Template talk:Refq

Wording change

How about,

The information you're looking for is at Example. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and you should try searching in the search box to the left of the screen before asking a question here. It's much faster, and it keeps the reference desk from getting too busy!

The extra text doesn't hurt anyone, and I think the final comment stating the reason is necessary for giving polite instructions. Think of it like... you disturb your teacher when he's busy, and you know he's busy but you ask him anyways. If he says, "No, go away", that's pretty harsh, but if he says, "No, I'm busy and I can't answer you so go away", it makes the statement all the more easier to accept.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, consider that it is very likely some users will overuse this template, in situations where a more carefully worded response would be appropriate. For example, in a situation where the user was looking for a rare compound or disease, but was consistently spelling it incorrectly, they may form their question like,

What are the kemical properties of blyboblubonbloxide? Where I find imformation?

Someone on RD might not realize that it was simply a spelling mistake and use the template, or might realize but decide to use the template anyways just because it's a convenient way to link to the article when it should have been easily found in the first place. Needless to say, the questioner might feel a little bit insulted about that.

Anyways, just some thoughts.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Your wording sounds much better. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)13:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten it in – I hope – a more user-friendly way. Most of the simple questions seem to be from newbies/children and I'd like to encourage them to poke around Wikipedia more.--Shantavira 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can look up this topic yourself. Please see [[{{{1}}}]]

I don't think you need to use the Wikipedia slogan in there, "the free encyclopedia". How about:

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can find information about this topic at it's own page, Banana.

And then tell them never to do it again.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the word "encyclopedia" in there because the people who ask those straightforward questions don't seem to realize that is what thay've stumbled across. I'm guessing they type "ask a question" somewhere and find themselves at the Reference Desk. I also wanted to make it a bit more helpful in encouraging them to do their own research. I find "at its own page" rather unclear.--Shantavira 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I took out ", the free encylopedia" sounds kind of silly if you ask me. 8-) — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we {{subst:}} this template or leave it raw? DMacks 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please substitute it. This should actually be automatically substituted.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

"In future," feels like a dangling modifier of some sort (a fragment of "In future edits,"). As I've always heard it, "In the future" is what's needed here, because we really are talking about "the future" as a definite object. My change got reverted removed "the". "In the future" is the introduction to a sci-fi story, "in future" means "from now on". I've never heard "in future" used like that except in mis-translations from languages that don't have the concept of definite articles. I'm not gonna get into a revert war over it, but grammar should be right here. Anyone else wanna weigh in? DMacks 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed: I casually changed it before checking the edit history and discovering the matter was at issue. Now that I see it is (has been) an issue, I changed the wording to an alternative construction that conveys substantially the same meaning without provoking grammatical dyspepsia. dr.ef.tymac 19:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)