Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

How does the Reference Desk IMPROVE Wikipedia?

I see you are all very worried about how to archive the RD and its immense amount of questions, complaining how some questions are worth and others not, etc. But it seems you don't like talking too much about an aspect that deeply affects the RD and the questions posted: The improvement of Wikipedia from the questions answered here. And I'm not talking about the uncanny ability to direct askers to the corresponding Wiki articles. While that is helpful in a way, it's not the shiniest bulk of this place. It's sad to think that most of you would like to take these questions and file them in a big-ass Archive (which doesn't even have direct searching function which is INSANE), instead of answering, and then making suitable articles and subsections that answer the questions that you consider good in the way you just did.

I know that not all of the questions that can be considered "good ones" are worth having articles or even subsections in other articles, but you know there are certain subjects that would be worth having an article, instead of relying in the necessity of a) asking here, then b) being thoroughly answered (in the middle of equally-debated ha-ha responses), then c) being forgotten about... then being asked about again and again! I do not know how common this re-asking is here, but at least once I've been sincerely annoyed when the users reply:

"Um, this was asked before! Duh! Why didn't you check the 7GB Archive for a question like this before asking, huh?"

And if the askers dare to reply "Oh, but why isn't there an article that answers this common knowledge question, then?" You all say "Well, Be bold!", or (most commonly) keep quiet afterwards since "your answering job is done", and off the question goes to the black-hole sized Archive!! (I have a couple of explicit examples if you need them... oh wait, it'll take me a few dozen hours to find them in the Archive!!!)

Listen, I understand that there are many questions that seem to have been written by five-year-old ADD sufferers, but that precisely is my point: Do you want the REAL, justified questions to end up buried in the Gigapile of RD questions, instead of enriching Wikipedia with text that answers those questions as well as possible, so that the knowledge is there for everyone to use it, and there can mostly be questions that deserve nice discussion and debate from all users here? Wouldn't focusing on answering good questions by letting Wikipedia itself answer improve not only Wikipedia, but also the type of questions that are posted here (and the controversial size of the archive as well)? Isn't that what we are supposed to expect from ourselves? Shouldn't there be a responsability of those who answer to TRANSMIT the good answers to Wikipedia articles and not just answer and forget about it?

I'm not entirely sure if I'm overreacting, but I'm simply a casual asker who likes browsing through the week's RD questions, so I'm speaking from that view. If we can agree on anything, is that the RD has several complications that truncate its efforts, and I believe this is one of the reasons. Kreachure 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This raises a very good point. The point of the RD isn't for people to use Wikipedia to get answers for people - it is to answer questions which are not answered in Wikipedia already. Whenever a question is asked which is answered in Wikipedia, rather than answer - just delete the body and edit the heading to include a link to the article, like this:

Original:

===When was Hitler born?===

When and where was Adolf Hitler born? from random@example.com

Edited:

===When was Hitler born? -> Adolf Hitler===

Then when archiving, just delete the question. Also when archiving, add the new answers (answers to the questions which are proper questions and were not already answered within Wikipedia articles) into the relevant articles, so that next time someone asks, they are there. -- Chuq 23:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible for a bot to tell whether it should include the response or not, and a pain in the ass for human archivers to look through every question to decide whether they should include them in the archive. As far as I'm concerned, the archives are easily searchable using Google, and I let everyone know that they can do that before asking a question. I don't really see the problem; I don't think the percentage of repeat questions is that big of a deal, and a more comprehensive FAQ sounds like a much easier solution to this anyway. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 00:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a Reference desk - a perspective. When we opened a Reference desk it was to help folks find an answer to a perhaps obscure question or a misdirected title (watch out for those upper/lower cases) which was available within. Well, that concept lasted for about thirty seconds as questions began to come about all sorts of things, most of which without an article to point to. So, the current RD as we know it came into being.

After a while the RD became such a popular feature with such a large following that it seemed wise to break it into several sections just to reduce the page load-time. There was much discussion at that time about changing the "culture" of the RD but it turned out to be the right thing to do.

