Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 41

message: moved from main page
:I really do find the above idea in very bad taste and unbecoming of Wikipedia. Any one else agree?--TreeSmiler (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Do you agree with me or disagree?--TreeSmiler (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Please put/keep meta-discussion on the talk page. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While I'd agree that celebrity death pool's are in bad taste, not that that actually bothers me in the least, I think Wooty is trying to say that whether it is or not is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia as a site is concerned. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What exactly has been moved from where to where?  --Lambiam 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above conversation, minus my comment, orginally took place in the thread on the Misc. Desk titled "Famous Deaths in 2008" after which someone moved it here. Hope that helps... Azi Like a Fox (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Whilst I personally find this kind of thing pretty ghoulish - I don't see why someone shouldn't ask the question here.  I don't think I'd want to spend the time to research an answer - but if other people do, I don't see why not.  We deal with answers for other questions that are just as antisocial. SteveBaker (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue that we're not a crystal ball, so we shouldn't get into answering such questions on principle.  And that would be the only relevant principle; bad taste, goulish, whatever are subjective and are no barrier to certain questions being asked or answered.  But it's not as if we're saying "Person X will die in 2008", but that they're more likely to die soon than someone considerably younger.  That's scientifically sound.   --  JackofOz (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly we can't be expected to answer who will die in 2008 - but I suppose we can reasonably answer who is most likely to die.  But the OP asked use to identify "famous people who have cancer or another terminal illness that will probably die in 2008" which is an even more sharply deliniated request.  Getting a list of famous people with cancer is not at all an unreasonable thing for us to be able to do.  These are factual matters.  I still think the entire concept of betting on this is sick - but that doesn't make it an impossible question. SteveBaker (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the original question because the OP wanted to bet on this? Was this profesionally or just among friends? If professionally, perhaps if it comes back someone should tell the OP how bookies operate and point out that it's difficult to beat them since they almost definitely have all the information you have and more. Of course bookie odds also depend on who's betting on what so it may be possible you have a small chance of winning on average with good research but this is still rather unlikely Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation about when famous people will die 

message: :At last, two thousand seven ends; so, what is left to say?
:But thank you to our refdesk friends who come out here and play.
:May zero eight be just as full of fun and lively actions,
:Of long debates on bear and bull, and friction 'tween the factions.
:A year of helping those who ask, o Captains of the keyboard!
:You armchair docs who wear a mask, you seagulls at the seaboard.
:You matrixists, defiantists, you lecturers and scholars,
:You proud and squamous scientists, and also YOU WHO HOLLERS.
:Thanks to all the volunteers, the questioners and jesters.
:Have the best of many years, and Happy Saint Sylvester's!
Boo, EST is the best. --⁪ffroth 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pah why celebrate new year when nearly everyone else has already done so? This years the same as last year so far BTW Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Year 

message: Why do the RD subpage headings now call from a userspace page? What's wrong with the original ones located under WP:RD? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one that used to be in project space took a hellishly long time to load. Now, as to why Froth's version hasn't just been moved to the original location, you could always ask him. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only asking because something bizzare happened to my edits to the old (now blanked) version. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best not to touch it -_- ⁪ffroth 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That answer didn't answer much. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Who cares? --⁪ffroth 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who's worried you'll fall off your rocker and G7 your own subpages? That's not me, but...you asked :-p Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think G7 entirely applies.. it's certainly not written entirely by me, and it wouldnt be in good faith since it would be hugely destructive unless someone else can sort out the flattening fixes or recover the deleted page --⁪ffroth 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: U1? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You knew it was coming: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page." --⁪ffroth 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So why can't the present templates simply be moved into RD space?  It's clearly inappropriate for them to be in a Userspace. SteveBaker (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have created a uniform RD header that should work on all sections of the Reference desk. The template is now at User:Lambiam/Try, and it has been installed by transclusion for a beta test at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. If there are no problems, I'll copy it in a couple of days to Wikipedia:Reference desk/header and transclude it on the other RD sections.  --Lambiam 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. But wtf @ "clearly inappropriate"?? --⁪ffroth 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizzareness with the section headings 

message: As I mentioned above, the primary thing I had in mind when I said it was on some occasions (IMHO) acceptable to modify posts was primarily related to personal attacks, on the few occasions when it is better to simply remove the personal attack rather then delete a very lenghty post or leave it there. However I was pretty sure there was one or two more things which I had forgotten about. And indeed, another thing which just occured to me is e-mail addresses and phone numbers. We remove e-mail addresses and phone numbers from questions all the time but on the odd occasion these are signed (although since posts are auto signed nowadays it's in fact all the time), we won't be able to if we have a strict never modify anyone's signed post rule. Yes, sure, hopefully we can all agree changing automagically to automatically or it's to its or kaitakana to..... should not be done (just reply in a follow up) but there are a number of times when modifying posts is done and when it's resonably non-controversial it is done. And as I've already said, it's not a matter of it happening secretly. You should always make it abundantly clear when you've modified a post (and inform the user via their talk page). I've had a time to think about this some more and the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced a hard and fast rule doesn't work. P.S. I have reverted changes to signed comments myself (not on the RD) and have even searched through the history to do so. I also find it frustrating when people excessively nitpick my errors (I do it to myself enough :-P). I definitely agree inappropriate modification of comments is unacceptable, it's just that there are times when it is necessary or at least shouldn't be condemnded. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Those are occasions on which I too have edited posts. While I guess one could argue an adult is free to post their email address and number if they choose (its their own problem if they reap the spam whirlwind) there could be instances where contact details from a self-identified minor may be removed for their own security per Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. As you note, its infrequent examples like this that makes it inadvisable to make a hard and fast "official policy" on the issue. Rockpocket 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to add a little point. I can fully sympathize with SteveBaker's point. For a lack of a better word, it is blatantly rude to edit a post signed by another user. Among others, it runs the risk of a faulty interpretation of the answer by the one who is correcting the post. However, I can also understand that if WP policy conflicts with this proposal, then it will be difficult and perhaps "not worth it" to adopt and implement this proposal. Personally, I have never run into the problem of my post being corrected, but I can fully understand why such an occurance should be an extremely frustrating experience. Acceptable (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another thing