Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 19

message: The questions on the desk aren't being seperated into days. Is there a bot which does that or is it done by editors? Crisco 1492 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Entertainment desk

message: All recent discussions archived in Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 18 - I'm very aware that there were a number of threads which were active, so please feel free to reinstate the ones which are ongoing and important. --HappyCamper 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- SCZenz 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Strict}} 

message: What is going on here: A lot of work was done (in large part by StuRat) in developing two pages; /rules and /guideline. There was accusation of POV-forking. Then TenOfAllTrades developed a draft based in the previous work and discussions. There was consensus that that draft would be an appropriate continuation. To that end, and to prevent discussion of the same topic, proposed RD policy, taking place in multiple locations, I am bringing it all here. The /rule and /guideline are archived there for reference only. Please do not edit those. The Ten draft can and should be edited.
Please discuss edits HERE, on the regular RD talk page. --Justanother 16:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some reason that our normal page/talk page arrangement won't work in this case?  Ned Wilbury 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only because people discuss there and discuss here too. If there is a consensus or policy reason to move it then it can be moved to its adjacent "project page". So please chime in and let me know you'all. One of my goals was to eliminate "all the discussion forking" at least, if not "all the forking discussion" (smile). --Justanother 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people don't bother learning the purpose of pages and talk pages, the solution is to educate editors, not change our how procedure to match the misunderstanding.  The Reference desk gets discussed at its talk page.  The policy proposal gets discussed on its talk page.  How is this difficult?  If you want to edit the guideline, go ahead, but I see no reason to move it.  And, moving it the way you did makes no sense at all.  Ned Wilbury 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is support for what I did. I did not invent this. Please review Wikipedia:Subpages re: placing drafts on subs of talk pages. If you messed up what I did then please fix it. --Justanother 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, two things: /guideline was a perfectly good name for the page.  Naming it "proposed policy" is a bad idea- it may get marked as a proposal, or even a policy some day, but that shouldn't mean we rename the page.  Also, you moved it to project talk space when it should have been in project space.  Ned Wilbury 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm astounded that we're continuing to have this conversation.  Why do you NOT want a talk page for the proposed policy?  As for Wikipedia:Subpages, the suggestion about articles drafts was to keep them out of mainspace.  Really, we should probably leave the page moves to people who understand namespaces.  Ned Wilbury 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Really, we should probably leave the page moves to people who understand namespaces." Please don't get personal with me. I take a very dim view of that. --Justanother 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That type of argument from authority has no place on Wikipedia, Ned. If you object to somebody's actions, state clearly why, don't just imply that they are incompetent and thus unworthy of a logical discussion. StuRat 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Now, about that reference. Here is one of two specific statements in Wikipedia:Subpages that support what I did.From "Allowed Uses" - Temporary subpages in Talk namespace, usually formatted Talk:Example Article/Temp, for example the kind of "/Temp" pages that can be created from Template:Copyvio. But avoid additional incoming and outward links that would make it appear as if this "/Temp" page is part of the encyclopedia: that is, in the case the Copyvio template is used, only this template, applied in article namespace, can link to the "/Temp" article from article or "main" namespace. See below Disallowed uses for further recommendations on how to avoid creating the impression a "/Temp" page is an encyclopedia page.Can you give me the specific statement that indicates that I erred? My way clearly shows that this is NOT policy and that is the intent of subbing off talk pages. --Justanother 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Er, I don't think there's anything 'broken' that needs to be 'fixed'.  The proposed policy(/policies) are all 'temporary' over some reasonable timescale.  It doesn't really matter where we keep our scratch pad and discussion.  Somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace is dandy.  I agree with the idea that having a single discussion somewhere is also a good idea; I'm not sure if this talk page is the best place for it, just because there is a lot of traffic here already.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so where has everything been moved to as of now ?  Is there a way to get a directory of every page under the Ref Desk ? StuRat 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, after hipocrite got through, the proposal is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines (note plural) while the talk is still at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline (note singular) and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines (note plural) has a redirect. If you want to do something without an admin so we can continue I suggest we just leave the proposal where it is and pull the redirect from its talk page and just carry on there. Make an announcement here with links and a "permalink" at the top of this page. --Justanother 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please do that ?  I'm afraid any action I take will be used as an excuse to block me. StuRat 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, did. Now I hope to GOD no-one except an admin messes with the locations again. Stu, would you please make an announcement here and add a link to the top of this page? Also if you would like to check for and fix any important double redirects that would be peachy. I doubt that there are any important ones so that step might could be skipped. Also I see that there is another /purposes floating around that should also be merged in as an archived section. I would do more but I have work to do. --Justanother 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one: Wikipedia:Reference desk/purpose --Justanother 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm still too confused about what went where to make an announcement.  Is there any way to get a comprehensive list ? StuRat 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (interject) Comprehensive list is at , see Special:prefindex. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. StuRat 11:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, see box at top and announcement below. --Justanother 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Proposed policy for the reference desk]]
 

