Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 23

message: How come the RD page isn't getting archived? It's becoming much too large for my dial-up connection. —LestatdeLioncourt 09:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about this - I've not been able to run the bot recently due to the bad British weatcher damaging my phone line, and making it impossible for me to run the bot in anything other than debug mode, due to the sheer number of web errors I get.  Again, sorry about this - I'll being it up to date tomorrow (need to boot into a different partition).  I've applied for a toolserver account, so there may be *slightly* better service in future :) Martinp23 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't stand those "bad British weatchers" myself. Edison 18:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Is the Reference desk archived or deleted? John Reaves (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's archived. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives which links from all the desks and also from the reference desk's main page. ---Sluzzelin 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Moved from science desk since it's not an RD question.  -- SCZenz 12:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I would hazzard a guess that if you're at all involved in science you need to have a sense of humor - the ability to have a good laugh at yourself when you realise that the data you've been working on for two weeks turns out to be noise... otherwise you would go mad! --Neo 12:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no big deal, but in my opinion this particular question could have stayed on the science desk, inspite of self-referentiality. At any rate, I don't think it belongs here. It's not about what belongs on the reference desk and what doesn't, and it's not specifically about how we could or should handle the reference desk, its archiving, trolls etc. You do have a valid point in that the question invited for a "discussion of the Reference Desks", in compliance with the template at the top of this talk page, but moving the question here does the original poster no service, as the question was directed at the people who read the science desk, not at the people who read the talk page. Just my two cents. ---Sluzzelin 13:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key point is that it is certainly not a science question, and the science reference desk is certainly not a place to have general discussions with "the people who read the science desk," so it doesn't belong there.  Maybe I shouldn't have put it here either, but people seem to prefer that anything removed from the ref desks go here instead. -- SCZenz 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the person had asked "Why do people working in the scientific field have a weird sense of humor?", would it have been acceptable to leave this at the science desk? I think it would have, since this would be a behavioral question on scientists. I know this wasn't the question, and all I'm saying is that not every question can be clearly assigned to a particular desk. So, if one of the fuzzier ones gets "misplaced" in the strict sense of our desk titles, then it wouldn't hurt to leave it there. But maybe I'm wrong. ---Sluzzelin 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your example might make more sense to keep, yes.  The real trouble with "how come this reference deks is the only one with a sense of humour?" is that it is not a factual question to which reliable sources can possibly be applied—questions about Wikipedia belong properly on the help desk, whereas the reference desks (like articles) are for information about the real world.  Thus there's no better reference desk than science—the issue is that the question isn't answerable factually from sources or Wikipedia articles, not that it was on the wrong desk. -- SCZenz 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, to tell the truth, because of the question's tone, I didn't really mind your move that much. (Implying that all the other desks lack any sense of humor isn't nice). If, however, the question had been something like "Why does the science reference desk have such a wonderful sense of humor", I hope the question would have remained unmoved and invited people to give references on geek humor, the ebullience of scientific geniuses, and perhaps some Garylarsonesque speculation demonstrating the self-referential question at hand in a self-referential way. I'd always advocate getting the most out of a question in a sense and spirit on which, I speculate, you and I are in complete agreement. So no opposition to the move per se, but an appeal to always seeing the answerable part in a question, no matter how awkward or exceptional the latter might be. ---Sluzzelin 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's about the reference desk, there can't possibly be any references.  Getting the most out of a question is one thing; stretching it to mean something completely different is another. -- SCZenz 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of questions asked here are anecdotal and get answered with references to generalizations, be they more essayistic (but notable) or in the form of collected emprical data.  But I guess you're right, there's no point in speculating. Case by case, questionable questions will be discussed on their own merit, and since my only disagreement here is speculative, I'd best leave it at that. :) ---Sluzzelin 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta--question moved from Science desk 

message: this reference deks is the only one with a sense of humour? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.3.207 (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I would hazzard a guess that if you're at all involved in science you need to have a sense of humor - the ability to have a good laugh at yourself when you realise that the data you've been working on for two weeks turns out to be noise... otherwise you would go mad! --Neo 12:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no big deal, but in my opinion this particular question could have stayed on the science desk, inspite of self-referentiality. At any rate, I don't think it belongs here. It's not about what belongs on the reference desk and what doesn't, and it's not specifically about how we could or should handle the reference desk, its archiving, trolls etc. You do have a valid point in that the question invited for a "discussion of the Reference Desks", in compliance with the template at the top of this talk page, but moving the question here does the original poster no service, as the question was directed at the people who read the science desk, not at the people who read the talk page. Just my two cents. ---Sluzzelin 13:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key point is that it is certainly not a science question, and the science reference desk is certainly not a place to have general discussions with "the people who read the science desk," so it doesn't belong there.  Maybe I shouldn't have put it here either, but people seem to prefer that anything removed from the ref desks go here instead. -- SCZenz 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the person had asked "Why do people working in the scientific field have a weird sense of humor?", would it have been acceptable to leave this at the science desk? I think it would have, since this would be a behavioral question on scientists. I know this wasn't the question, and all I'm saying is that not every question can be clearly assigned to a particular desk. So, if one of the fuzzier ones gets "misplaced" in the strict sense of our desk titles, then it wouldn't hurt to leave it there. But maybe I'm wrong. ---Sluzzelin 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your example might make more sense to keep, yes.  The real trouble with "how come this reference deks is the only one with a sense of humour?" is that it is not a factual question to which reliable sources can possibly be applied—questions about Wikipedia belong properly on the help desk, whereas the reference desks (like articles) are for information about the real world.  Thus there's no better reference desk than science—the issue is that the question isn't answerable factually from sources or Wikipedia articles, not that it was on the wrong desk. -- SCZenz 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, to tell the truth, because of the question's tone, I didn't really mind your move that much. (Implying that all the other desks lack any sense of humor isn't nice). If, however, the question had been something like "Why does the science reference desk have such a wonderful sense of humor", I hope the question would have remained unmoved and invited people to give references on geek humor, the ebullience of scientific geniuses, and perhaps some Garylarsonesque speculation demonstrating the self-referential question at hand in a self-referential way. I'd always advocate getting the most out of a question in a sense and spirit on which, I speculate, you and I are in complete agreement. So no opposition to the move per se, but an appeal to always seeing the answerable part in a question, no matter how awkward or exceptional the latter might be. ---Sluzzelin 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's about the reference desk, there can't possibly be any references.  Getting the most out of a question is one thing; stretching it to mean something completely different is another. -- SCZenz 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of questions asked here are anecdotal and get answered with references to generalizations, be they more essayistic (but notable) or in the form of collected emprical data.  But I guess you're right, there's no point in speculating. Case by case, questionable questions will be discussed on their own merit, and since my only disagreement here is speculative, I'd best leave it at that. :) ---Sluzzelin 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how come 

message: I removed a bit of pro/anti-Abraham Lincoln soapboxing from the entertainment desk.  Friday (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While on the subject: this is arguably in answer the question, but do you think this and this were good responses? Take a look at this thread on ANI if you think it's not likely to cause us problems.—eric 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with THB- it's kind of a weird thing to soapbox about and it's utterly irrelevant to anything so there's really no harm. I wouldn't have deleted it but it's fine. --⁪frothT 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't see this as "zomg 100% removal" but it's not that big of deal one way or the other. --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good call.  Textbook violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.  If someone disagrees with existing/proposed policies, they should be discussed somewhere appropriate, not converted into snide remarks on a high-traffic public page. -- SCZenz 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The comment was promptly restored. No action was taken to stop the restorer from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Beyond that, dangerously innacurate medical advice was given -  - from the msds "Skin absorption is a significant route of potential over-exposure to Mercury." Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have edited the reference desk to remove soapboxing, dangerous inacurate medical advice and arguing with someone providing such. My removal was here. Why is nothing done to stop this dangerous disruption of what is supposed to be an informative resource? Are the reference desks more valuable deleted than kept? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The solution to these problems at this time is continued vigilance, and removal of genuinely dangerous threads on sight.  Your vigilance is greatly appreciated.  If particular users repeatedly restore comments that are dangerous, let me know and you'll have my assistance in bringing the problem to the community at large for appropriate action. -- SCZenz 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soapboxing removed 

message: Copied from Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/RD header
I changed the Click image links to Imagemap ones, as has been done on the main page. In doing so I noticed that we don't have nice full-sized svg icons for Literature or Music (Mona Lisa and Musical note icons), only the much smaller png icons. If anyone knows where to find the large icons, that'd be great. Rawling4851 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, whenever someone links to one of the header subpages, people make dozens of little edits all over them >_< See my response at the actual WT page --⁪frothT 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imagemap 

message: On WP:RD/S, Days before and after Jan 9 are archived, but that day is still on the live page. What happened? DMacks 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that too. That table of contents is becoming cumbersomely large! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 9 Science RD not archived 

message: The ugly white background behind the desk icons is now light grey and has a nice border. Also I revised basically all of the "supplemental" desks' descriptions because they were way too long. And I moved the "Help" metalink up a couple pixels, and changed various margins. --⁪frothT 08:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prettification on the RD front page 

message: Also I found something nifty that our sister desk came up with last year.. it's a convenient and attractive way to link into the encyclopedia from time-to-time on the desks. Check it out. --⁪frothT 08:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something nifty

message: It's about time someone deleted the extremely outdated Association of Ref-Desk Volunteers page. Anyone know a meta admin? --⁪frothT 08:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MFD Anchoress 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't work, since the meta page is not on English Wikipedia.  Since it's easier than finding a meta-admin, I just replaced the page with a note saying it's outdated.  It's a wiki wiki world! -- SCZenz 23:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soon to be deleted? 

message: There are so many questions in the Misc Desk which could be moved to the more appropriate desks. We have been very displined in moving questions to the Entertainment Desk from Humanities desk. I suggest we use the same strategy for the misc desk and move questions into Humanities, Science, etc. --Parker007 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc Desk 

message: For questions concerning movies, actors, directors, etc., perhaps we should add http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000001/threads/ as an external link? It's a forum board called "I Need To Know" on imdb.com. Faustus Tacitus 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to register in order to file a question or participate. ---Sluzzelin 12:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's awfully prohibitive to the average OP. Feel free to make a template out of it though and use it in your responses --⁪frothT 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions concerning cinema 

message: --Light current 09:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is RD talk better, worse, or just as bad without Light current? 

message: No one is answering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Dopamine_reuptake_inhibitor_.28Want_References.29 --Parker007 07:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: dun did. ^_^ V-Man737 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hey thnx for replying. I have asked a clarification below. I hope you won't mind answering. Thnx again. --Parker007 07:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RS]]

message: (Beleeted per consensus; apologies if opposition didn't get a chance to make itself known.)
:Beleeted?  That's a new one. JackofOz 05:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. It is a vague Homestar Runner reference. I can't help meself!!!1 V-Man737 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Humanities desk mess