Over the months and years there have been many proposals to improve the quality and efficiency of the RD including proposals to mark certain questions as "good" or "answered" or "deserving of special recognition". Well, nice idea but out of context. We're not begging for star questions or star answers, just some helpful guidance from y'all to the folks. The folk wisdom that shines at the RD is the natural response to anyone's query. Yeah, for sure there is going to be the whimsical bantering but what the heck, we're all just volunteering our time and some questions are just begging for a bit of ... well you know, humorous banter. It sometimes goes over the top but there is always a level-headed user to keep things on track. "Did you see what User:xxxxx said? You better do something about that right now - the RD is going down in flames!"

So, why is there a Reference desk indeed! The information that I have been privileged to observe here has no equal: no usenet crap, no link to an unwanted commercial, no smacks upside the head (usually), no putdowns (usually), a diverse response, a suggestion (sometimes) to rephrase an ambiguous question, the splendor of seeing a thread morph into a marvelous and informative give and take by an intelligent band of answering folks; that feeling feels good.

Turning the question around, how does the reference desk not improve Wikipedia or more generally, the Wikipedia experience? Well, it certainly gives voice to our natural inclination to share knowledge - imperfect at times but better than... well, hell, that's not what we're about. Collectively, we're not trying to "beat" anyone - just trying to do our best at sharing, and that is what makes Wikipedia, and its Reference desk special. --hydnjo talk 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick random thoughts before I board a plane:

The reference desk has the least number of vandalism edits per total edits.
It is probably the most friendly of all Wikipedia namespace pages.
A number of administrators have been promoted on the basis of their professional handling of questions at the reference desk.
It is one of the few places where anyone on the internet can harness this sort of elclectic gathering.
It creates a beneficial networking environment which otherwise would not exist.
It's fun!

Bottom line? Reference desk is here to stay. :-) Mind you, extremely valid concerns have been raised, and I would hope that we can address them better, say, when I get back. Or another user can do that. In the meantime, please stay tuned. It's not often these thoughts are vocalised here, and in fact I think Kreachure, you are the first to do so. It's really important we get feedback about the RD, so thanks for your post. --HappyCamper 04:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the most useful suggestion here is that more of the good information produced here should find its way into articles (when and where appropriate, of course). It's a shame if Wikipedia contains some great lore that is truly appropriate to an encyclopedia, but only in the RD archive. I don't think we can tell answerers that they need to do this work. But it might be possible to encourage the task of mining the answers for overlooked important content. So many Wikipedians (most of us, some of the time) are happy to comb through looking for easy opportunities for modest improvements. Wareh 02:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This topic is near to my heart, as no matter how much I enjoyed the reference desk, I reallized that as my wiki time reduced it was one of the things I did that helped improve articles the least. Part of the problem is a lot of RD answer content isn't carefully referenced, so doesn't help in meeting WP:V. Other people here do a good job of starting or expanding articles to answer questions, and that's good, but I found it wasn't as helpful for my own work on articles. But one thing that could help is encouraging answers to tell explicitly whether they already included the information in the answer in the relevant articles or created the needed redirects, or made the information easier to find, etc, or not. If that is simply stated every time (not much effort when answering a question) that would make it easier for others to do the adding or clarifying or further research. And it could help in reminding everyone that improving articles is our most important mission here at Wikipedia. - Taxman ^Talk 03:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we start reverting stupid questions?

The misc desk in particular attracts a huge number of daft questions with no sensible answers. For example:here, here, or here. I propose that in future such questions be rv'd as if they were vandalism. We're in danger of losing sight of the goal of the reference desk, which should be to help people use wikipedia to answer their questions.

