Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archive 33

RefDeskBot problem

Seems that the templating was changed: [1]. I have absolutely no time to change the bot's code now, so could the old header setup be replaced, at least temporarily? If not, then I'll have to re-block the bot and leave it idle for a month or so until I can find the time to do some coding. Martinp23 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note - it would be nice to be told about this sort of thing in future :) Martinp23 18:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why the header was changed and if we can put it back to the old way to keep the automated archiving running ? StuRat 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff from the Science Desk; all were done in the same time frame if I remember from my watchlist. I have no idea why the change was made. --LarryMac | Talk 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the originals for now, someone should probably ask MZMcBride (talk · contribs) what motivated the change--VectorPotential^Talk 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, VP. User:Martinp23 has notified the author of those changes. StuRat 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is aware that there is a bot running that is sensitive to such changes to the header. The classical approach is to include a line such as

I have replaced the old content of page Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg by {{Referencedeskheader}}, which has a nicer layout. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, not every bot is aware when changes are made to the header ;), which is in fact the only thing expected to remain constant on the pages (at least, it shouldn't change without prior discussion here). That said, I wouldn't be happy to add such a line to the bot's code, as it makes it too open to exploitation. Martinp23 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a symmetry here, perhaps a Galois connection. If the approach makes the pages to be archived too vulnerable, alternatively you (or actually the bot) could take the header to be everything up to (but not including) the first line having one of the two following forms:

{{Wikipedia:*/Archives/*}}
=*=

This would be considerably more robust than requiring the header itself to be of a particular form.

By the way, the problem I signalled before of topic headers being parsed incorrectly[2] still persists; see e.g. "un barrel bore" on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/May 2007#May 13. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Referencedeskheader was created to merge nine individual templates, all of which were outside of the template namespace. After leaving a message on the talk page of the original header creator (see here) on April 11, I went ahead after a about a month and made the transition. The new template kept everything exactly intact, with only minor spelling and link fixes. Obviously, if it is breaking the bot's function, the change should have been reverted (as I see it was). Because nothing regarding layout or function of the header was changing, I didn't realize it would cause any issues. My apologies. --MZMcBride 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

diff?

Any idea what happened here? It's just on the science desk, and the header is identical to the one on all the other pages, so I'm at a loss to explain this one--VectorPotential^Talk 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very much like what the RefDeskBot did the previous day to all desks, but I don't know why it would affect only the one desk now. StuRat 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above, this diff to the Computing Desk and others like that (such as this one to the Humanities Desk and this one to the Miscellaneous Desk) by MZMcBride caused the bot to malfunction. StuRat made this change to the Mathematics Desk, this change to the Computing Desk, and this change to the Humanities Desk. These three diffs reverted whatever caused the bot to malfunction. However, this change, that he made to the Science Desk, seems to be somewhat different from the other three, and quite similar to the diffs by MZMcBride. I suspect that StuRat made the same thing that that the first diff that linked above did. After the bot deleted the header, StuRat did again whatever it is that MZMcBride had done on May 12, instead of reverting to the layout as it was before MZMcBride's changes. After StuRat's edition to the Science Desk, the links seem to be more "cluttered" on the Science Desk than on the other desks, and the links seem to be more "cluttered" whenever the bot is malfunctioning. I recently changed the links on the Science Desk yet again, to make them cluttered, so tomorrow we can see whether the problem will happen again to the Science Desk. A.Z. 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, RefDeskBot seems to be extremely picky about minor changes to the header, perhaps even blank lines. I'm not sure precisely what it is looking for, either. StuRat 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about my idea stated right above on that big post? It says that the bot didn't malfunction because of changes to the header, but because of changes to the links to the header, located on each desk. A.Z. 04:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. StuRat 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is supposed to delete everyday only the link to the earliest page of questions. When you write all the links next to one another, it deletes the earliest page of questions and the header altogether. A.Z. 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. By "next to each other" do you mean "without a blank line between them" ? StuRat 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A.Z. 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technology questions

Someone removed technology from the Science header (it currently lists "Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Geology, and Psychology"). I'm wondering whether the word technology shouldn't remain somewhere (another option would be calling that desk Science & Technology, though I actually think that's an aesthetically unpleasing solution.) Or is it obvious to anyone with questions on engineering, technology etc. to ask these question at the Science desk? (unless, of course, they're about computer technology). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored ", and Technology" in the list of Science topics, and replaced "Computer science" under Computing by "Computing and Information Technology". --Lambiam ^Talk 11:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think the various lists of topics look better now. One minor additional question: The topics are presented like lemmas: Initial letter of first word capitalized, subsequent words without capitalized initial letters. Examples: "Word etymology" and "Requesting translations" for the language desk, or "Video games" for the entertainment desk. My knowledge on usage of capitalization is vague, so I'm asking for clarification. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style for headings is to capitalize only the first noun of a heading. For visual consistency with the style of other two-pronged topics listed ("Finance & Economics", "Linguistics & Language usage"), I'll make it "Computing & Information technology". --Lambiam ^Talk 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ampersands, guidelines are always a challenge, and I just discovered Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Wording. Also, these lists don't really look like headings to me, but I guess they can be seen that way. Capitalizing "Word" after a comma, but then not capitalizing "etymology" bothers me a bit, but it's no big deal. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, per WP:MOS I now replaced the ampersands with "and" and removed the final indicator "and" on each list to avoid visual confusion. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other q&a wikis

For anyone who cares, there are other question/answer wikis out there. I think wikianswers.com is one of the bigger ones. I doubt the existence of any of these would make people want to not have a ref desk at Wikipedia also. I'm guessing many of them are very broad in scope, whereas Wikipedia is focused on being an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ref Desk is focused on answering questions, not "being an encyclopedia". StuRat 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is also the Wikiversity Help Desk, and many other desks there as well. A.Z. 04:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot AWOL

Is the gremlin back at work? Clio the Muse 04:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this or this? I posted a notice on RefDeskBot's talk page. Shinhan 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying Martin. I think we need the bot to be a bit more rigorous, looking for a phrase like "<RefDeskBot: Start archivng here>", instead of whatever it's doing now, which seems to break if any change is ever made to the Ref Desk headers. Unfortunately, Martin seems too busy at the moment to make such a change. StuRat 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also my suggestions above at #RefDeskBot problem for a more robust approach. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computing desk date heading issues (5/16-5/18)

The first answer-seeker at the Computing Desk on May 17 screwed up his question, and the date header got deleted in the attempt to reformat the question to the standard formatting. Thus, there hasn't been any bot archiving for the new day since May 16. I added in the headers for May 17 and May 18 in the appropriate places, but I don't know how the bot will act when it runs again tonight. –Pakman044 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those back in. StuRat 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology reference desk

I have been WP:BOLD (god, I hate having to link to essays and the like to justify my actions...) and created the Psychology reference desk.

A question had been asked on the Miscellaneous desk, about psychology. This clearly shows that people don't feel comfortable asking psychology questions neihter on the Humanities nor on the Science desk. I think we should leave the Psychology desk there for one month, to see whether people start to use it. If they don't, we delete it for the time being, and wait a few more months so we can run another test, when, perhaps, the demand for the psychology desk will have increased. A.Z. 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this; test it, certainly, but I'm fairly sure that it will be vastly underused. Take a look at the mathematics desk or the entertainment desk - these both cover huge areas, but only get one or two questions per day. Psychology covers only a sub-section of science, and not one which people can ask that many questions about - indeed, I can't see a single question about psychology in either humanities or science, and only one in misc. Of course, this may be symptomatic of the discomfort you mention, but more likely, there's just not that much to ask. Besides, people ask questions in the wrong place all the time: splitting the desks further will just increase the odds of this happening. Laïka 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does one question asked on Misc "clearly show" anything? People ask about songs and movies and tv shows and computers and birds and flowers on the Misc desk; does that clearly show that they are not comfortable asking those questions on the Entertainment, Computing, and Science desks? --LarryMac | Talk 20:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it doesn't "clearly show" anything. Nevertheless, it could be a sign. A.Z. 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead, test it, and then go and interpret the results however you like, since what other editors thought three months and three weeks ago doesn't seem to impress you a lot, once you've made up your mind. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, there's no concrete evidence that people refrain from asking psychology questions, but there's also no evidence that people don't. You haven't addressed this particular issue. I didn't create a new desk alone, I am just testing it so we can have more information to further discuss the matter. I don't see any risk involved with merely running an innocent test. We should encourage more bold actions like that, which will never harm anyone in any way and, still, could turn out to produce great and useful things. A.Z. 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Psychology is within the scope of Science. Move the question to the appropriate desk i.e. Science. I am Moving this new desk to History, as there seems to be many History questions being asked on the Reference Desk Humanities. --Eptypes 01:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that psychology is within the scope of Science, and I never said it wasn't. I never used as an argument for creating the psychology desk the fact that it's not a scientific subject. I hope you have a new argument, otherwise I'll just recreate the desk. A.Z. 01:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I said there are too many History questions in the Humanities Desk. --Eptypes 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's a terrific argument for creating a new desk for History. It is not a good argument to delete the psychology desk. Congratulations and thank you for our new History Desk! A.Z. 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I strongly oppose the creation of the Psychology desk.~~ --Eptypes 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? A.Z. 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from above Take a look at the mathematics desk or the entertainment desk - these both cover huge areas, but only get one or two questions per day. Psychology covers only a sub-section of science, and not one which people can ask that many questions about - indeed, I can't see a single question about psychology in either humanities or science, and only one in misc. --Eptypes 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the above Test it, certainly. A.Z. 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the last two discussions you created on this issue and I did not see consensus that this desk be created, one might even interpret the discussions as reaching consensus that it not be created, so i am surprised that you went ahead and created it. -- Diletante 02:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the arguments presented basically showed that there was lack of evidence that there was the need for a psychology desk and that there could be a risk that, in my view, is not to be considered, namely the risk that no-one will use the new desks and the pages will be harder to navigate. Everything here is reversible, everything I did can be easily reverted. I don't really see a good reason why not give it a shot, besides irrational fear. A.Z. 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have striked my opposition. --Eptypes 02:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do also strongly oppose the Psychology Reference Desk. A need has not been illustrate to me for one. History may or may not be a good idea, though. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You strongly oppose something just because a need for it hasn't been illustrated? A.Z. 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reactions to your earlier proposal were negative. It was not like "I don't see the need but let's give it a try". In the face of that, it was an ill-considered act to go ahead and do it. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose establishing a separate Psychology Desk, as I explained when AZ proposed it before. I read the questions every day on the Science, Humanities and Miscellaneous boards. I would see and attempt to answer any question about psychology as a science: memory, cognition, conditioning, perception, attention, sensory psychology, learning and development, or motivation. I would be less able to answer questions on theories of personality, Freudian concepts, behavior modification, depression, anxiety, etc. Has A.Z. been saving up questions about Skinner boxes, mazes, memory drums or the Law of Effect because he wasn't sure what desk to ask them on? Seems highly unlikely. As I said earlier, if someone seeks psychological counseling we must remove the question from the reference desk or leave it with a disclaimer that we are not able to provide medical advice or counseling. I do not want to see people asking for help and unqualified responders posting half-baked answers. Even if they have a doctorate in counseling and it is their day job, there is no way of verifying credentials and no malpractice insurance for them or Wikipedia. Part of WP:BOLD is that anyone else can undo your bold action by reverting. I quote: "But anything you end up doing that turns out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. Don't be insulted if that does happen." WP:BOLD does not mean that a minority opinion is entitled to have his way, when the Psychology desk idea was twice recently proposed and twice rejected (failure to establish consensus constitutes rejection). Edison 13:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk independence