message: "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk." - surely that is enough guidance - see Library reference desk it's very enlightening. Note that librarians are not there to "put in their 2 cents".87.102.13.235 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but most of us are not trained librarians so that does not really tell us how to act. We need some guidance. --Justanother 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are a number of editors who agree.  However there are a number of people who insist that they do not understand how to behave unless they have exact rules.  Ned Wilbury 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest those are the users who would be breaking said rules.. such is life 87.102.13.235 17:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are also a number of us that do know how to act but want some policy spelled to 1) defend the way we act against attacks that we are acting wrongly, and 2) have a standard to point "bad acters" to so they clearly know what they are doing wrong and can, hopefully, correct their behaviour. If someone does not want to participate in the process of developing policy they only need ignore the process and let those that care to get on with it do so. There will be a comment period before it is adopted when those that think it is unneeded can express their opinion. --Justanother 17:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure I read a policy somewhere a long time ago..  can't remember where - are we sure we don't already have one??83.100.132.121 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Like a reference desk

message: *Support this idea because it will allow us to isolate discussion there, rather than have it here (with all the other discussions of archiving methods, abusive users, bad questions, bad answers, adding new Ref Desks, etc.)  Also, anything we say here tends to get lost and archived before a consensus can be reached. StuRat 17:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Add a new talk page to discuss the new combined proposal page  

message: I added this comment, which showed up in the history but not on the page: .
Then I added it again here: .
What's going on here ?  Why didn't it "take" the first time I added it ? StuRat 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The database seems to be lagging. I'm seeing deletions due to edit conflicts, stuff reappearing for no reason, and instances where it takes minutes for edits to show in the history. As someone said on the AN boards, go out and enjoy the weather for a bit lol. Anchoress 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. StuRat 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I sometimes get that. Its a bit slow in updating today actually. Either that or there really is a Ghost in the machine. WhhoooooaaaaaHHH!(eerie laughter)--Light current 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit slow ?  There was almost an hour and a half between my two edits.  If my comments weren't going to show up in that much time, I doubt if they ever would have. StuRat 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I mean a few seconds. Are you BB or dial up? No I know what it is now: someones installed a StuRat post filter!(clever buggers)--Light current 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I was wondering who deleted my post, at first, but there's no record of it having been deleted, yet it was gone.  Weird.  I have DSL, what is BB ?  A bulletin board ? StuRat 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BroadBand is what we call DSL here (ie > 1Mbps).--Light current 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdness 

message: OK, this is where we can work on a proposed policy/guideline and the associated talk is where we can discuss it. Below is the intro:
What is going on here: A lot of work was done (in large part by StuRat) in developing two pages; /rules and /guideline. There was accusation of POV-forking. Then TenOfAllTrades developed a draft based in the previous work and discussions. There was consensus that that draft would be an appropriate continuation. To that end, and to prevent discussion of the same topic, proposed RD policy, taking place in multiple locations, I am bringing it all here. The /rule and /guideline are archived here for reference only. Please do not edit those. The Ten draft can and should be edited.
Please discuss edits only on the associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines. --Justanother 15:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines]] 

message: Why is stuff disappearing off the Misc RD? Check this diff out. I had the same thing happen on one of my edits. Here is mine. I was not deleting anything - I was adding a reply. --Justanother 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, same thing's been happening to me, Wikipedia is messed up today. StuRat 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Random deletions? That's scary. Or maybe not ;-)  --Justanother 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See the thread above (Weirdness). I'm disappointed that this is still happening, I just noticed that a thread I tried twice to restore that had seemingly been accidentally removed during edit conflicts by other editors now looks like I deleted it lol (maybe it's one of the examples given above, I'll have to check). I feel reluctant to even try to restore it again until the problem is fixed. Anchoress 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's happened to me too; someone even yelled at me for "deliberately" deleting their thread this way.  It seems only to be on the bigger boards, i.e. with lots of editable sections where this occurs (RD, ANI, ...)  Usually I check my diff now to make sure I haven't nuked someone else's comment.  Antandrus  (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too (small stuff).  It's Silent Cyber Stalinism! Clio the Muse 06:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Antandrus, that's funny, because the thread I tried to restore, which is now gone again (apparently at my hand) was one that you seemed to have removed with one of your edits. LOL. Anchoress 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh you're kidding.  That's embarrassing.  I'll make sure to check in the future ... (now watch me annihilate most of the reference desk with this "save" click... ;-)  Antandrus  (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry about it, I don't think it was you. See here's what happened: I noticed that all of a sudden a few entries disappeared. I checked the history and it looked like you'd removed them during an edit conflict. I then restored them (with a copy/paste, to retain your addition). Then a few hours later, I noticed the entries were gone again, checked the edit history an lo and behold: the history said it was MY RESTORATION EDIT that REMOVED them lol. Anchoress 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing stuff 