Anyone agree? Howard Train 05:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem if anyone reverted the three examples you've given; I think Wikipedia's general guidelines about removing unhelpful content would be enough to justify that. But I'd be nervous about trying to make specific guidelines about what kinds of questions should be reverted. It seems to me that the majority of questions, even on the misc desk, are legitimate. And in my experience, legitimate questions are called illegitimate more often than illegitimate questions are asked. Also, questions that look like they were probably asked as a joke often turn out to have interesting answers, even answers found within Wikipedia. (Not that you're necessarily proposing any specific guidelines; I'm just saying this because someone might suggest it as a solution here.) --Allen 06:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. I have to admit that I've been put off trying to help with Refdesk questions recently, because the impression being given (rightly or wrongly) by a number of contributors (on both sides) is that it's an cliquey in-joke farm first and a reference desk second. I'm not saying nobody should ever have fun, of course not, but I do think that if there's a clash between giving a clear answer and making a silly joke, the clear answer should always take priority. Loganberry (Talk) 08:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Many users have fun by posting stupid questions on the refrence desk. If this is going to be done, could a section called Pointless be added along with Math, Science, ect.? If WP:BJAODN is allowed to exist, so should this. T H L 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. BJAODN was created because we delete those stupid articles, not because we want to keep them. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 07:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be normally better to not revert, and instead just ignore. Reverting...for one, may get messy when one editor decides a question is sensible and one editor decides it's not. It would be better to just reply telling people the question is not suitable, or just give them an appropriate link (and other editors should just ignore it unless they feel the question is sensible and plan to answer it.) So in the three examples above - I'd say the first question should get a reply simply saying the question is inappropriate. The second question should get a reply with a link to either our deletion policy, or to our policy page for verificability. The third one should get reverted because it's not a question at all, it's almost vandalism. --`/aksha 12:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This question about reverting silly questions is one that keeps croping up every now and then. The simple way to handle it is just to ignore it, but if it is really disruptive, simply remove it. I used to do this every now and then - the trick is to do this right when the question is posted, and to request the poster add a question that is more relevant for an encyclopedia. Sometimes, others will spot this removal, and reinstate the question, so if this happens, just let the question be - another Wikipedian has implicitly stated "I'd like to take responsibility for its presence on the RD". These situations are good places to practice conflict management and resolution, if you aspire to become an administrator. However, I wouldn't advise being too aggressive with question removal. More often than not, the RD handles them well, even though they are blatantly "non-encyclopedic" questions.

There aren't any hard written rules about this for the reason that we cannot codify and modulate every nuance of behaviour that occurs on the RD - simply do what is reasonable without compromising your enjoyment of volunteering at the reference desks, and this usually works for the best. Be consistent with professionalism, and be in tune with how people are like on the desks. --HappyCamper 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get what's wrong with giving pointless questions their own section. Why take away fun, all the fun is in the stupid answers to stupid questions? If pointless questions have their own section, people like me would answer them, and you all wouldn't have to deal with it; you wouldn't even have to see it. T H L 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, bad idea. --⁪froth^{T C} 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it a bad idea? T H L 18:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Because i don't see the people who ask those stupid questions would bother to go to a section titled "stupid questions". You'd just have to manually move stupid questions to a seperate section. And the seperate section for stupid question will turn into something more like a chat box. --`/aksha 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is to do your best to answer legitimate questions, give some guidance to reasonable homework questions and ignore the rest. The only thing that I would do in addition is to add {{unsigned | ip#}} to the question being "ignored" and delete any email address if you have the time or inclination. It's obvious that the questioners have some savvy just by the fact that they know how to make a header (well, most do). So, a common stance will eventually influence the past questioner which in turn will guide their influence on the next layer and so on. There will always be rogue (or is it rouge) questioners bouncing in for a laugh and the worst thing is to give them recognition. If the post is profane or whatever then of course delete it but that should be the exception. Ignoring the trolls is best in that it well, ignores them which will make them reluctant to repeat whereas "finger-wagging" on our part means that "the terrorists have won". Our behaving in an angry way is exactly their point to make so, don't. ;-) --hydnjo talk 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: Another thought that I had some time ago was to surround the "stupid" questions with <small>...''question''...</small> or <font color="grey">..."question"...</font> but again, that would give recognition and status to the undeserved. Besides which if another one of us comes along and thinks differently about the question then no harm or prejudice done if the post was just ignored (no back-tracking required). Passive non-response is our best response; those unanswered questions will stand out glaringly enough for others to notice. --hydnjo talk 01:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about this subject the angrier I become. Who the hell are any of us to declare a question as being "stupid" and thus proceed to delete it from our RD pages? You have only to look at WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFA ... to sense the diversity of opinion around here. So what next, a review board of appeals so that a deleted question can be re-posted or whatever remedy process that we'll need to put in place to deal with that obstinate troll who's just trying to piss us off (and they will appeal to the Jimbo, oh yes they will):

So, I contributed x$ at the last fundraiser, look it up, and I asked a question at the RD that User:xxx decided to delete and so here I am, with my mouse in hand, being dissed by User:xxx just because he thought that my question was stupid. What the xxxxing kind of an organization are you running here? I was trying to help my kid with his homework and because of my clumsy command of language I (and my kid) were deleted. Well excuse me, I thought that this project was here to help all of us, not just the exquisite questioners. If my question was deemed stupid by one of your "answerers" then maybe I should become one of your answerers just so that I could answer some of the "stupid" questions that come along. Jeesh!"

