Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 3

message: I hadn't seen the above talk, thought that the policy was to archive removed questions & answers, and created Wikipedia:Reference Desk archive January 2004-2.  But since it is felt that a deletion log is enough, I've created an entry in Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive about the last major deletion. All deletions could be similarly logged in that page instead of archiving all the questions & answers. -- Paddu 19:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has again archived some questions & answers at Wikipedia:Reference Desk archive March 2004. IMHO we should have a single policy to be followed while cleaning old stuff from the Reference desk. Either archive all deletions (of old stuff), or note the deletions in a Changelog, or do nothing about any such deletions. As of now each deletion has been treated differently. -- Paddu 12:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Old Q&A 

message: The TOC is now one page long :(. 'd do it myself, but it's like 1 AM here...and I'm off to bed. 'll do it tomorrow if nobody has yet. like not using the word 'I' :D  — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 06:02, 16 Aug 2004 
:It's better than VfD!  Seriously, though, all the entries on the page are less than a month old.  Turnaround time seems to be up to three weeks in some cases.  What should the policy be?  Should questions be removed two weeks after the last reply?  --Eequor 12:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me...  — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for cleanup 

message: The current count is one italicised section at the top; nine bulleted guidelines for questioners; three for responders; and four more pointers to other places. There's a lot of bold text about. These guidelines, on the other hand, are not being followed - presumably because people aren't reading them. For example, there have been lots of unclear subject-only questions, some all-caps, and from the lack of followups I imagine that plenty of questioners are expecting emailed replies.
I think that the instructions need to be rewritten and shortened to make them easier for people to follow. My suggestion is to replace the bulleted lists with "How to ask a question" and "How to answer a question", featuring example screenshots (say one each, showing filled-in edit boxes). Stuff like the child-safe warning can be split off into a different section, as it applies to everyone. I think that having example edit boxes to look at will help people understand what the process actually is.
Quick sketch: (not a fully-formed proposal)
:How to ask a question
:(Image of the perfect question being composed.)
:[Follow this link to ask a question.]  Write your question in the large box, and give it a brief, descriptive title. When you press "Save page" the question will appear at the bottom of this page. Other readers will try to answer it by adding to this page - you will not receive replies by email.
:How to answer a question
:(Image of the perfect answer to the perfect question.) 
:If you can help answer a question, select the "edit" link to the right of the question title. Add your answer to the text already there, and press "Save page" to make your reply appear.
:Useful tips
:* You can sign your posts by writing ~~~~ in the edit box, but you need to [get an account] if you want to appear as a name, not a number.
:* Please link to any relevant Wikipedia articles. You can do this by putting  and  around the article title in your message.
:* Remember that readers of all ages visit this page.
Comments welcome, as always. --AlexG 21:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Three cheers! m:Instruction creep is a terrible thing, and this page's instructions definitely need a haircut. Let's use Template talk:RD header to work on the new slim-and-trim version? • Benc • 21:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion continues at Template_talk:RD header. AlexG 19:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruction bloat 

message: This is a question aimed at RD maintainers.
User:Kate has recently implemented some code that allows the [edit] links to work for subsections of included templates. See this discussion of VfD talk for a full explanation of how this feature works on VfD. This feature has other applications, too. It's already in use at Wikipedia:Village pump, and I've used it here for the "Squirrelled" discussion. The actual discussion resides at Talk:List of the longest English words with one syllable/Squirrelled, but it's included (and editable via the [edit] link) here on WP:RD. In a nutshell (heh): this new feature allows for a more seamless integration of subpages into other pages.
My question is this: is what I did for the "Squirrelled" discussion acceptable to apply to some of the other questions? I was think that this could make archiving answered questions a lot easier, since they'd already be part of the relevant article talk page. All maintainers have to do is remove the  from RD.
WikiJanitors like myself could summarily move discussions (even if they were in progress; this is a background change) to article talk subpages. This would only be done for questions that are relevant to a particular article and can't be answered with a simple "go read our article on X".
This would result in far fewer edits to the RD itself, and as an added bonus, the answered question would be listed on the relevant article's talk page, resulting in more input from knowledgeable editors with the article on their watchlists. New users would, of course, be encouraged to post new questions using the standard old way. Finding a relevant talk page and moving the discussion is a job for WikiJanitors or experienced question askers.
Good idea? Bad idea? • Benc • 06:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick demo at User:Sverdrup/Reference desk, October 2004 ✏ Sverdrup 17:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I had envisioned transcluding individual questions from article talk subpages onto the RD. What you said could work too, though. • Benc • 19:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic archiving using templates for discussions? 

