Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 37

message: I noticed this  (see number 17) which I've corrected here. I'm lazy to look into it but could it be a bot bug? I note someone mentioned a abortive bot edit  so alternatively perhaps that's why. Nil Einne 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've noticed those a few times too.  I haven't figured out what causes them.  (But they've been happening for a while; they have nothing to do with the problems last night.) I don't feel too bad about them, because all they do is leave the subject entry un-hotlinked (and strangely punctuated), but prior to this month, those subject entries were never hotlinked. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the number of instances where this has occurred in the computing desk archives, it would seem that any use of html tags in question titles disrupts the bot. --VectorPotentialTalk 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that would do it.  Thanks for the tip.  (I think I meant to worry about that case, but forgot...) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scsbot problem?

message: I think it's pretty clear when a great answer has been given to an interesting question and it's worth saving for posterity.  I suspect that all we really need to do is to create a page called 'Best of the Ref Desk' (or something like that) and let people edit it in true Wikipedia style.  It's going to grow - and it'll doubtless accumulate cruft - and someone will periodically clean it up.  It would have a 'discussion' page where people may choose to passionately argue about what should and shouldn't be there - and polls may occasionally happen when there is debate over whether some article should be there or not.  But I suspect that in the end, the standards for what makes it into the page will be quirky and that the quality you'll need to have to make it into the page will gradually grow over the years.  It is likely (as with most Wikipedia pages) that one or two people will come to informally 'own' the page and keep it alive and relevent.  Whether it contains witty (but irrelevent) answers or off-topic (but clever) answers - or merely the ones that helped the OP the most, is anyone's guess.  But this way it can evolve and grow into whatever we want it to be.
This approach is taken with lots of other 'Best of' Wikipedia pages such as Wikipedia:Unusual articles.  Voting adds red tape and is not 'the wikipedia way'. A weekly pick would mean that in some weeks a basically weak choice has to be made because there was nothing better - and on really good weeks, two excellent answers have to fight it out to be included.  The 'Benevolent Dictator' model only works when more or less everyone agrees with the dictator - there is no easy way to ensure that we have the right person for the job.  
A less formal mechanism would be much nicer.  Let's just make a page and let people populate it - it's the WP way.
SteveBaker 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (And while we're about it - a Ref Desk FAQ would be handy too.  There are a bunch of questions we get very frequently and a succinct pointer to the FAQ would often save everyone a lot of time.) SteveBaker 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominate Steve to write a FAQ answer about torque curves and mechanical advantage as they relate to car acceleration.  Friday (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a Reference desk/FAQ, only nobody is maintaining it.  --Lambiam 18:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not exactly well advertised is it?!  I couldn't find a single link to it other than in >8 month old archived questions.  The link labelled 'frequently asked questions' on the main Ref Desk page links to WP:FAQ which is not at all the same thing?  It's really, really hard to contribute to something you don't know about!  But anyway - that's just an aside.  We're supposed to be talking about a 'Best of' page. SteveBaker 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Much Simpler Proposal 

message: On page Wikipedia:Reference desk the category
::Category:Non-talk pages with subpages automatically signed by HagermanBot
should be changed to
::Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed
 --Lambiam 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, shouldn't we be as specific as possible  ? StuRat 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because user:sinebot does the signing?87.102.18.14 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Hagerbot has been superseded and the category in question is intended to be empty, with the ref desk being the only link it in (due to protection) Kuronue | Talk 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the editprotected request, since this doesn't involve any edits to protected pages.  There is no such category on Wikipedia:Reference desk. Nor is there one on Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header, the categories are all manually added to each Reference desk page, and have, as of this date, all been corrected.--69.118.235.97 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added it, as I don't believe the problem has been resolved. As of this writing, the page Wikipedia:Reference desk includes the category Non-talk pages with subpages automatically signed by HagermanBot. It's right there at the bottom, beside "Wikipedia help forums" and "Wikipedia resources for researchers". And that category still includes the page Wikipedia:Reference desk. - Eron Talk 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, I must have missed seeing the category there. --69.118.235.97 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed 

message: Hi guys!  I've just checked the Humanities Desk history, as I usually do in the evening, and see a quite legitimate question on Kublai Khan was removed altogether by an anonymous IP, on the grounds that it was a 'homework question' (An answer was also removed).  I sincerly hope that the questioner did not notice this, because I cannot imagine anything more discourteous and hurtful.  The thread was restored by Lambiam, exercising his usual good sense.  I am in favour of the instant removel of obvious trollish questions, and I can just about tolerate a 'we do not do homework' response; but the complete excision of an honest question, homework or not, is for me quite intolerable.  I hope you do not think I am making too much of this, but I would not wish to see this action as part of a new pattern.  Incidentally, on the matter of trolling, I am beginning to feel that the Haiti and West Africa questions are beginning, ever so slightly, to fall into this category.  Several superb answers have been produced, but the same old thing just keeps on rolling along!  Love to you all Clio the Muse 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that questions should never be removed for looking like homework. In fact, I never type "Do your own homework!" and then leave it at that either. There are always ways of pointing a questioner to references or abstractly showing what might be a good approach for answering the question. Assisting with homework is not the same thing as doing the homework. (But that's just my opinion.) As for the Haitian questions, I do know what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's in the same category as the antisemitic, anticatholic, antimuslim series we saw a couple of months ago. I admire Lambiam and Marco's patience in explaining it over and over again. To me this is model referencedeskship. It's tricky to determine what is trolling and what is an innocent nuisance, but, once again, assuming good faith isn't the worst of all options. The alternative would be to simply ignore the question when they annoy us. My 2¢. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Xanadu 

message: We have a winner for this week. Well done the Mathematics Desk. (Yes, I can't quite believe it, myself) --Dweller 11:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another attempt at selecting best threads that I just found out. A.Z. 19:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh. One edit, 18 months ago. I've done monstrously well already, compared with that! That looks eminently deletable. --Dweller 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award]] 

message: There is a discussion regarding the merits of linking to the Wikipedia-related IRC channel which deals with factual enquiries (#wikipedia-desk) from the "howtoask" header and possibly other places at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask. All interested users are invited to contribute. GDonato (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC channel 

message: The archiving bot just filled in the last of the redlinks (all seven "Sep 2007"s) at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives.  There's room for a few more, but at some point fairly soon we'll have to think about expanding the format in a different dimension.  Perhaps we should grow the current block with three more sets of monthly links until it can read "Answered questions, October 2006 – December 2007", and then start a series of twelve-month blocks above it for 2008 and beyond. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. StuRat 12:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  top-level archive page 

message: Congratulations go to the Miscellaneous Desk for this week's award. Maaaaaarvellous. --Dweller 10:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award]] - third award 

message: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice. I also updated section 0 to include a link to this page. A.Z. 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional advice subpage 

message: This page now has its very own custom edit button for section 0 of the page. --VectorPotentialTalk 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this mean? A.Z. 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an [] button to the upper right hand corner of the screen. Clicking on it lets you edit section 0.--VectorPotentialTalk 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! A.Z. 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, why doesn't that feature automatically happen on every page I wonder.  - hydnjo talk 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. And why doesn't that feature automatically happen on sub-sections 0 when you create a sub-section inside a section? A.Z. 01:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember having seen an explanation of why the edit button to section 0 is disabled by default, but I don't remember exactly what it was - probably something to do with clashing with images \ infoboxes appearing in the top-right corner. Anyway, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add edit section 0 is a user script (for monobook.js) that makes the button appear for you (don't know about subsection 0 though). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New feature 

message: So, there are a number of frequently asked questions. Should we do something about it? (I believe this is a frequently asked question on this talk page) People usually link to older threads about the same subject when they recall that there has been a question about it before. I was thinking about adding a sub-section to all threads that are about frequently asked about subjects. Something like this:
=== Related threads ===
Related thread from June 2003,Related thread from May 2004, Related thread from October 2005, Related thread from January 2006.
So say we click on the third link to read the thread from 2006. There would be a similar sub-section there like this:
=== Related threads ===
Related thread from June 2003,Related thread from May 2004, Related thread from October 2005, Related thread from September 2007.
This way, it would be easy to navigate through all threads about a subject. A.Z. 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequently asked questions 

message: Code cleanup done. Some people haven't worked out that a preceding space does this.
:Not this. martianlostinspace email me 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coding Mistakes

message: Template:Google images may be useful for various threads on the reference desk (I remember one instance when someone didn't know what a  looked like). It is used the same way as Template:Google. A.Z. 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Google images 

message: I'm sorry for putting this here but I didn't know where else to put it. I posted on an article and was told I needed to follow the guidelines in how to be recognized as an expert. The person editing my post and removing the materials did not give me a link and did not have a link to their e-mail address. What's that all about? If somebody is going to edit others shouldn't they be required to give a point of contact? I've looked and looked. So where are the guidelines for being recognized as an expert in a field and how to post as an expert?ChaplainSvendsen 11:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page for the Wikipedia Reference Desk, this desk is generally used for answering general knowledge questions.  Your question seems better suited for the help desk.--69.118.235.97 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Which article did this happen on, and who told you you had to be an expert?  Wikipedia has no experts-only policy, so there are no guidelines or policies on how to be recognized as one. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the discussion happened here. I would assume the other editor was referring to the essay on expert editors - which is neither policy nor guideline. - Eron Talk 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Do I Get Recognized As An Expert 

message: Yeah, I'm late. Big up the Language Desk.  --Dweller 14:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay 4 teh Language Desk, and Yay 4 Dweller! SaundersW 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dweller's blinkerty blankerty thingy award for this (last) week 

message: I think asking other female editors out is getting beyond things.  Humour, yes, but should stay within scope of question.--martianlostinspace email me 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning to respond with "if that's the way you ask then the answer is no" but I don't see any harm with removing it Nil Einne 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly suspect the author was intending to be humourous even if it was in poor form so I one presume my response would be taken in similar jest (I would probably have putten a :-P or something). And if the author was really serious I would suspect removing it could potentially be more offensive then responding to it in a humorous fashion. But even so it doesn't really matter either way IMHO. Don't bite doesn't mean we should never tell people when we feel their behaviour is inappropriate, it just means we should consider whether it's really necessary and if it is do it in a resonably civil manner and avoid offending people unnecessarily. Nil Einne 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Text 

message: I can't quite believe it... Humanities Desk wins it, with no contribution from the ubiquitous Clio. Extraordinary. Anyway, well done to everyone who contributed here () especially as it seems our article will improve as a result. --Dweller 10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really minor request -- Could you title each of these subsections with a unique title?  Clicking through to this edit from my watchlist takes me to the first U:D/DRDtotwa entry.  --LarryMac | Talk 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. --Dweller 12:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award]] - Fifth award 

message: I have an idea for how these projects can collaborate to benefit both the RD community and Wikiversity... I'll happily cross post it here if that's preferable, but in the interests of keeping the conversation in one place, maybe folks could have a look here: v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Help_Desk_and_the_WP_Reference_Desk:_possibilities_for_both_communities. --SB_Johnny | PA! 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD ''and'' Wikiversity 

message: From the Humanities desk:
:I read that there was a lot of sympathy internationally for the Boers during the Second Boer War.  What form did this take? Luke Here 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first. Lanfear's Bane 09:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting ridiculous now. Pretty much every question today has been pounced on with a "do your own homework" admonition. If this goes on, soon no-one will bother with the Reference Desk. 80.254.147.52 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Perhaps we should leave notes on the talk pages of people who regularly accuse people of posting homework questions, with little or no evidence to support their claims. StuRat 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "HAX!" :) Nobody takes them seriously either; why not just answer the question normally and ignore the person accusing people of posting homework questions? --⁪frotht 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example of hypersensitivity to "homework" questions 

message: I was trying to look for the patronising template Lanfear's Bane was using, to delete it, and instead realised there was no category for all the templates associated with the reference desk.  As I can't find one, it would be great if people could add any they know of into this category. Neil ム 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it () - see below. Neil ム 08:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Reference desk templates]]

message: Overzealous, very BITE-y homework responses.  Non-content additions.  More and more "discussion threads" (e.g. the diatribe about Home Depot and such on the Science desk the other day).  I think it's break time.  --LarryMac | Talk 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is happening? 

message: 1) The "tool" linked from parc.com seems to mirror the WP login page:see here. Can anyone explain why? At first glance, this does not seem appropriate -- not that I am one to find fault with PARC, mind you, just wondering if anyone has some background explanation.
:This is a consequence of a generic rule. A URL of the form http://wikidashboard.parc.com/XXX mirrors Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/XXX. So, for example, http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/User:Dreftymac/Docs/ImageDisclaimer mirrors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dreftymac/Docs/ImageDisclaimer.  --Lambiam 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This means: 483 unique editors, of which 159 are anonymous and only identifiable by an IP address. The other 324 were logged in under a user name.  --Lambiam 22:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about the new "analytic tools"  being linked to here 

message: Just so y'all know, I'm going to be traveling for the next two and a half weeks, with sketchy or no internet connectivity.  This is good for me (I'm looking forward to the trip!), but it has implications for the archiving of our beloved desks.
# Up 'til now, the scripts that comprise the archiving bot have been running on my laptop.  I'll have it with me, of course, but without a high-bandwidth connection I can't realistically slurp down the hundreds of kb that our larger desks routinely are.  (And, of course, archiving a page involves not only slurping down the entire contents of the desk, but then reuploading the split-up pieces.)  Those with older browsers or slow internet connections, and who've ever tried to edit the entire Science or Miscellaneous desk (not just one of the sections), know what I'm talking about.
# Over the past two nights I've installed the bot scripts under the shell account at my ISP, where I hope to be able to invoke them over a low-bandwidth connection.  But for various reasons the scripts haven't ported cleanly, and I've had some significant problems getting them working properly and reliably.  (Thanks to Someguy1221 for catching some of its boo-boos tonight.)
If all goes well, I should be able to keep the desks archived more or less normally.  (I don't expect I'll manage to run the script every single day, though.)  But I wanted to let people know that there may be some occasional "issues".  I hope things won't get so bad that anyone has to try archiving the desks by hand again ('cos I know what a royal pain that can be), but you never know.
—Steve Summit (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving issues 

message: Per above discussions, I've nominated  for deletion, and am informing potentially interested parties on the most appropriate talk page:
===TfD nomination of :Template:===
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. — Neil ム 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bitey "do your own homework" template

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. — Neil ム 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Dyoh}}]]

message: I was surprised to see that neither Entertainment nor any other category lists Theatre. Do theatre/drama questions go in Entertainment, Humanities, or Miscellaneous? --teb728 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, theatre has several aspects. Drama is a principal form of Literature, which is listed for the Humanities desk, and indeed there was a question on drama on the desk yesterday. Other forms of theatre, such as music hall, may belong in Entertainment, while in my view some of the technical disciplines of theatre would come under Technology, on the Science desk. Xn4 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre 

message: Is there a bot MIA? I don't want to add date headers if it's going to screw-up a delayed bot. - hydnjo talk 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above (#Archiving issues). The new bot is fairly robust; adding date headers will not derail it.  --Lambiam 22:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, Ok, I missed Steve's posting - thanks. - hydnjo talk 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date headers