The following post was posted on an older thread, and probably few people read it. I (A.Z.) am copying it here and creating this section because perhaps people would like to discuss this, or, at least, get to know the idea.

“

The idea occurred to me some time ago that the Reference Desk isn't actually an encyclopedia and its unique potential might best develop in a more specialized environment as a separate Wikimedia project, like Wikinews or Wikisource. The concept was maybe premature at the time, but as the RD community and organization has greatly expanded, and we see the development of commercial enterprises like Yahoo! Answers, it strikes me a good occasion to revisit the idea. Perhaps the time has come for something like a Wikioracle (after the French version).--Pharos 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

I like the idea, but I think the French Oracle is a lot similar to the English reference desks, except that it takes forever to load and that the regulars seem to be called habitués, which is much chicer. Also, everyone seems to start their questions and answers with bonjour. Anyway, it's clearly not a separate project. A.Z. 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmentation of the Reference Desks

Could I ask that this process stop as of now. The creation of separate desks for History and Psychology is totally unecessary, in my estimation, and risks beginning a process of complete fragmentation, and the emergence of an unwieldy number of multiple desks. Things work perfectly well under the existing headings. Potentially there is no end to subdivision. If Psychology and history why not geography, sociology, philosophy, poetry, botany etc. etc. etc. A little common sense, please! Clio the Muse 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is trying to change everything forever and definitively as of now. It is merely a test, and I would do it somewhere else if I could. It's only that, if we create a desk somewhere else, no one will see it and we'll never know whether a new desk could be helpful or not. There's nothing to be worried about. We could run some tests from time to time, see what works and what doesn't, and just delete what doesn't. A.Z. 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One trouble with fragmentation is added complexity; precisely that it makes cloudy cross-over questions more difficult to pigeon-hole "correctly", something I believe you were actually trying to remedy by creating a psychology desk.

In the beginning, there was one, the mother of all desks, and she got all the questions. A lot of users appreciated scanning through questions ranging from quantum physics to the history of gloves. Then the questions became too many, the pages too long, so the choices were to either archive every one or two days, or to split the desks. The desks were split. The volume of questions is currently not an issue at any desk, as far as I can tell. There's no need to split them up further. Yes, we could run some tests from time to time, but where's the point in adding confusing complexity (more desks, changing desks, semi-redundant desks, more desks that could be subsets of other desks) when there's no need? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems as an attachment to tradition. You told the history of the reference desk and described the way that things have been happening so far, but the fact that they did happen in such a way doesn't mean that that way is the best.

You are also saying that, because there is no problem right now, such as the volume problem that happened before, then we should just not split them, because the reasons for splitting them before were that there was a great volume of questions. But, how do you know that splitting the desks won't turn out to be an incentive for people to ask more questions? Having a psychology and a history desk is, at least for me, better than having a giant desk that covers all topics. Maybe it is to other people as well. Anyway, the point is that the fact that there's no huge disturbing and explicit problem right now that urgently demands action doesn't mean that we shouldn't act. The point is that creating one or two more desks is just not that harmful, and could turn out to be good, and is completely reversible if it turns out not to be. A.Z. 02:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "know that splitting the desks won't turn out to be an incentive for people to ask more questions". All I know is that splitting hairs is not an incentive for me to have a conversation. You defined what the point is and how it should be seen, you dismissed other arguments because they lack hard evidence. Call me a traditionalist and go ahead and revolutionize the desks. I'm done here. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the thefreedictionary.com:

Split hairs: to argue about whether details that are not important are exactly correct. 'She earns three time what I earn.' 'Actually, it's more like two and a half.' 'Oh stop splitting hairs!' to argue about very small differences or unimportant details. It's splitting hairs to tell people that they cannot lie but it is all right if they exaggerate.

I said what the point was because you asked me "where's the point in adding confusing complexity ... when there's no need?" I did not dismiss other arguments, they were just weak. I did take them into account, and I gave them the credit that they had, which turned out to be almost none, with all due respect to the people that presented them, including you! A.Z. 03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned all the history questions to the Humanities Desk from the 'History Desk'. There is no agreement on this shift, and I for one oppose any alteration to the status quo. Clio the Muse 02:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cilo, you are the "history expert" as you call yourself. More than 50% questions on the Humanities desk are History related. If you are worried about fragmentation, I have been going through the Misc desk and "degfragmenting" some questions. I don't understant. Oh wait, I do. Everyone resists changes first. Being a history scholar you should know that too. --Eptypes 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not call myself anything of the kind. There is no agreement for this change, and I wish to see history under the general rubric of Humanities. You have no mandate to proceed in the manner you have, and I am now in the process of restoring all the QAs in which I have been involved to the correct location. Clio the Muse 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you call yourself a history scholar. I remember seeing once a question on how cilo has so much time, the answer was she was a history scholar. --Eptypes 02:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess now only I support your history desk. How ironic :-) A.Z. 02:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that you know how to twist words (calling oneself "the history expert" is hardly the same thing as calling oneself "a history scholar") this proves absolutely nothing. You're now edit warring, Eptypes, and other people's concerns are dismissed with a gratuitous "everyone resists changes first"---Sluzzelin talk 03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a historian and a research student, and that is what I call myself; I do not call myself an 'expert of any kind. You are acting in a very arbitrary manner. I will not answer future questions on your desk if this is how matters are to proceed. As it is I had to stop responding to a question on Reynald de Chatillion to get drawn into this nonsense. Clio the Muse 02:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Clio. The Humanities desk is not so busy that there is a need to split History off it. I don't think Entertainment is busy enough to justify its existence either. 66.96.28.244 05:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always use slash all. A.Z. 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "human" part of Humanities always permits spillover and connections. Chopping up information into small bits actually loses information. This is dictionary thinking, not encyclopedic thinking. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's all so plain. -Wetman 05:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your first sentence, so I'll address it. The other ones I didn't get.