message: How did this page wind up with the contents repeated multiple times so that there are nominally 700 questions?  Have I come across someone archiving it? PedanticallySpeaking 21:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
:I think this has to do with browser glitches and the submission not going through the first time. It happens periodically and it's a royal pain to fix. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems to be a bug in the Mediawiki software.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 18:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Duplication? 

message: ===Problem===
This page experiences a lot of edits. Which means that if someone posted a question they may easily miss the answer. 
Example: David asks how to handle a sling. Solomon replies, but then Rehoboam asks a new question about taxation. Now David's watchlist doesn't show Solomon's reply. 
===Solution 1: Replace text with link to subpage===
I would therefore propose that we keep this page as an overview only. When David clicks on the link to enter his question, it will 
# create a new subpage Reference_desk/how_to_use_a_sling for his question 
# insert a link to that subpage at the bottom of the main page (maybe with David's name and date)
# add the subpage to David's watchlist (and tell him about it, if this isn't his default setting)
====Advantages==== 
* David is made aware of Solomon's reply
* the page itself will be much smaller, which itself has several advantages:
** It is easier to navigate
** We won't have to archive so often
** the location of the question itself doesn't change — people will always be able to find their questions.
* it would allow sorting the Reference_desk page by topic;
* it would allow defining categories for questions (if that works for subpages), so that other users interested in a topic are more likely to find the question. (We could even add a dropdown for categories in the question dialog so David could select a category already.) 
====Comments====
Please let me know what you think. — Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
*An excellent idea for all the reasons that Sebastian gives. In fact, I can see no significant down side. --Theo  (Talk) 13:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People would then need option of putting 100% of an article, its talk page, main sections,  on a watch list, or individual sections. Then someone might want all the primary links, or just some of them, that way.  AlMac|(talk) 01:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split up in subpages? 

message: I would therefore propose that we keep this page as an overview only. When David clicks on the link to enter his question, it will 
# create a new subpage Reference_desk/how_to_use_a_sling for his question 
# insert a link to that subpage at the bottom of the main page (maybe with David's name and date)
# add the subpage to David's watchlist (and tell him about it, if this isn't his default setting)
====Advantages==== 
* David is made aware of Solomon's reply
* the page itself will be much smaller, which itself has several advantages:
** It is easier to navigate
** We won't have to archive so often
** the location of the question itself doesn't change — people will always be able to find their questions.
* it would allow sorting the Reference_desk page by topic;
* it would allow defining categories for questions (if that works for subpages), so that other users interested in a topic are more likely to find the question. (We could even add a dropdown for categories in the question dialog so David could select a category already.) 
====Comments====
Please let me know what you think. — Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
*An excellent idea for all the reasons that Sebastian gives. In fact, I can see no significant down side. --Theo  (Talk) 13:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution 1: Replace text with link to subpage

message: Please let me know what you think. — Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
*An excellent idea for all the reasons that Sebastian gives. In fact, I can see no significant down side. --Theo  (Talk) 13:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: (Proposed by SebastianHelm; anyone is encouraged to edit it)
Users can choose "skins". The concise skin will show only the links to questions and maybe a reply count, as proposed in Solution 1. The verbose skin, will display the whole text, as in Solution 2.
Are "skins" supposed to be understandable to newbies, who may be here in greater numbers than old hands.  AlMac|(talk) 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution 3: Combine Solution 1 and 2 

message: (Proposed by Fangz, who is encouraged to edit it)
Benefit:
* It could also be applied to other pages, such as long talk pages or the vandalism page.
:People would then need option of putting 100% of an article, its talk page, main sections,  on a watch list, or individual sections. Then someone might want all the primary links, or just some of them, that way.  AlMac|(talk) 01:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution 4: allow users to put sections on watchlists

message: Basically, this works already in WP:CfD (with days as units). Since these question are often by new users, it would have to be easier to use, so I'm thinking of one functionality change: When the user clicks on "Ask a new question by clicking here", it creates the subpage automatically and inserts a transclusion into WP:CfD. Then we can go from there: Link or transclude at our hearts content from or into other topical pages. The burden of sorting would shift from first time users to those of us who don't mind a bit of categorization. — Sebastian (talk) 05:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I have mixed feelings on this ... I know when I go to an off-line public library, the sections are clearly marked, so that I can navigate myself to where the reference materials are relevant to what I am interested in.  But I also have been involved in Computer "Help Desk."  A person with a problem often does not have the right terminology to describe the symptoms of what the problem is.  Further, they have a partial theory what is going on, which could be totally off base, but they often couch their call for help, within the context of their theory of what is going on.
:Using sub-pages which are linked to the main reference page might accomplish several goals:
* Those topics that get excellent responses, are now in a form that could be moved to a new stub article.
* When the sub-page is started, the editor setup with the watch this topic box checked, to help whoever posted the question find it again after many others have been added to the collection.
* People who look at the table of contents can still see all the sub-page topics that are out there, and connect to those that interest them, but this might be more cumbersome, and thus less get answered quickly. AlMac|(talk) 00:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one obvious problem here. VfD and the like tend to, by their nature, have unique titles - articles which go up for VfD tend to only do so once. However, a lot of RD and HD queries tend to have repeated titles - at the moment, for example, we have thirteen or so one-word topic titles. A lot of these are liable to be repeated - "Reference", for example, or "Quote". This sounds like it might well cause problems... Shimgray 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative: Move each question in its subpage

message: I have been doing most of the archiving of the reference desk during the last month. The heuristic I was using was as follows:
# Archive threads that are about 6 days old since the last response;
# Archive threads which have not been answered for "a long time" near the top;
# Archive whenever the reference desk exceeds 100 questions;
This heuristic seems a bit inadequate for the rate at which the questions are being asked. It has steadily increased over time, and I think sooner or later questions will need to be archived much earlier just to keep the page smaller and more organized. Does anyone have a better heuristic to use? --HappyCamper 08:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's a good idea to suggest in the "How to ask a question" section that people who check back leave a little note if their question is answered to their satisfaction. Then the discussion can be archived quickly, after keeping it 2 days or so for others who might be interested. I don't know if such a suggestion would have any effect, but it could be worth a try. David Sneek 17:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate of question growth on Reference Desk increasing... 

message: Why not try this?
# Archive the questions just like we've been doing.
# Supplementary to this, simply make another set of archives based on the existing archives which have questions sorted by topic?
These next set of archives can be updated whenever a Wikipedian comes along and feels like "question sorting", much like "stub sorting" I suppose.
I think one good page to make is an "identify this XYZ" page. Such queries come on the reference desk every now and then, and make it quite interesting. It would be worthwhile to collect all of these requests together and archive them I think. --HappyCamper 08:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference desk archiving 

message: As far as I could tell, the threads which were archived were inactive; please feel free to restore them back to the reference desk if necessary. (About 100 questions were removed!) --HappyCamper 01:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  29th July archival 

message: Yesterday I posed several questions to the page and today when I checked to see if they had been answered found some had already been removed to the archive--in under twenty-four hours.  This is far too fast, even if the replies actually answered the questions, which they did not.  Yes, this page does get long but removing material in under twenty-four hours is overzealous.  I have reposted the two questions.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Usually the questions are there for more than that. I asked questions and they were still there after a day. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing the archiving for the last two months or so, and recently a new Wikipedian is just trying to learn the ropes and get a feel for the archiving. Just give the user a chance. I'll restore more of the archived questions today. --HappyCamper 16:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving questions far too quickly 

message: I did the most recent archiving, and User talk:Jamesmusik was nice to point out that I should try and minimize the number of edits to the page while doing so to avoid cluttering up the page history. I think I'll add this little tip to the reference desk archive page. --HappyCamper 10:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving tips for next time