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, I must have missed seeing the category there. --69.118.235.97 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed 

message: Hi guys!  I've just checked the Humanities Desk history, as I usually do in the evening, and see a quite legitimate question on Kublai Khan was removed altogether by an anonymous IP, on the grounds that it was a 'homework question' (An answer was also removed).  I sincerly hope that the questioner did not notice this, because I cannot imagine anything more discourteous and hurtful.  The thread was restored by Lambiam, exercising his usual good sense.  I am in favour of the instant removel of obvious trollish questions, and I can just about tolerate a 'we do not do homework' response; but the complete excision of an honest question, homework or not, is for me quite intolerable.  I hope you do not think I am making too much of this, but I would not wish to see this action as part of a new pattern.  Incidentally, on the matter of trolling, I am beginning to feel that the Haiti and West Africa questions are beginning, ever so slightly, to fall into this category.  Several superb answers have been produced, but the same old thing just keeps on rolling along!  Love to you all Clio the Muse 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that questions should never be removed for looking like homework. In fact, I never type "Do your own homework!" and then leave it at that either. There are always ways of pointing a questioner to references or abstractly showing what might be a good approach for answering the question. Assisting with homework is not the same thing as doing the homework. (But that's just my opinion.) As for the Haitian questions, I do know what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's in the same category as the antisemitic, anticatholic, antimuslim series we saw a couple of months ago. I admire Lambiam and Marco's patience in explaining it over and over again. To me this is model referencedeskship. It's tricky to determine what is trolling and what is an innocent nuisance, but, once again, assuming good faith isn't the worst of all options. The alternative would be to simply ignore the question when they annoy us. My 2¢. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Xanadu