It's not like people will stop looking at the different desks. Everyone will still be able to comment on every desk and spillover and connections will be fine. No-one, I think, is trying to artificially split naturally connected fields of knowledge. A.Z. 06:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to put another question on the humanities desk only to see not only that my previous question on the Eyemouth fishing disaster has been moved WITHOUT MY PERMISSION but the whole of the ref desk has been turned into dog's bloody breakfast. Not only that but Clio the Muse, the only person with the patience and knowledge to answer all of my previous questions, has seemingly quit. WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE? SeanScotland 07:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the new History Desk, but am not so sure about the Psychology Desk. Perhaps it would get more questions if we were to broaden the category to include questions on sexuality and relationships. In any case, a test run should let us know if those desks work or not. StuRat 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for the consensus before making unilateral moves. The bloodbath on the reference desk is the worst thing that could happen to it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above and the two times in the last 3 months when A.Z. proposed it I am opposed to a "Psychology Desk." I will not restate the reasons here. Now people are talking about "relationship" question. Have we become "Dear Fucking Abby?" Q:"Dear Relationship Desk, Should I break up with my girlfriend because she slept with my best friend?" A: "Wake up and smell the coffee. It's time to move on."Abby. Q: "My spouse wants to try a threesome. Should I do it?" A:"I'll be over in a bit." Abby. Part of WP:BOLD is that when someone rather than trying to achieve consensus goes ahead and makes a change that others are likely to oppose, they have every right to revert the change. That should be done. It was easy for me to check the desks I cover: Science, Humanities and Miscellaneous, for questyions a couple of times a day. The more desks I have to check, the bigger pain in the ass it gets to be. And we need a Psychology Desk for questions on the science of psychology about as much as we need a Minerology Desk or a Architecture Desk. That is, not at all. Edison 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities Ref Desk split

There has been no discussion and consensus gathering. Contraversial changes within Wikipedia should always be discussed first. The split of the Humanities desk should be discussed, and while that is ongoing, the status quo should be reverted. --Dweller 07:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened very quickly and has been quite fractious. I see no real support emerging for either of these two new desks and, at the very least, we should put them up and see if there is questions posted there, rather than move questions across to populate them wholesale. I support Dweller's proposal. Rockpocket 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding volume: All desks show the past four days. The Humanities desk had 25,949 bytes before fragmentation, less than the Mathematics desk (28kB), quite a bit less than the Computer desk (47kB), and far less than the Science desk (over 90kB). In terms of number of questions, the Humanities desk had fewer questions than the Miscellaneous and, again, the Science desk do. I also support Dweller's request to discuss first before performing major changes to the desk, especially when other users have raised their concerns here. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size is a consideration when deciding to split a Desk, but not the only consideration. Having logical dividing lines between Desks is also important, and I feel that History and the Humanities is a logical dividing line. StuRat 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad, I thought it went without saying that history is more often included in the humanities than not. See also Wiktionary, Cambridge Dictionary,The National Academies Press. Of course, this alone isn't compelling: the study of languages is also part of the humanities, but that split-off seems to be justified, because the questions asked there don't reach into other humanities such as philosophy, art studies, religious studies, political studies the way history does. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meatime can anyone fix the formatting at Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header? Our friends who created their favorite desks added in the links and screwed with the formatting. They resisted attempts to revert until it could be done properly. I tried to fix it as best I could, but its beyond my limited skills. Thanks. Rockpocket 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the status quo should be the situation as before these splits, and that we should have a proper discussion first. At the very least, the questions that were moved unilaterally must be moved back. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very much favor the restoration and then a discussion of the change. Granted, nobody 'owns' these desks, but those who use them should have a say before the remodelling. Would you want someone to rearrange your office and then tell you why it was a great idea?--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 08:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Let's discuss these proposals fully before implementing them (if that indeed turns out to be the consensus, which may well not be the case). JackofOz 08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not had an answer to the question I placed above. Who has decide, and by WHAT FUCKING RIGHT, to mess around with things here? It's a fucking abortion!!!! SeanScotland 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let me get you some cookies and a nice cup of tea, and while you are drinking the tea you can read the above discussion...--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 09:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sick thing is that the user who created this mess did this because he/she/it felt their Very Important Questions were not getting the Attention They Deserved. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not argue at all that the change was done with any but the best intentions, but part of WP:BOLD is that bold unilateral moves are likely to be undone. That should happen here. I will not attempt it because iI do not want to screw things up, but woiuld someone please stick ther desks back together as they were pre-move and delete the new pigeonholes. Thanks. Edison 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's check that we have consensus on this; see below. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep calm

I've posted at WP:ANI to notify admins about this dispute.
I strongly urge all editors to remain civil and discussive here - and on user talk pages.
Losing your temper will not help you persuade others that your view has merit.

Please keep calm. --Dweller 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

The desks are baked. I'd like to hear good reasons to keep them, only. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (Note: the preceeding refers to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion). dr.ef.tymac 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The desks themselves serve a very positive purpose. It's all the personal-focussed bullshit that's been happening lately that has left a very nasty taste in many people's mouths. These activities are mainly the work of editors who frequent the Ref Desk, but they are not the Ref Desk and they should not be allowed to affect its existence. JackofOz 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions at the desks have led to all sorts of improvements of article space that might have gone unnoticed otherwise. The fact that this effect is improvable cannot be grounds for deletion. Some editors are more productive when prompted by questions or requests for help, other editors use other motivators. Overall, I believe the reference desk helps the product, the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just two recent examples off the top of my head: this significant edit was added thanks to a question at the Humanities desk.This smaller edit was made thanks to a question at the language desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small sampling of improvements directly initiated by RefDesk activity:

I have no horse in this race, but Sluzzelin is entirely correct. There are many times a RefDesk answer will call for a link to an article, at which time deficiencies with the article are discovered and corrected by one or more participants.

For more examples, see: Walt Whitman Rostow (last two edits, minor adds), Principal (commercial law) (last two edits), minor fix: [3], minor fix: [4], Principal (criminal law) (article created), List of financial regulatory authorities by country (significant cleanup of list), Practice of law (removal of unwarranted merge reco), Pleonasm (article expanded with new sections, citations added), Salt in Cheshire (clarify 2d to last edit), Boolean_logic#Applications (rewrite and reformat section, clear up ambiguities, add cites), add missing cite with clarification [5]. dr.ef.tymac 18:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration Rockpocket 18:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Janet and Allan Ahlberg article. Skittle 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Furthermore, these direct improvements are a huge undervaluing, since they do not include the contributions of the hundreds/thousands of (potential) askers who come to the RD for help, get pointed to article pages on a topic they're obviously interested in, and have a good chance of becoming contributing editors to those articles. I can't believe that the RD's value isn't self-evident, even if it was no more than a "Q: how can i learn about bats? A: Did you read Bats?" service. --TotoBaggins 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is a learning device. As a reference desk reader, I can tell you, from my personal experience, that I do learn a lot with it. The reference desk, in my opinion, is not a real reference desk: this name is just a metaphor. It also isn't an encyclopedia. It is getting bigger and may, one day, become a Wikimedia Project on its own, as suggested above. A.Z. 20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know I had to keep a log of articles that I improved as a result of Ref Desk questions, but I have done a number of edits to improve articles at for the past year or so. One example which comes to mind is a question on the longest prison sentence ever served [6], which led me to the article on William Heirens, where I correct about 8 misspellings of the name of his youngest murder victim. [7]. A question about the treatment of noncompbatants in war led me to look at the Rape of Belgium article led me to the article talk page of Rape of Belgium where I added on the talk page [8]numerous citations to 7 publications from the 1914-1920's era which used the term,and a recent book about it, to try and head off someone who claimed it was a POV neologism and that "Invasion of Belgium" should replace it. Not all improvements to articles are in the article itself. Edison 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made literally thousands of changes to articles directly as a result of reading or being involved in a question on the Ref Desk. I see a question about a topic that interests me but isn't on my Watchlist, so I go off and read the article to gain some enlightenment. While there, I virtually always make an improvement, however minor - but often times the change is significant, and in any case the article stays on my Watchlist and I then become further involved in it. The question should not be "justify the existence of the Ref desk", but "justify why those who seek to damage and undermine it should not be held to account". -- JackofOz 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Jack, many of my edits to articles arise from my reference desk activities. Even if I know the answer by heart, I always try to refer to relevant Wikipedia articles in my responses, which I think is effective direct publicity for Wikipedia, driving the point home: look, the information you are seeking is right there! --Lambiam ^Talk 22:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the other day I noticed a typo in an article linked from the reference desk, and went on to correct about 70 or 80 typos in random articles as a result--69.118.235.97 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish Aryan" thread on Humanities Desk

If I wasn't involved in the thread myself, I'd probably be deleting much of the second response to the Q (and therefore the third, as it'd be meaningless) as being OR and borderline offensive... and not an answer to the question. However, as I'm involved, I'd rather not step in and welcome consensus. --Dweller 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed, in my opinion. I asked the editor to provide sources or remove the reply. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more appropriate to -- if anything -- strike it out with a note that it's unsourced nonsense than to just remove it. Removing things does no good and smacks of censorship. --TotoBaggins 15:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will apologise to no end if what I have said has come across as anywhere near offensive - that would not be anything like my intention, I had believed that my response had attempted to remove any such suggestion ("I'm not trying to call Jews big headed..."). Let's face it, though: we are dealing with Nazism, which is grossly racist in itself. I will assume "OR" means "original research". At any rate, though: every race has it's own characteristics. Could I say that Nazism and racism is somewhat more complicated than just blonde and blue eyes? Perhaps it is relevant in this context. And I, too, would welcome consensus on my response.martianlostinspace 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did. It's time for you to stop. Now. Your tiny-minority views on race and Phrenology are not reasonable for inclusion on the reference desk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that you were saying that the Nazi's actually were able to tell Jews from non-Jews by their physical characteristics, when it is really very well documented that they couldn't. They thought they could, but they couldn't. The reason that they couldn't is because there are no reliable physical differences between Jews and non-Jews, because both 'groups' are quite diverse and similar. "Every race has its own characteristics" implies that you think race is something other than a social construct, which is the assumption that is really upsetting people, along with the apparent belief that the Nazis had some real scientific basis for their actions. I'm not saying this is what you meant, just that this is what it looked like you were saying. I hope this enables you to understand why what you wrote caused the reaction it did, so you can avoid making this mistake in future :-) Skittle 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that, if an incorrect statement was made, that should be corrected by follow-up responses, and there is no need to remove the incorrect statement. StuRat 05:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. The reason for suggesting removal was to avoid disruption. Sometimes removal is clearly best option. Sometimes rebuttal. Obvious trolling is best removed asap. I tend to agree that this was better rebutted than removed, as it was not trolling, obvious or otherwise. If I'd been sure, I'd have removed it myself, despite my involvement in the thread. Cheers. --Dweller 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was neither trolling nor disruptive, so should remain. I also see that martianlostinspace has now lined it out, apparently "to avoid controversy", even though he believes those statements to be correct. I would only suggest lining out your own edits if you are convinced they are wrong, and not to "avoid controversy". Many true statements may be controversial, but should remain nonetheless. For example, if the question posted was "Is there any evidence that the Creation, as portrayed in Genesis, is correct ?" and there was an answer stating "there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting the universe having been created in 7 days, and ample scientific evidence against this notion", then this statement would be true, yet controversial (to certain religious individuals, at least). Such a statement should not be lined out, merely "to avoid controversy". StuRat 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I don't believe in Phrenology, and I never intend to. Personality is nothing to do with ethnic group.martianlostinspace 10:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now my message has been deleted entirely now. I accept what I said was wrong, offensive and inappropriate to the RD, and hope that anyone offended will accept an apology. Hope this helps.martianlostinspace 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polls on new desks (closed)

Closed -> decision is remove both

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Poll 1: keep separate Psychology section?

The question is:

Should we keep, at least for now, a separate section Wikipedia:Reference desk/Psychology, or should its creation be undone and the contents (if any) be merged back into the Science section until consensus has been established, after proper discussion, that it be created?

I think 24 hours is long enough for this. Please recommend below either Keep or Undo. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undo. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo. Rmhermen 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo. This has been discussed before; there isn't the traffic to justify a separate Desk. The division will result in fewer questions answered because there will be fewer editors watching this new, overly-specialized Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo if we go this route there is no reason not to have a biology desk, physics, chemistry.... and on. David D. (Talk) 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo Irrespective of one's individual views on the split, it is plain that there has not yet been a consensus established for the creation of the psych desk; BRD, then, would seem entirely appropriate here. Joe 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo There is only one question on the 'Psychology' desk and it is not even asking about Psychology. Caffm8 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo A discussion should have preceded this maneuver. --TotoBaggins 16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo There's no need, and it might be asking for more trouble, if users interpret a whole desk dedicated to Psychology as a place to ask for psychological advice (instead of questions about psychology). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo Makes asking questions more difficult, makes patrolling desks less appealing, adds no value. Let's not dissolve the desks. Skittle 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo What aspects of Psychology that can safely be addressed by the Ref Desk are questions of science. Everything else requires specialization of the sort (medical or legal) that Wikipedia cannot support. 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Undo If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It wastes people's time to have to click on a larger number of "desks" to see if there are questions to answer. Edison 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A.Z. 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo. no need demonstrated. Rockpocket 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 2: keep separate History section?

The question is:

Should we keep, at least for now, a separate section Wikipedia:Reference desk/History, or should its creation be undone and the contents (if any) be merged back into the Humanities section until consensus has been established, after proper discussion, that it be created?

I think 24 hours is long enough for this. Please recommend below either Keep or Undo. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undo. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo. -- I don't even think a straw poll is necessary, consensus is pretty clear on this talk page. - Diletante
Undo if we go this route there is no reason not to have a biology desk, physics, chemistry.... and on. David D. (Talk) 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo. No need at this time. Rmhermen 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo. I can't comment on the need for this Desk as I don't follow the existing Humanities Desk. (Though the discussion above would seem to suggest that division of the Humanities Desk isn't justified by the current level of traffic.) It is very inconsiderate for an individual to unilaterally move questions wholesale to a new location without any prior discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo consistent with my comment in poll one. Joe 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo. After removing Languages it is next to impossible to categorise between the remaining Humanities: History, Politics, Philosophy, and Classics. Caffm8 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo A discussion should have preceded this maneuver. --TotoBaggins 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo Adds no value, reduces number of eyes that will see each question, over-compartmentalises. Skittle 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo No need to reduce the size of the Humanities desk (see above). History questions belong with the other humanities, clear borders of distinction don't always exist (this applies to all splits, of course, but having languages separated from the rest of the humanities is established and approved by the community) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo There is no useful way of separating any thoughtful answer on historical matters from sociology, economics, geography, religion, and the list goes on. Bielle 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just hope such a great number of people voting will also be willing to discuss the matter after they win the pool. Most of the arguments above are easily disprovable, and are probably a rationalisation of the fear of change. A.Z. 17:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disprovable? So what is your argument against breaking the science desk into mulitple desks? David D. (Talk) 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean. Try to explain it with a few more words, and elaborate just a bit, please. A.Z. 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaking the ref desk into more focused units. If this was done for all desks to the same extent we would have tens of different desks. Why is that rationale for not forming a history desk, in your own words, "easily disprovable"? David D. (Talk) 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much discussion do you want,? I see tons of discussion on this issue, how many more pages should we write? YOU need to realize that there is consensus against this change, and you should submit to that consensus even if you disagree, if you don't ... you start to operate in bad faith. -- Diletante

Undo. Consensus is clear. I would undo it myself now, but would prefer someone with a bit more technical know how untangle this mess. Please do. Rockpocket 17:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on?

I would be pleased if someone could explain to me what has been happening here? I only discovered the Reference Desk quite recently, and have found the response to my questions on Russian history (particularly from Clio the Muse) very helpful. I can not believe that just about anyone can come along and change the whole thing from top to bottom with no agreement at all. I can see it's been changed back, but is there not a wider principle here? Is Wikipedia really just at the mercy of any crank? Fred said right 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not "at the mercy of" but certainly "held hostage" frequently. Imagine all the wo/man hours lost. David D. (Talk) 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:AGF, WP:BOLD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA will help illuminate this issue for you, as well as provide you with suggestions on how to pose such questions more adroitly in the future. dr.ef.tymac 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one changed the whole thing from top to bottom with no agreement at all. I merely created a test desk. If I had decided to, say, delete the reference desk altogether, and keep deleting it everytime someone reverted my changes, then I should and I would get blocked. This is not anarchy, you know. A.Z. 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD and making a sincere effort (which this clearly was) to try and improve any part of Wikipedia, as long as one can bear it when there is a consensus aginst it and it gets put back. Thanks for your efforts. Edison 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I accept the decision, of course. A.Z. 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that seems weird to me about this was, haven't creation of these or other new desks been brought up before and generally not gotten a lot of support? I'm pretty sure I remember A.Z. specifically suggesting it. It's not generally a good idea to be very bold when implementing an idea that's already been discussed and shot down. Friday (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it clear from the beginning that this was a different idea. It was supposed to be a test, and its results would give us more information to work with, so people could have a more informed opinion about the original proposal. A.Z. 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed where you explained how this was different to the previous two requests. Which edit (or section) was that? David D. (Talk) 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been the first time. A.Z. 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was hardly a request. It was an announcement after the fact. The Psychology section was created well before the posting referred to above was made. (Note. If it might seem that the first diff is about a History section, it is because the page was later moved by the Eptypes sock.) Of course a split-off section, even if split off by consensus, will be discontinued if it doesn't work. Stating that is not a concession to the objections voiced earlier. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But given the response from the last two times you floated a similar idea (although permanent) you probably should have waited to see if there was some support. You may well have got some if you had not been so hasty. David D. (Talk) 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time shaping my actions to meet other's expectations because I feel that, by doing so, I would be manipulating them, instead of letting them make a free and conscious choice based solely on the content of my arguments and on its merits, instead of on the form and way that I present them, on my mood, humour, personality, and on the empathy that they have with what they think I am, and on how much they like me and my previous edits. As you say, I probably would have got some support. But I don't want fake support, based on lies and forced non-hastynnes and persuasion by emotion. I would only like truthful support resulted from consciousness and rational thoughts. I am sorry that sometimes this makes it look like I am extremely disruptive, and I would like to learn how to, at the same time, not manipulate people and not be seen as a troll. A.Z. 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.Z., the problem with you asking for support, advice and feedback is that you sometimes seem to ignore it. For example:

I made a longish post at User talk:A.Z.#Temporarily blocked on 29 April, and Rockpocket also provided a substantial comment. To these, you replied on 30 April "I read you both. Thank you. I have to think about it. I agree with some things, I disagree with some things, and I'd like to talk about them." That was 22 days ago but you've not been forthcoming. I still have no idea what you agree with and what you disagree with.
You asked for general feedback at Wikipedia:Editor review/A.Z.. I gave you my thoughts on 2 May, but again there’s no evidence that you’ve even read them, because you've made no comment about them.

These sorts of dead-ends leave me with the feeling that it’s pointless trying to say anything to you. To spend time giving you conscientious advice, knowing there's a good chance I'll be greeted with apparent indifference, is not something I willingly do very often. And our earlier exchanges left me with the feeling that you’re more interested in debate for its own sake than in actual resolution of issues, or improvements to the way Wikipedia operates. It’s not hard to see why, though. You seem so intent on pushing ever forward with more and more ideas and suggestions for change, that the past just gets lost. Unfortunately your ideas and suggestions have tended to generate far more heat than light, which suggests they're not well thought out, and leads one to sometimes wonder what your real motive might be. I've expressed the view previously that an editor who only occasionally contributes to the Ref Desk is in no position to be advocating major changes to its structure. If you have any more good ideas for structural change over the next month or so, can I suggest you keep them to yourself and think about them long and hard before deciding whether posting them is really in everybody's best interests. If you really, really want not to be seen as disruptive, then cool it with the incessant discussion of things that nobody else has a problem with. Basically, stop questioning everything, and stop putting yourself in the spotlight by soliciting others' opinions on the things you write. Most of us are here to work, not talk. The best way to be noticed is by making quality edits to articles; people will notice - "If you build it, they will come". But please don't feel inhibited in taking any of the above advice on board; I won't feel the least bit manipulated if you did so. JackofOz 04:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't edit a lot of articles because I don't feel confident in my English. I also don't think that editing articles is necessary for one to improve Wikipedia (and the reference desk).

I understand your advice for me to think more about my ideas before I publish them. I see that doing this would not be manipulating anyone and would diminish the trolling perception that people have of me. Also, it would be better if I focused on one issue, instead of discussing a lot of them at the same time, as I do with the psychology desk, the history desk, the administrators, the guidelines, NPOV, AGF, etc.

I'm interested in the actual resolution of issues. It is just that there are issues that I feel to be so complex that they would take months to be actually resolved, while most people here seem to think that a couple of paragraphs are enough. I often feel bad because of that, not because I think I am wrong, but because I just don't see it as resolution that which so many people here call resolution. Many times I say things that I think to be really important, and people just dismiss it as if I were trolling or trying to do something bad, ot trying to distract them from important issues. They say "let's write that the reference desk must be good on the guidelines" and I ask "but, what is good???" and they tell me that I am distracting them from the real issue, when I am actually addressing the real issue and trying to understand them and trying to cooperate with them to have a better Wikipedia and a better reference desk. But what I hear is "no-one has a problem with that, use common-sense, you are a troll, you are disruptive, you don't speak English, you don't edit articles, and things like that".

I am sorry about the dead-ends. They are not supposed to be dead-ends, but, if I start actually explaining everything that I would like to explain about what I think about your comments, I think you would eventually say that I am only trying to debate for debate's sake, as you said above already. I don't want dead-ends, but I don't want to go nowhere, I want to fully understand what you mean and you to fully understand what I mean. The things that I disagree with you are too important, and talking about them would take a lot of time. Now, not only I feel bad, but also embarassed, because you and other editors feel that time should not be spent discussing, and that's exactly what I'm asking of you.

I think I should try to find out where I should focus. I'm interested in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, processes, etc. I am also really interested in the Reference Desk. As I said above, I don't feel I can contribute much to articles right now, though I would like to, I guess. Do you have a suggestion? A.Z. 04:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit in your question - and please correct me if I have the wrong impression - seems to be that you feel that you have to do something, anything, as long as you're active in Wikipedia. Maybe that's not the right question, A.Z. Wikipedia is not your whole life. You are a student, so presumably you have plenty to keep you occupied with your studies. Look, it's not for me or anyone to tell you how to live your life or where to devote your time. If you are interested in our guidelines and policies, I can tell you as a person who's been involved in real-life policy work for a long time, that policies and guidelines only have any real value insofar as they relate to their implementation to actual cases. Tinkering with them for the sake of tinkering, or because it seems like a good idea, doesn't really go anywhere. It's where they don't have the desired effect in their application to articles or the Ref Desk that queries arise. Editors who are involved in these places sometimes find some reason to question the guidelines because of a real live case that's caused some sort of problem, and this is the main source of policy development. As for your English skills, I would suggest you seem to have a better grasp of English grammar and expression than many native English speakers do, so I certainly wouldn't let your concerns about this stand in the way of editing articles. If you write something that others disagree with, or uses unidiomatic English, they'll quickly change it. Otherwise, your edits will stand, and you'll have contributed something worthwhile. Pick a subject that's of interest to you, find the relevant articles, read them, and see if you can improve on them. Or, do some work on the Portuguese version of Wikipedia. That surely must need some help from a native speaker. JackofOz 01:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a reference desk reader, and I am involved with the reference desk a lot, in that quality. I think I shouldn't just be quiet and wait for only the "writers" to make the policies and guidelines for the reference desk, because I am a part of it as much as they are, and I will be affected by the policies and guidelines as well.

I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't be involved in policy change. You as much as anyone are affected by policies, so of course you have a right to have your say. We are all the "writers" in this respect. But "Let sleeping dogs lie" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" are well worth considering too. -- JackofOz 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean in my question "I have to do something". You misunderstood that part. I was just responding to what you said to me: "You seem so intent on pushing ever forward with more and more ideas and suggestions for change, that the past just gets lost." I wasn't saying that I have to do something, I was saying that I want to do something, and I do things, but so many of them at the same time, and without focus, that it causes all of them to be incomplete and not to produce any actual concrete result. When I asked for suggestions, I wasn't asking for you to suggest me a task because I didn't have anything to do at the time, but for you to pick one among the many tasks that I am interested in doing and I am doing, so I would focus on that one. A.Z. 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've identified the problem ("I do things, but so many of them at the same time, and without focus, that it causes all of them to be incomplete and not to produce any actual concrete result"). I can't tell you what to focus on specifically; but you've correctly diagnosed that focus is the missing element. I don't know whether you've seen the film Brother Sun, Sister Moon. There was a song in it that contained the line "Do few things, but do them well". Quality, and having the patience to see issues through to their culmination, are more useful ethics than having a quantity of ideas many of which never get fully analysed, much less implemented. I hope this is helpful, A.Z. -- JackofOz 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you say, Jack, about focusing on a few core issues and spending energy on those. However, I disagree with your statement that "an editor who only occasionally contributes to the Ref Desk is in no position to be advocating major changes to its structure". I do believe that anyone can advocate such major changes, and their opinions should all be taken into account. StuRat 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to essay(s)

I think it would be good to create a link to this essay and to future essays concerning the reference desk from its main page, so everyone can know about them. What do you think? A.Z. 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Do you have other suggestions to make people aware of the essay(s)? A.Z. 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay is trash. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Because its a poor essay and most people don't care for all this meta-discussion and wiki-lawyering. In fact alot of people think its counterproductive. -- Diletante 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the essay says much that's useful. What does it do that the guidelines and talk page don't do? Friday (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm A.Z., with respect of course, do you not at all notice a pattern here? From prior discussions with you, we realize that sometimes subtle commentary gets lost within the words and we do understand how that can happen when English isn't your first language. There comes a time however, when less than subtle commentary becomes appropriate and that time is coming quite soon for you as the community continues to lose patience with your seemingly innocent antics. Take our commentary here or not, it won't change the ultimate conclusion by which you will be remembered.

Our hope is that you become a less obtuse contributor, not because controversy should be avoided but rather that having a "tin ear" within any arena of controversial discussion doesn't become anyone. ~ hydnjo talk  01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I didn't know the word antic :-) And that word seems to be what you are criticizing me for doing. According to thefreedictionary.com:

1. A ludicrous or extravagant act or gesture; a caper. 2. Archaic A buffoon, especially a performing clown.

I am not fully satisfied with the definition. I don't think it is enough for me to understand what you mean. I would like you to be specific, hydnjo, and tell me which acts and words of mine were not appropriate and why. If this matters to you at all, please take the time and write a more elaborate post of criticism. I want nothing more than to learn how I can properly communicate with other people and expose my ideas and thoughts and be respected, and have my actions be respected as honest and well-meaning, which is what they are, instead of regarded as antics. A.Z. 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed matter to us which is why we wrote so bluntly. We'll leave it for others to elaborate or to disagree. At this point, we feel that elaboration on our part would be fruitless but others may chime in with their perspectives and those others will offer their thoughts one way or the other. ~ hydnjo talk  03:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you won't elaborate, but I hope it is just because you don't feel that you would be capable of making me understand what you mean, notwithstanding that you wish you were.

I hope others do offer their thoughts. A.Z. 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Well, here are some thoughts. AZ, you seem to be very intelligent and articulate and able to parse things to the nth degree when it suits you but at the same time appear to be quite incapable of understanding or insight in regard to anything that you disagree with. Your quoting of the definition of 'antics' above is a case in point. You seem to feign lack of comprehension of idiom to deflect criticism, you demand laborious explanations of terms and policies and request example after example of any and all problems brought to your attention, and then deny that there is a problem. I can think of no situation in our society where this attitude is productive and very few where it is tolerated.

I have read through the recent debates that you have been involved in and the other debates on your talk page and editor review and have to say that it appears that editor after editor has tried to explain these things to you and yet you have used these opportunities to defend your actions and deflect criticism again and again. Even if you are right in all that you say, in your proposed changes to guidelines and policies and your perception of persecution by others, your behavior will not bring about the ends you desire, indeed it is nearly guaranteed to thwart such result. Why this is not obvious to you is beyond my understanding.

I have to say, truthfully, that it strains credulity to believe that you are not aware of what you are doing and deriving some pleasure from it. I cannot know your motivation for any of this but I cannot see that your desire is to work in community with others to build an encyclopedia, and that is the only reason we are here. You might want to consider if perhaps some other forum would be better suited to your talents.--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 06:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Fred said right 09:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I don't derive any pleasure from not having my work recognized and having to read vague criticism of my behavior, and trying hard to understand what people mean only to be more criticized (not that all people do that, just some).

I do understand what you are saying now. You are simply explaining what other people think of me and what you think of me, but, then again, you did not explain why you think that, and I cannot agree or disagree with unspoken arguments. I think, for the time being, that my behavior is good.

I understand what you feel that I'm doing. You feel that what people mean is obvious and the only reason why I would claim not to understand what they mean is that I am acting in bad faith, that I am not willing to build an encyclopedia, not willing to work in community, etc. I understand that, and I don't see what I can do about it. You say something is obvious, I say it isn't and I need more examples and clarifications to grasp what people mean, so I ask for more explanation, but then you say that it it strains credulity to believe I would really not understand it already.

No, I do not "deflect" any criticism. I have accepted a lot of criticism and changed my behavior accordingly. When people have criticized me and I thought they were wrong or I didn't understand what they were talking about, I wanted to better understand what they mean, in order either to understand why I'm wrong or to be able to find out what was it that they perceived to be wrong in my behavior, but actually isn't, and explain to them why it isn't. I see no other way of having productive conversation rather than requesting examples and explanations. If everything was already understood, no conversation would be needed in the first place, and I can't address arguments that are not clearly written down or spoken. A.Z. 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we can move all the comments about A.Z.'s editing to Wikipedia:Editor_review/A.Z., it seems like a more appropriate place for them. -- Diletante 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Parts (moved from Hum. desk)

We seem to have lost the list of the other Ref Desks that used to sit at the top right-hand corner of this Humanities' page. Is this a deliberate move or an accident? If it is a deliberate move, could someone lead me to the explanation? If it is an accident, could someone who knows how these things work, fix it? Thank you. Bielle 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --TotoBaggins 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 16 Science Desk Archive?

It doesn't seem to be there - jumps from May 15 to May 17 [9]... Adambrowne666 10:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed the archives of the other sections of the Ref Desk (:except for Pychology and History:), as well as of the Help desk, all of which were missing May 16. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lambiam! Now I guess the question is, did all the recent activity with new desks created and deleted somehow affect the headers, thus making the bot malfunction? I will try to look into this, but I'm really not sure where to start. --LarryMac | Talk 15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason (which, is not not clear to me) the bot did not run in the wee hours of May 18, when it would normally have archived May 16. The next day it did archive May 17, but not May 16. (On some desks, May 16 was later erased together with the transclusion of May 17.) The first split-off was created 18:18, May 20, 2007 (UTC), more than 42 hours after the first time the bot was running while May 16 had become archivable. So the hiccough happened well before the recent troubles started. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Lammbiam, good work Adambrowne666 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Entertainment back to Humanities and introduce History Desk

Merge Entertainment back to Humanities and introduce History Desk. What do you think? --Hirakawacho 17:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why a history desk? Is there a problem with the volume of questions in humanities? David D. (Talk) 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally more apt to support shrinking the number of desks than increasing it. Altho I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to categorize them better. History seems like it's clearly part of humanities. I'd support dropping the computing desk, tho. Friday (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to get rid of the computing desk, as the people over there can help you with computers, which is a particularly important thing to have for an internet-based encyclopedia. - AMP'd 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one in particular seems to be mostly about troubleshooting, not references. So I don't see that it's aligned with the purpose of Wikipedia. However I've no intention of pushing the issue as I suspect getting rid of it would be an unpopular suggestion. Friday (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the Entertainment desk was created in the first place because entertainment questions were overwhelming the Humanities and Misc desks. Further, the types of questions asked at the Entertainment desk tend to be of a slightly different 'flavour' than those seen at Humanities. Rolling it back into Humanities would seem to me to be counterproductive.

On the other hand, the Humanities desk doesn't seem to be overly large, and history fits quite comfortably within its mandate. I can't see the advantage to creating a separate desk, whereas there are several clear disadvantages to doing so. (See previous discussions about creating separate Psychology and History desks.)

Where did this fervor for rearranging the desks come from all of a sudden? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Hirakawacho! What brought you to the reference desks? What prompted you to make this suggestion? Pardon my curiosity, but we've had some upheaval around here :-) David D. (Talk) 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, there's recently been a poll with overwhelming support to merge the History desk back into Humanities where it came from. Why is this any longer an issue? -- JackofOz 21:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Humanities all belong to... Well, Science. Humanities is an arbitrary split, just as History would be. It would make more sense, from a taxonomical point of view, to have a desk for Science and one for Philosophy. Then again, it doesn't seem that the purpose here is to organize desks as knowledge is organized. Rather, our intention should be more practical. I think we should not give so much weight to arguments like "History seems to be clearly a part of Humanities". Of course, History is dealt with on the Humanities desk, and the header says so, so everyone knows that "history is a part of humanities" in this sense, which, to us, should matter more than the other sense, the one that History is a science that studies humans. A.Z. 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities/Science is not an arbitrary split if the goal is for posters to post in the correct forum. The grouping of topics in humanities and science is pretty well established. Is the volume of questions being posed in humanities more than the volume on the science desk? If not, I see no reason to split it. If humanities does have more volume, is it unmanigable? If not, I see no reason to split it. David D. (Talk) 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one knows whether psychology is better under Humanities or Science. It's not established yet. Anyway, this is just a particular case, and I understand your point. It's just that I thought that Friday's argument was that it would make no sense to create a new desk just because the subject of the new desk is part of a broader field of knowledge that already has its desk. Maybe I didn't get his argument right in the first place. A.Z. 03:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology belongs in Science. Check the organization of departments in universities. Edison 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Entertainment back to Humanities (but no History Desk)

I think now that we have had some time to consider the effects of fragmentation on in the desks we should consider merging the Entertainment back into Humanities (as suggested above). It has been the least successful of the desks, and is not patrolled by as many editors as are the other reference desks. In particular questions on classical music or obscure popular music go unanswered regularly. Also, having fewer desks rather than more is better because editors are spread less thinly. Alternatively perhaps we should think about replacing questions about novels and classical music back in with the Humanities desk because they do not seem to fit very well on the Entertainment desk. S.dedalus 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Friday (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that many editors may be ignoring this page (which needs an archival soon) due to the constant revival of old proposals, and new ones bound to create controversy. But I don't have a source for that... - AMP'd 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how one measures the "success" of a desk, nor the number of editors patrolling one, but even so, I think Entertainment is doing fine. I've answered as many questions as I've been able to, although I'm hampered by the fact that I can't click on most media links when I'm at work. I'm also just weary from all of the recent changes, moves, arguments, etc on both the guidelines and the desk themselves, and frankly would like a nice quiet period. (hey, a boy can dream, can't he?) If, however, the decision is made to do this merge, can we please make sure that changing the various headers won't affect the bot? --LarryMac | Talk 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merge. Those questions about popular music which go unanswered now would likely continue to go unanswered on the Humanities Desk, and the Entertainment Desk also has the potential to draw some video game questions from the Computer Ref Desk, some questions on the technical aspects of movies, TV, and music from Science, and other questions from Misc. Perhaps we should redirect more questions to the Entertainment Desk, in order to encourage this process. StuRat 03:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think any time there's a question which desk is most appropriate for a given question, it may be a sign we have too many different desks. Ideally it would be clear what goes where. Friday (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really interesting reasoning. If there were just one desk, it would be 100% clear where any particular question would go. A.Z. 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's how the Ref Desk started out, but the sheer volume of questions made it umnanageable, which is why it was split up in the first place. -- JackofOz 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think 1 is too few. Friday (talk)

I understand. I was only pointing out that it being more clear where the question should go is not the only thing to be taken into account. I don't think it is even so important, since the users can check all desks for questions that they can answer, and not only a few specific desks. A.Z. 03:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one (questioner or answerer) wants to have to check more different desks than it seems like they ought to have to. Mundane and pragmatic though it is, this is really the dominant argument in a decision to split off more desks or not. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose removing the Entertainment desk, though I do remember having a significant percentage of questions on manga at the Humanities desk. How about removing "Novels" from the Entertainment categories, and adding "Musicology" to the Humanities topics? Or, if we do scrap the Entertainment desk, could we include a few topics under Miscellaneous? (half-baked example: Sports, Movies, Popular music, Video games, TV shows and all other subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about whether Entertainment should be separate or be part of Humanities. But novels should certainly come out of Entertainment. I'm not suggesting novels are not entertaining, but it makes no sense to have literature under Humanities but novels under Entertainment. Are novels no longer considered literature? -- JackofOz 03:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might this ambivalence be part of the high culture vs popular culture dichotomy? Art forms such as literature, music, or movies can include questions asking for a more or for a less scholarly answer. Depending on the question, it might receive more and better answers at the Humanities or at the Entertainment desk. Some editors frequent both desks, some don't. I guess the desk categories should help us manage the questions as effectively as possible, but different grades of "misplaced questions" will remain inevitable. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed the desk header a bit. (diff). I added "Music" to and removed "Culture" from the Humanities desk, and I added "Popular culture" and removed "Novels" and "Popular music" from the Entertainment desk. Hope it's ok, if not, revert as fast as you can. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to that change, Sluzzelin. No hurry, but can we also put the Miscellaneous icon last, just before the Archives icon, please? As Miscellaneous is for topics that don't belong with any of the other desks, it seems illogical to have it appear someewhere in the middle of them. Cheers -- JackofOz 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me the way it is, all the way to the right together with Archives. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it displays differently on your browser, but on mine it seems to be the 4th of 8 desks. It is on the right, but on the top row rather than the bottom. JackofOz 08:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Entertainment to Miscellaneous & Language to Humanities

I like the above idea by Sluzzelin; putting under Miscellaneous: Sports, Movies, Popular music, Video games, TV shows and all other subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories.

Since Language desk has very less volume we could merge Language to Humanities, as language is still part of culture.

What do you think?

--Hirakawacho 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, removing the entertainment reference desk and merging the subjects into other desks as proposed by ~~Sluzzelin~~ and Hirakawacho is logical and would make the desks easier to use both for the questioner and the answerer. S.dedalus 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is my memory playing tricks on me, or were there actually many more entertainment questions before that area got a separate section? --Lambiam ^Talk 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, because the merger of Language and Humanities makes, in my opinion, no sense. When you want to know about grammar, but there's no Language desk, I bet you go to Miscellaneous. When you want to know about roots of certain words, you go to Language. Humanities is about history, the beliefs and traditions of certain groups of people, and how people behave. As for Miscellaneous and Entertainment, the people who answer questions at Entertainment have a better specific knowledge of pop culture and the like, whereas Miscellaneous is the one desk that I think everyone should watch, just so they can Google themselves up an answer, or even to learn from the interesting questions. In fact, oppose any merger/split of any desks until it is proven that we would benefit from a re-arranging of things around here. - AMP'd 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, actually I didn't and don't propose merging the Language desks back to Humanities at all. In fact, I think that's a bad idea. I meant I'm not opposed to getting rid of the Entertainment desk, but nor am I opposed to keeping it (while, again, perhaps removing "Novels" from that desk, and adding "Music" or "Musicology" to the Humanities desk) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sluzz, someone seems to have tacked your name onto their own proposal. I wouldn't mind the merger of Entertainment as much, either, but the idea that Language would be obliterated was too much for me. My apologies, AMP'd 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Misc is for things that aren't easy to categorize - entertainment subjects are very easy to categorize - our questioners seem very able to keep entertainment subject out of the misc list and that's a very good thing. If someone passionately wishes to answer both sorts of question, they can easily watch both lists. I for one don't want entertainment stuff cluttering up the misc list. I don't see what the benefit is. Feel free to shuffle stuff back and forth between entertainment and humanities - but don't do that in such a way as to wind up with an empty entertainment desk - it's just too useful. SteveBaker 01:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is 2 separate proposals in one, but I oppose them both. I don't mind Entertainment being separate from Humanities, but it does not belong with Miscellaneous. I oppose Language being merged with Humanities, for the reasons stated above. -- JackofOz 03:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Entertainment questions tend to be fluff, like which character on Happy Days' said which catchphrase. Some of the questions could be moved to more appropriate desks, such as moving to Science a current Entertainment question: "Could Batman's famous batarang actually act like a real boomerang in real life?" and occasional questions about Mozart which might benefit from perusal by the usual Humanities crowd. Language questions often ask for simple translations and need speakers of various living languages more than the scholarship typical of Humanities questions. Little benefit and some detriment from the proposed move. Humanities editors with a working knowledge of several languages are free to scan for Language questions. Those who are not do not waste their time paging through them. People interested in languages can concentrate on Language and not have to page through Humanities questions they do not find interesting and are unlikely to answer. Edison 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both - Per Edison. I like the current arrangement, and see no reason to change it. I rarely read the Entertainment section, since my knowledge of Pokemon and video games is limited, and would rather not have those queries in sections where I might inadvertently learn about such things. --TotoBaggins 16:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.Q?

Should we start a F.A.Q for each ref desk? I know on the computing ref desk every know any again we get asked the same question (eg. How do I download clips from YouTube?), It would get answer quicker and allow the answers to be improved. --Lwarf 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few, no, very few will use them. ~ hydnjo talk 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've sort of tried this before. The main problem was people getting round to making and maintaining the pages. I seem to remember we were supposed to add a question and answer when it got asked a third time. I agree it would be handy, since you could combine the best bits of the answers and refer people to it whenever the question got asked, removing some of the 'pot-luck' nature of the desks. I don't think it would stop people asking the questions, but we would be able to provide a more thorough answer, quicker. However, people would have to put in the work and be bold. For all I know, the previous work-in-progress FAQs could still be around somewhere. Skittle 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can do one better than a FAQ. We could make an entire encyclopedia, if we wanted. Then, we could answer questions by referring people to those articles. Sorry, couldn't resist. Friday (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "not being able to resist" check out this link ("Page Title" section if #... is broken) from two summers ago when AlMac coined iFAQ for infrequently Asked Questions. And while you're there look over some of the rest of the page for that warm Déjà vu feeling ;-) ~ hydnjo talk 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, what I felt was vicarious nostalgia. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was ... odd... Many names I'd forgotten. Made me wonder where they'd gone, although I see HappyCamper is still active, just not here. Skittle 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier attempt is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/faq, categorized by Ref desk section. Apart from the lack of maintenance, a problem with the approach was that it just collected the answers as given at the desk, which were not necessarily quality answers. Also, often what seems to be yet another instance of a frequently asked question actually has a twist to it that makes the canned answers not fully satisfactory. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right probably more trouble than it's worth. --Lwarf 10:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you put frequently asked questions into an FAQ list, then people who read the FAQ and get their answers will not ask those questions. Thus those questions are no longer frequently asked and therefore, by definition, should be removed from the FAQ. In the meantime, other questions will have earned status as FAQs, meaning they should be added to the list. And the cycle starts again :-) --LarryMac | Talk 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HagermanBot / Unsigned posts

Does anybody know why the HagermanBot stopped signing unsigned posts on the desks? It seems to have quit on either the 16th or 17th of May. --LarryMac | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not to have been signing any unsigned posts anywhere at all since 19:47, May 16, 2007 (UTC): Special:Contributions/HagermanBot. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hagerman himself appears very irregularly. He hasn't made any edits since 29 April, when there was a brief flurry of activity after a two-and-a-half months' absence. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we allow questions directed to one individual only ?

If a question is posted and the OP wants an answer from one person exclusively, should that question be posted on the Ref Desk or on that user's talk page ? My opinion is included below, and I'd also like to see the opinions of others: StuRat 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post it to that user's talk page. Otherwise, the Ref Desks could become more like chat rooms. StuRat 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have much choice about how other editors post their questions. Anyone who can answer usefully is free to answer, even if the poster aimed the question at one particular person. The thing that makes it like a chat room in my opinion, is people chatting rather than asking/answering questions. Friday (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we have a choice. We can tell them to move the question to that user's talk page, or we can do it for them, especially for repeat offenders. StuRat 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised you would suggest we remove someone's post from the ref desk (even if we move it somewhere else.) Is there some reason you see this as a particular problem? Does this even tend to happen? Friday (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about it, but it's my mild preference to minimise communication from one individual to another - it seems more encyclopedic to me. Anchoress 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OPs sometimes address a Ref Desk question to one editor, but it's still a free-for-all when it comes to answering the question. I don't think I've ever seen an OP saying they only want the editor to whom they addressed the question to answer it, and that others are not welcome to contribute. If I saw a question phrased like that, I'd suggest it be removed to the editor's talk page. In a similar vein, we sometimes get questions addressed only to native English speakers, or to non-native speakers, or to some other sub-group of Ref Desk editors. I don't have a problem with that. JackofOz 23:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a question on a general topic is addressed to a specific editor, it shouldn't be removed, in my opinion, per Friday and Jack's rationale. (Example: "I have a question for user:Geologyfreak: which rock has the most complex microstructure?" Everyone's welcome to answer it.) Questions about users, on the other hand, can be moved to the adressee's talk page as far as I care. (Example: "Hey, user:Geologyfreak, how come you know that much about rocks?" The question is personal, and doesn't belong at any desk.). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether we should allow it or not. I have a few thoughts that I'd like to share, though:

1)I wouldn't feel comfortable answering a question of someone who is just interested in the answers of another user. I don't think that a question with a heading that has the name of another editor would be a "free-for-all when it comes to answering it".

Headings are supposed to be descriptive of the topic, which has nothing to do with the name of any editor. -- JackofOz 05:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2)It seems that the main argument to keep those questions at the desk, instead of on the talk page of the editor, is that everyone will be able to read it, and it will be kept in the searchable archives. I read this argument when questions to Clio the Muse started to appear.

3)I think that saying "I would like John to participate in the thread" would be a better way to present a question than "question to John", but, if the questioner changes the phrasing just because we have forbidden questions directed to a specific user, that will not be good, because volunteers will try to answer the question and the questioner will be only interested in one opinion. I would feel really frustrated to try to help a questioner that does not even want to hear my opinion in the first place. A.Z. 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to 'allow it'? What to do with 'repeat offenders'? Does anyone aside from me think this sounds a little silly? Come the day (and I will eat my hat in the town square should this ever come to pass!), when a questioner responds negatively to anyone's answer other than that requested we can deal with that person gently and politely. If you feel uncomfortable or frustrated about answering a question, then (spoiler warning!), dont' answer it. I am rather new here but has there ever been a problem with a questioner reacting badly to answers from those not requested? Get a grip, people! As Clio's are the only answers I have seen specifically requested, could it be that some questioners feel she perhaps has a modicum of expertise in the field of the question? Perhaps they have seen other questions she has answered and assumed that she would give a great answer? Or, (shudder!), perhaps they just like a thoughtful and witty reply more than, see Whatever the topic happens to be. Jeez!--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 05:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP is rude to other people who answer the question, or – worse – removes good answers solely because they are from the 'wrong' responder, then it would be a behavioural issue. Otherwise, I don't see the harm in it. StuRat, could you identify specific cases of what you're asking about here? It might help us to understand what you see as the 'problem' here before we charge off trying to implement a new policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a question is posted and the OP wants an answer from one person exclusively ... do you have an example instance ... or is this pure speculation? I've seen: (A) poorly worded questions; and (B) questions that imply participation from a specific user is appreciated or desired; but I do not recall ever seeing: (C) a question that expressly requested "an answer from one person exclusively".

Moreover, your rationale: Ref Desks could become more like chat rooms is thoroughly unconvincing. Even if a good faith interpretation suggests (C) has occured:

it could be argued that targeting questions to specific individuals would have the opposite of the "chat room effect", and instead promote an "ask an expert" effect, (potentially) leading to less superfluous thread content;
an express request from a random poster is just that, a request. It does not carry the force of policy, nor is there any implicit duty to honor it;
no one has yet demonstrated that random requests have a "chilling effect" on open participation;
no one has yet demonstrated that the quality, relevance, archival and usefulness of questions or answers is in any way diminished or impeded by (C). However, all of these interests would be both diminished and impeded by relegating content to user pages if it just happens to be "tainted" by (C).

Even if (C) were a potential problem, the notion of "disallowing" it in questions seems ill-considered at best. Under the shaky rationale you've forwarded here, one might argue it would also justify a "ban" against saying "Thank you" for quick and helpful answer to a specific username, a situation that is far more prevalent on the RefDesk than your (apparently) hypothetical scenario.

Respectfully, this question seems like a very low-priority non-issue. If a problem does arise, helpful suggestions to the individuals in question would seem more than enough. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 14:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall some questions aimed at "Catholics only", where the OP seemed angry to get responses from non-Catholics. While not aimed at a single responder, this seemed to suffer from the same problem of excluding other responders. And what exactly would be wrong with putting "thank yous" on user talk pages, anyway ? StuRat 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me. Lets just use common sense on a case by case basis. Rockpocket 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanites May 24

We seem to have lost this day, what happened ? StuRat 00:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also lost this day on the Language Desk, and perhaps others. StuRat 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does ANYONE know what has happened to the QAs for this day? I cannot find them in the archive. Clio the Muse 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has something to do with the last contributions by 145.97.39.143 here. The creation of archives for May 24 seems to have failed. I tried fixing it for the Language desk here, but I'm afraid I might have not done it correctly, and don't wish to create more grunt work. Input by VectorP or Martin or anyone else who knows would be greatly appreciated. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like what happens when a bot gets logged out by accident--69.118.235.97 10:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics has some issues as well. Root⁴(one) 04:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented a temporary fix to these pages

00:03, 26 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2007 May 24 (Fixing Bot Mis-Archival (temporary)) (top)
23:53, 25 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 24 (Fixing Bot Mis-Archival) (top)
23:46, 25 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 May 24 (Fixing Bot Mis-Archival) (top)
23:42, 25 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 May 24 (Fixing Bot Mis-Archival) (top)
23:30, 25 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2007 May 24 (Repair Bot Mis-Archival) (top)

This was not a permanent fix as 1. I'm not administrator, so I cant copy the message creation times and people. If any admin is reading this, please fix. 2. It was literally a cut-and-paste job. Root⁴(one) 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to do this, I really do, but If any admin is not reading this, I write in big annoying letters to get his or her attention. These archives need to be fixed! Thank you, and please remove all of my text surrounded by a <span> upon fixing. Thanks. Root⁴(one) 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with both of our fixes is that they do not preserve the "diff" history, which is most beneficial and useful. I wonder if there ought to be a policy on temporary archive fixes, and then I wonder if there already is one if I just violated it :P. Root⁴(one) 05:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other minor issue. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 May 23 has both May 23, 2007 and May 24, 2007, and somebody has edited since. I'm not even going to touch it. Root⁴(one) 05:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking at WP:AN/I --h2g2bob (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about the edit histories; these are all preserved with the page where the original edits occurred, and it only takes elementary sleuthing capabilities to find and retrieve them. So there should be no impact on license issues. Cut-and-paste is a common way of archiving. If you look (for example) at the history of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 January 1, you'll see that is was cut-and-pasted; the history is still in the edit history of page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. By the way, I have performed a dichotomy on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 May 23, splitting off Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 May 24. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is what happens when I go on vacation (-: I'll replace the headers on the manually archived pages in a few days, when I have more time, unless someone does it before me--VectorPotential^Talk 15:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it happened again. Here's my notice on the Administrator's noticeboard. Is there any where else I should post?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reference_Desk_Archival_bot_is_eating_data_and_not_archiving_it

Root⁴(one) 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important new desk

I've been WP:BOLD. Can anyone deny this is right and necessary? No, they cannot. --TotoBaggins 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL! Someone will probably delete that - but bravo! Would you consider expanding it to include 'my pet bird just did this... why?'-type questions? There seems to be loads of them on the science desk... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can an editor please explain to me what this section is about? The first post looks like mine announcing that I had created the Psychology Reference Desk. I think I understand what TotoBaggins means, but I would like to be sure, because I can be wrong. A.Z. 02:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He created Wikipedia:Reference desk/Seagulls ("Seagulls, terns, albatrosses, and related avians of the littoral zones") and moved one of my questions there. --Kurt Shaped Box 02:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! He is not criticizing my creation of the Psychology Desk, then? (by the way, I'm using a new screen name, but I'm A.Z.) subsequent fallout 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He meant to move it (to /Misc, I assume), and accidentally created a page. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point, a point, a palpable point! Bielle 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? subsequent fallout 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean my nickname, then I don't think it harms the project at all... subsequent fallout 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you keep it, but if you change it to something else (or back and forth) its a pointless distraction, for no reason other than to make a point. Rockpocket 03:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you think the distraction would be harmful somehow? I was thinking that I would keep the nickname for one month or so, so I can make my non-disruptive point, and then change it back. subsequent fallout 03:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - just teasing me for being a gull fanboy as far as I'm aware... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again!! A lot! subsequent fallout 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culinary reference desk?

Good or no? Wikipedia does not give recipes?--0rrAvenger 15:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. Given the fact that people will probably want health food advice, it could turn into medical advice, and then there's the danger of allergies. Would be reasonable on other forums, but not here. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the profusion of new Desk suggestions all of a sudden? Before anyone else suggests another Desk – and I'm not meaning to come down hard on you in particular, 0rrAvenger – I'm going to ask them to do their homework first. You should be able to answer the following questions:

How many questions per day would fall under the new category?
Where are these questions asked now? (Does it appear that posters are unclear on what Desk they ought to use for a given question? Do these questions interfere with the operation of whatever Desk they currently appear on?)
Are the questions in the proposed category not being answered because they're 'out of place'—that is, do they fit poorly with the other questions on that Desk?

Bear in mind that it's not worth the hassle (setting up links, modifying maintenance bots, establishing archives, etc.) to set up a new Desk that's only going to get one question per day. Also consider that moving questions to a new Desk may mean that many fewer people will see them. I only have two of the seven Desks watchlisted, and seldom visit the others; I suspect that many other editors do the same. Creating a too-specialized Desk may mean that questions go unanswered for long periods, if they get any answer at all.

Look at the case of the Entertainment Desk as an example of a worthwhile split.

It looks like Entertainment gets about six questions per day.
Before the split, entertainment questions belonged on the Humanities Desk. (Many posters were unsure about the correct Desk to use, however, and these questions also ended up on Misc.) Entertainment questions would make up about a third of the traffic on Humanities if it were merged back in, making that Desk quite long.
While there is definitely overlap between Entertainment and the Humanities, the bulk of Entertainment questions are pop-cultural in nature ("Do you know the name of the actress who played...?"). The other Humanities questions tend to draw on more dusty academic knowledge.

See what I'm getting at? It's always good to have (at least) examples and (at best) data at hand when assessing the need for a new Desk, a new policy, or a new way of doing things. (See for example the analysis I did a few months ago, when we were trying to sort out the size and seriousness of the problem of medical advice being given on the Science Desk.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought of this because of some questions on the science ref desk re food. Also, maybe the creation of the ref desk will inspire people to ask more questions about it. I agree maybe that health foods questions can be asked, but what about people who are just looking for recipes? "I need to bake a cheeseberry pie, what are some base ingredients..." etc. There is no suitable desk for such a question except the miscellaneous.

On another note, I was also thinking maybe there should be a "Wikipedia does not give parental advice"?--0rrAvenger 17:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]