message: I removed something I thought was hopelessly off-topic, but it was restored.  Bringing it up here for further input.  My opinion was that, while sad, there's nothing the reference desk can do about this.  Friday (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes sad. But the real point is that there is a very definite question there that we can address so let's help instead of blowing her off. I guarantee the librarian would help!! --Justanother 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want us to help by publishing email addresses of television people?  That would be a terrible thing for us to do, in my opinion.  Friday (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? That would be public info on the TV station website, if available. If not we can give her the phone number or just a link to his website or the TV station website. We can help people. That is what we are allowed to do. If we cannot chat, at least we can help people. --Justanother 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure that's her question, Justanother? Because it sounded more to me like she was wanting help organising other mothers of dead children, or that she was trying to figure out how to talk to the non-English speaking parents of her daughter's killer. Anchoress 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not add anything to the body of her text, The specific question is in there and it is the only question she asks. --Justanother 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly didn't suggest you added anything to the text, Justanother, I'm not sure why you even mentioned it. I read the exact same thing as you, and what I got from it was different. I am not accusing you of anything. Anchoress 20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a place for soapboxes, or memorials, or calls to action.  Friday (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: She was saying that this guy is the one guy she's ALREADY gotten cooperation from. She wanted other suggestions.  Friday (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK. So she is asking if we know of any other reporters or venues in the Dallas area that might publicize her story, especially Spanish-language venues. Is that such a bad question? --Justanother 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Completely agree. Question is not offensive in any way. Leaving it on the RD cannot possibly harm Wikipedia. Someone reading it might just be able to provide this poor lady with some help. Summarily deleting it just says "we don't care about you or your problems, 'cos they are not encyclopaedic enough". Remember, as our proto-guideline says: "The Reference Desk maintains a friendly, open, welcoming environment". Gandalf61 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at communication removed and restored 

message: Isnt there a bot that is supposed to assign date headings?
This is now 2nd time I have to manually put dates in Misc.
I mean if it was usually handled manually I'll just keep adding dates quitely, but if there was a bot it might need looking into... Shinhan 16:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, RefDeskBot should be doing it, but my server's fried :(.  I'm currently running archivals manually every few days, but ut's a massive help if anyone can add the date headers (= December (date) =).  I'm really sorry about this, and will try to come up with a replacement system. Martinp23 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: As of the point of removal, we've had comments from me and Light Current supporting keeping it in, and presumably the author is in favor of that, as well.  We only received two comments in favor of removal, from SCZenz and Friday.  Vranak's comment didn't seem to be either for or against removal.  This hardly seems like a "consensus for removal", and thus, I object to any removal until more voices have been heard and a consensus is formed. StuRat
:This is not about voting.  It is about content.  What worth while content was removed? David D. (Talk) 11:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not about voting, and there has been none here.  It's about consensus, or, in this case, the lack thereof. StuRat 11:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what worth while content was removed?  David D. (Talk) 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agreed with it's removal.87.102.22.58 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you "87.102.4.227" ?  I wasn't including anon I/P's, as they could very well be sockpuppets. StuRat 12:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's always 'me' - the IP varies but seems to always start with an 8. 87.102.22.58 13:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of consensus for removal 

message: I removed those comments.  I did not, indeed, "demand" removal.  I asked for it, but in the end, there was no argument given for why those particular comments improve the reference desk, and I am 100% confident that the first remark is potentially offensive even if not all the above users agree.  (The second remark, whose sentiments I agree with, I'm only removing because it would be contextless without the first.)  As Friday says, maybe not everyone here would've personally removed them, but surely you can see that there's not much benefit to putting them back. -- SCZenz 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were very reasonable.  I also note that your primary consideration was whether the remarks improved the reference desk, which is exactly the standard we should all be using.  My own opinion is that bringing it up ahead of time wasn't even necessary, but I'm willing to throw that one into the "not worth arguing over" pile.  Friday (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Removing was right.87.102.4.227 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed