Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 4

message: An "Archive 3" has been made where I've placed all the old discussions there. Feel free to restore the active threads if they have been mistakenly place there. --HappyCamper 03:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...apparently the page I tried to make yesterday didn't save properly, so I'm still trying to go back into the history of the current talk page and archive it properly. --HappyCamper 02:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I got a better idea and moved the page to the correct location. Now, I'm going to put in a request to delete the incorrect redirect, and that should be fixed up. --HappyCamper 03:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent archive of reference desk discussions 

message: A Grammar Desk has just been created, by User:Ground Zero.  It would be no bad thing for someone to created a Maths Desk in a similar fashion. Proto t c 11:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've seen that desk. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have a math desk, but I don't think this is the time to do this at the moment. Wikipedia is not designed to be a comprehensive answering service - the splitting was suggested primarily to control the number of questions and rate of archival of them. I'd prefer to see the grammar desk under the RD as well, but I'll address that later. We have those icons to pick up there! :) --HappyCamper 12:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think it will be much better to group all these related pages together. I know there hasn't been much discussion about moving the grammar desk under the RD, but I'll take the plunge and do the move today. I think Ground Zero would understand - I'll leave a message for him/her. If the move is not good, we can just move it back. But admittingly, I'm anxious to make this transition as quick as possible to minimize the disruption to the RD and question posting/answering. --HappyCamper 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar desk 

message: Is there a way to link the icons to the appropriate pages?  I could definitely see a case where a person clicks on an icon and gets confused as to why they are looking at a page of the picture they clicked on. --CVaneg 16:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is. I redirected the image pages to their respective RD categories. — mark ✎ 17:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help with that. --HappyCamper 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icons 

message: The link labeled Reference desk (all) is linking to Reference desk&action=edit. hydnjo talk 16:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fixed by R.Koot. Now links to Wikipedia:Reference desk/all.  hydnjo talk 19:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad link

message: As I write, there is a question on the project page. Maybe the page should be locked so that people don't accidentally post the question to the wrong page? -EnSamulili 17:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing, since anybody can still edit the page through Template:RD header. --R.Koot 17:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a commented out notice for starters. Of course, some will ignore it but let's see how it works out. — mark ✎ 17:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've requested for this page to be protected. --R.Koot 18:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's protected right now. Let me know if you need something changed in it. I modifed it slightly. --HappyCamper 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock the page?

message: The Post links do not link to a new section as might be expected. hydnjo talk 18:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --R.Koot 18:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. hydnjo talk 18:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More bad links

message: Is each category supposed to have its own talk or just one for all? hydnjo talk 18:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best to have only one, except for Language & Grammer, which redirects to Wikipedia:Grammar desk at the moment. --R.Koot 18:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we wanted to put the grammar desk under the reference desk? Or are we just leaving it the way it is? --HappyCamper 00:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: IIRC, the tab said "Talk" once, but this was changed. --R.Koot 02:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page(s)

message: This is what happens when a user follows the usual how to edit procedure when entering (==The subject==) into the Subject/headline box that is presented with the Post selection. hydnjo talk 00:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks R.Koot. Post links are gone. hydnjo talk 01:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>==Subject/headline==</nowiki>

message: ===Archived here from Village pump (proposals)===
====Wikipedia:Grammar desk====
What do people think about creating a third desk called "Wikipedia:Grammar desk". I think that there are enough grammar queens on Wikipedia to monitor and answer questions. I think that such a desk would be useful, and would help improve the quality of writing here. I propose that a FAQ page be attached. Any comments? Ground Zero 19:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with IINAG that grammar rules should be flexible.  We should only correct things that are obviously wrong (like "that dogs IS hungry").  Subtle rules, which most people ignore, should not be enforced here, either.  To do so would discourage contributors who provide input which is useful, if not always grammatically ideal. StuRat 03:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, our grammar standards should be flexible, perhaps, but not that much and not for that reason. To encourage contributors, we should say, "FACTUALLY CORRECT, but ungrammatical (or otherwise poorly written) contributions are very welcome. Errors will be fixed. Poor style will be improved." Then when someone writes something that isn't perfect, we should make it better. I say let Wikipedia strive for stunningly excellent prose, which generally requires good grammar. The main reason we do want to be flexible about grammar rules is that we have contributors from different countries. It is well known, for example, that standard U.S. usage differs significantly from standard U.K. usage. So there is no standard of "correct grammar" that applies worldwide. Another reason is that grammar standards evolve. For example, getting back to IINAG's example, hardly anyone has a problem with split infinitives any more. — Nowhither 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Grammar Desk (moved from that page) 

message: ====Wikipedia:Grammar desk====
What do people think about creating a third desk called "Wikipedia:Grammar desk". I think that there are enough grammar queens on Wikipedia to monitor and answer questions. I think that such a desk would be useful, and would help improve the quality of writing here. I propose that a FAQ page be attached. Any comments? Ground Zero 19:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with IINAG that grammar rules should be flexible.  We should only correct things that are obviously wrong (like "that dogs IS hungry").  Subtle rules, which most people ignore, should not be enforced here, either.  To do so would discourage contributors who provide input which is useful, if not always grammatically ideal. StuRat 03:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, our grammar standards should be flexible, perhaps, but not that much and not for that reason. To encourage contributors, we should say, "FACTUALLY CORRECT, but ungrammatical (or otherwise poorly written) contributions are very welcome. Errors will be fixed. Poor style will be improved." Then when someone writes something that isn't perfect, we should make it better. I say let Wikipedia strive for stunningly excellent prose, which generally requires good grammar. The main reason we do want to be flexible about grammar rules is that we have contributors from different countries. It is well known, for example, that standard U.S. usage differs significantly from standard U.K. usage. So there is no standard of "correct grammar" that applies worldwide. Another reason is that grammar standards evolve. For example, getting back to IINAG's example, hardly anyone has a problem with split infinitives any more. — Nowhither 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived here from Village pump (proposals)

message: What do people think about creating a third desk called "Wikipedia:Grammar desk". I think that there are enough grammar queens on Wikipedia to monitor and answer questions. I think that such a desk would be useful, and would help improve the quality of writing here. I propose that a FAQ page be attached. Any comments? Ground Zero 19:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with IINAG that grammar rules should be flexible.  We should only correct things that are obviously wrong (like "that dogs IS hungry").  Subtle rules, which most people ignore, should not be enforced here, either.  To do so would discourage contributors who provide input which is useful, if not always grammatically ideal. StuRat 03:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, our grammar standards should be flexible, perhaps, but not that much and not for that reason. To encourage contributors, we should say, "FACTUALLY CORRECT, but ungrammatical (or otherwise poorly written) contributions are very welcome. Errors will be fixed. Poor style will be improved." Then when someone writes something that isn't perfect, we should make it better. I say let Wikipedia strive for stunningly excellent prose, which generally requires good grammar. The main reason we do want to be flexible about grammar rules is that we have contributors from different countries. It is well known, for example, that standard U.S. usage differs significantly from standard U.K. usage. So there is no standard of "correct grammar" that applies worldwide. Another reason is that grammar standards evolve. For example, getting back to IINAG's example, hardly anyone has a problem with split infinitives any more. — Nowhither 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Grammar desk

message: I have created this page after consulting with other editors and after posting a proposal at the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (see above) for a suitable period of time. I received no negative responses to my proposal, and several positive ones. 
The aim of this page is to fill a gap in Wikipedia's "Ask a question" pages. I had tried several times to find a suitable place to ask a grammar question, and found only the Wikipedia:Reference desk. I got answers to my question at the RD (which I have posted to get the ball rolling on GD), but that desk is quickly being overloaded with questions about a wide range of topics.
My hope in creating the Grammar desk is that it can help, at least in a small way, to improve the quality of writing on Wikipedia by creating a place for editors to ask questions and get answers about English grammar and usage. 
Please note that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia/encyclopaedia that does not give preference to any national or regional variant of the English language. In other words, British English and American English have equal standing with each other, and with other variants such as Canadian English, Australian English, South Efrican English, New Zealand English and others. 
Thank you, and enjoy. Ground Zero 21:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fresh to page discussion

message: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect supages of RD to ensure all the talk is centralized? --HappyCamper 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean protecting the talk pages? I don't think that would be necessary, as it is impossible to edit (remove the redirect) those accidentally. --R.Koot 01:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. We'll leave them free and liberated then! (I don't want to protect them anyway, but was worth asking). --HappyCamper 01:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect supages of RD to ensure all talk is centralized? 

message: (Please add to the list, and cross them out once checked. Thanks for helping out!)
# Check unneeded redirects
#:What exactly are you thinking of?  The only redirect I see in the Reference desk(at first glance) is history, which redirects to humanities.  I think that can stay. Superm401 | Talk 03:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
#::I'm thinking of things dangling from the Grammar desk WP:GD and stuff like that. I haven't checked all of the yet. --HappyCamper 04:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: Hmm...looks like there are still a few loose ends to tie up, but most of the major changes seem to have been completed okay. I hope we've left enough notes here so other Wikipedians coming by tomorrow will have some idea of how they can help out if they want to. I'm going to sleep. Goodnight! --HappyCamper 04:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diary - thoughts on tomorrow 

message: Since we have 4 subpages now, probably best to put all these pages in your watchlist (or just put the ones you are interested in it)
* Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities --> shortcut (WP:RD/H)
* Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language --> shortcut (WP:RD/L or WP:RD/LANG)
* Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science --> shortcut (WP:RD/S or WP:RD/SCI)
* Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous --> shortcut (WP:RD/M or WP:RD/MISC)
There's also a page which lists all these pages (takes a while to load)
* Wikipedia:Reference desk/all --> shortcut (WP:RD/ALL) --HappyCamper 04:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for new RD usage: 

message: User:Ground Zero has put in a tremendous effort in getting this page set up: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language/FAQs. I wonder what is the best way to incorporate this into the reference desk? Presumably a link in the languages subpage, but how to add it so that it's prominent enough that people will see it? --HappyCamper 05:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language/FAQs]] 

message: There is an old header for the grammar desk here at Template:GD header. No pages link to it, but there are some important points in it which should be ported over, for example:
Please recognize that English grammar varies widely between English-speaking countries: what is standard grammar in the United Kingdom can be very different from that in the United States, for example. Wikipedia does not give preference to any national or regional variant of English.
Where would be a good place to put this? Ideas? --HappyCamper 05:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old header for the grammar desk 

message: Could we get some feedback on the new reference desk pages? I think the pages look good. What do you think? --HappyCamper 13:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 15:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Much easier to navigate. What would really be extra wonderful would be to click a subject "edit" link on the All page and be magically beamed over to an edit dialog window in the correct category. :-) hydnjo talk 16:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: **There are some buttons at the very top of the page. What other buttons do you think would be good to add? One to edit the entire page of the subcategories? --HappyCamper 16:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *** Section edit buttons, they also dissapear if the page is protected. --R.Koot 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: **** Well, I have to go now...I'll come back in a bit. I left a message for Michael Snow. Maybe some mention of the changes made to the RD will be mentioned in the Signpost, so that Wikipedians know that the RD is back in order. --HappyCamper 16:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *****What happens when a question is asked in the wrong category? I just want us to think about it before it happens so we'll all know how to respond. hydnjo talk 16:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: ******We could copy the question (and any accumulated responses) to the appropriate desk and leave a note under the original question with a pointer to where it's been copied.  In other words, just the same as what usually happens when someone posts on the wrong talk page and the discussion is continued at the more appropriate place.  That way both the original poster and those well-equipped to answer the question can find it.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: Well, it's very pretty, but I for one find it much more difficult to use. Trollderella 17:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that it had to be broken up, but at least now I don't get an edit conflict every single time I try to answer a question.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's really difficult to see all the most recent questions - I used to love coming to the bottom of the page to find something interesting and surprising. Trollderella 18:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving every 5 days was not enough to keep up with the number of questions being added to the desk. Look at the August archives for example. Archiving on the 2nd, 8th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 16th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and still this wasn't enough to keep the question count small! So I respectfully disagree with the first point - archival every 5 days is not enough. It was adequate maybe 2 months ago, but ah! Those beautiful days are long gone! Archiving has definitely become more difficult of late. --HappyCamper 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That's what I was trying to say! Trollderella 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to recreate a long form, just create a new page, Wikipedia:Reference desk (complete list), say, by transcluding all the new subpages into it. Add a link to the Wikipedia:Reference desk project page to let everyone else who may prefer it to use it. This is what happened when I shortened WP:VfD by changing it from week-at-a-view to day-at-a-view, and it seemed to go down well, jguk 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ? This sounds easy when you say it... Trollderella 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this different from WP:RD/ALL? See below. If you've helped change the VfD page, it would be great if you could help out. --HappyCamper 23:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty, but difficult to use 

message: Of all the alternatives so far, alteripse's makes the most sense in my opinion.  Another benefit of the common-active RD is that it would eliminate the "wrong category" problem.  hydnjo talk 19:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Trollderella 19:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand that proposal the categories would contain stale but not yet ready for the tombs Q&A's. The RD page woud be common (include all cats) and active (by some definition). Is that how others see alteripse's proposal? hydnjo talk 20:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like what he's saying.  I think it'll be confusing if we rely on sorting after the fact. — Laura Scudder | Talk 22:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, there is still a page which lists all the questions! It's at Wikipedia:Reference desk/all, with the shortcut WP:RD/A or WP:RD/ALL. Yes, it's a bit more difficult to see all the new questions, but at least the entire listing is still there. You can also get to this "all listing page" by clicking on the bottom right hand corner of the reference desk page here at Wikipedia:Reference desk. --HappyCamper 23:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a inept attempt at analogy but here goes. The old way was like my meeting with four mutual friends at a bar, listening and conversing at will and paying more or less attention depending on my interest at the moment. Very noisy perhaps but kind of fun knowing what's going on all around. In contrast, the alternative is to distribute the four friends in separate booths at the same bar and move from booth to booth and conversing at will. Much quieter and more efficient but less energy it seems. I'm sure that there some barroom analogy to the /All page but I think I'll leave it at that. hydnjo talk 00:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering alternatives 

message: R.Koot - you're so good at this! Your idea is perfect. It's subtle, but extremely useful, and it doesn't clutter up anything. Excellent work! --HappyCamper 02:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The perfect solution 

message: Please add archive links in the 4 sub-category pages. I went to Humanities and found that questions had been moved. I had to come back to main reference page to go to the archives page. Jay 05:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, will work on that right now. Done. Looks good? --HappyCamper 00:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive link