Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 25

message: The Entertainment page isn't getting archived, it's also not getting an automatic today's date header added.  And just below the TOC, there's some mangled HTML.  Corvus cornix 19:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. Also, I don't think the date header is automatic. A bot does it I believe. --The Dark Side 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Missing date headers updated. The messiest desks were Entertainment, Language, and Miscellaneous. Once again: as long as the bots are hiding, whoever happens to be at the desks around midnight UTC might think of adding the new date headers. ---Sluzzelin 12:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  The mangled HTML is still there, though.  I'm not sure what that's supposed to be.  Corvus cornix 00:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Entertainment page

message: The main (active) page currently has three weeks of Q&A activity, not one week. AnonMoos 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Language ref. desk

message: I removed the following question as trolling: .  Under the heading arun's ques about english,
:what is the opposite of 'sin' and 'cunt-lapper'?
Just posting a note here for transparency's sake.  The editor was on a dynamic IP, so I did not leave him a message. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed practically the same question as well about 2 days ago.83.100.158.13 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling removed 

message: Hmmm. Surprised to find myself doing this, but I removed this "::: George Bush's natural ability to hear the "voice of God" is highly relevant to his ability to "change the world". 211.28.131.148 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you were wrong to remove it but I'm not going to track down the diff --⁪frothT 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed comment from Humanities Desk 

message: Threw together a little mockup of what we'll do with that Archives link when we get a new desk... in case anyone's curious: User:Froth/notes/mockup. I'd move it there now to give it the prominence it deserves as a meta-desk but there's nothing to replace the old cell with yet --⁪frothT 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Where's the discussion about the creation of a new desl? --Dweller 11:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember that either - but it looks ok  - I'm still pushing for a Wikipedia:Reference_desk/The_World - geology, geography, etc by the way.87.102.13.148 13:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no new desk; but there's bound to be eventually and it'll displace the archives --⁪frothT 19:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody willing to take a second look at this, which eventually turned into this? 61.25.248.86 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep ;) Be on the lookout for something new... --⁪frothT 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mockup of desk split 

message: I wanted to ask a question about Psychology, but there´s no Reference Desk to do that. I think including Psychology in the Humanities Desk will not be that effective on solving the problem. I think the Psychology Reference Desk would be a great, much used Reference Desk.  A.Z. 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on the exact question, I think you could probably fit it in either the Science or the Humanities desk, otherwise there is always the Miscellaneous desk. Right now there's a bot problem, and it's horrible with the unarchived rolls of pages at the desks. Hoping we will have shorter pages again sometime, however, I'm not sure splitting up into more desks is necessary at this moment. Another concern I have with the idea of a psychology desk is precisely that - that it's labeled psychology. I'm afraid people might see it as Lucy's psychiatric help "five cents please" booth and will be asking for advice rather than questions about psychology. ---Sluzzelin 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Science Reference Desk is nice, I like it but it is more about things like chemistry and physics. I don´t see psychology in there. Same thing with the Humanities desk. There could be a sign saying "Don´t ask for advice on your relationship!" I think the benefits would be much greater than the possible problems which could appear. Many people want to learn things about psychology, even when the real cause of this interest is some relationship problem or some family problem.A.Z. 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Most psychology question should go to the science reference desk, if they ask about things which might be found in a psychology textbook: theories of personality, the science of mental life, memory, theories of childhood mental development, operant conditioning, learning, motivation.  Question which seek counseling, therapy, or crisis intervention are inappropriate and the questioner must be referred to an appropriate resource. There should not be a separate "Psychology" desk just as there is no "Astronomy" desk and no "Archeology" desk. Edison 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Edison; psychology is mostly going to be a subset of the science desk, though a few questions may end up at humanities or even misc.  Subdividing the desks too far carries a risk that a) nobody will see  the questions, or b) nobody will correctly place their questions.  The recent split of 'entertainment' to its own desk came about because those questions were making up a big chunk of traffic on some of the other desks, and it made sense to house all those questions in one spot.  What percentage of questions from the other desks would belong under the psychology banner, if such a desk were created? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are almost no psychology questions now. But I think that´s in part because it doesn´t say "psychology" anywhere. Maybe when you add the word "psychology" as a subset of the Science Reference Desk the amount of psychology questions will increase. A.Z. 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychology Reference Desk

message: The Wikipedia:Reference desk page lists the seven current reference desks and a link to the archives in a 2*4 table (through the template Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header) in this arrangement:
Computing	Science 	Maths        	Misc
Humanties	Language	Entertainment	Archives
The individual reference desk pages have the same eight links on their top in a 2*4 table (from the tamplate Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer), but in a different arrangement:
Science 	Maths        	Computing	Humanties
Language	Entertainment	Misc     	Archives
I find it confusing that the two arragements are different.  I'd like the on the main page changed to the second arrangement.   Please tell me if you think that shouldn't be done.  Thanks.  – b_jonas 12:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change it if you'd like but dont screw anything up. I suspect it's moot anyway since (hopefully) my template will be replacing both of those tables soon --⁪frothT 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't change it. --Parker007 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? It's irrelevant now anyway though --⁪frothT 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table listing the seven refdesks 

message: Does anyone know what has happened to the archived questions from 1 February to 12 February?  I was going to go over some of those I missed, but can find no trace!  Clio the Muse 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_February links to each day. The problem is that the red link on the archives page is labeled Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/February_2007 (word order thingy). Sorry I can't change it myself right now. Something weird is going on with my computer, and the edit box was blank when I tried to correct the link. ---84.75.111.138 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that information, Sluzzelin!  Clio the Muse 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved it to the right location. --Parker007 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanities Archive 

message: Why no russian interwiki (ru:Википедия:Форум/Справочное бюро) here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urod (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The Reference Desk's main page is protected. So an administrator will have to add the interwiki link. ---84.75.111.138 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian interwiki