So, Should we start reverting stupid questions? (as this section header suggests). Absolutely... NOT. Unless of course you intend to hang yourself out there as the arbiter of "stupid questions" which would put you in the same category as the judge of "silly walking", "funny talking" or ... well, I think you get it. :-) --hydnjo talk 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading this I thought I'd finally found a place on Wikipedia where people can make comments that isn't stale and completely devoid of humour and now people want to kill the humour...hmmmm... :( --WikiSlasher 13:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

(copied from /S)
Shouldnt this page have been archived a number of times before now?--Light current 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Easy there Kemo Sabe, we were all offered the opportunity to help out manually until a bot could be got. Didn't see lots of hands being raised back then did we? --hydnjo talk 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I actually started to help until subjected to unjustified criticism from certain non participants on the RDs. :I then with drew my offer. Blame them!!--Light current 03:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've made your point then. --hydnjo talk 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

only 361 kilobytes, I say we try for 1000. --JWSchmidt 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

~~gee, what a scientific question~~ How do you archieve these RD pages anyway? --`/aksha 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Removing Old Days from Ref Desk (Whether Transcluded or Not) from early September. --hydnjo talk 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: For personal reasons, I had to rescind my commitment to do archiving but I'm setting time aside each day to add the date headers to each of the RD sections and the HD. As things improve at with my home situation I am hoping to be able to do some archiving as well. Actually, I'm really hoping that a bot can be got! This section has been copied from /S. Please continue here. I'll delete the section from /S in a day or so as it shouldn't be at /S at all. --hydnjo talk 03:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It has already been archived. and starting now (probably today) Martin's bot will be doing it for us. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The bot has done archives up to the 21st, and will do the 22nd on standard archival tonight. M a rtinp23 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to see the introduction of Martins bot to handle the archiving and I thank him very much for writing it. Thanks!--Light current 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a pleasure :) M a rtinp23 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! And cheers to the RefDeskBot. We got a bot! Thanks to all and especially Martin :-) --hydnjo talk 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the bot works as intended (Im sure it will) Then Martin needs some sort of award or barnstar or something. What do other ref desk editors think?--Light current 01:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll pitch in and give RDB a free user page makeover. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 02:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure glad to see it up and running ! StuRat 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's party! Screwdrivers all around. (bar tab to Heidi & Joe)

It's creating archives, yes, but where is it putting them? It's not adding them to the archive page, ~~and it's not indexing~~, so basically, all of that still has to be done by hand. It's also using a totally different extension to archive to, so all the old archives will red link. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006 vs Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/October 2006, I'm afraid I don't understand the point of changing the extensions--172.144.248.157 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The archives changed. They are now at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. The main page is protected so I need an admin to change the links on that page. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I assume the bot is ready to manually change all the old archives all the way back to 2004? Or we just bury those along with the old extension?--172.147.10.221 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you even look at the link I gave you? Nothing will change with the old pages, they stay exactly where they are, and they will be like that forever. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the link I gave you, you'll notice something missing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006, yes Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives is fine, but Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006 and Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/October 2006 both still exist, and aren't the same--172.147.10.221 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see how that's really a problem. I am going to connect the links from the old archives to the new ones either tonight or tomorrow morning (8 edits on the monthly pages, and 8 edits on daily archives). If there's a half-before-the-bot and a half-after-the-bot is it really such a big deal? It's happened twice before already (in 2004, and in 2005). freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if they are manually corrected, then it isn't a problem. I've made a small change to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions to reflect this --172.128.21.249 05:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who does Tawkerbot tell if it wants to block someone for blanking pages? I'm trying to blank the archive pages that aren't going to be used anymore, but I'm afraid some admin isn't going to realize what I'm doing and block me. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

~~Don't worry, only anons get warned for blanking pages, it happened when i was trying to archive the other night, you should be fine, I don't think Tawkerbot(s) crawl in the Wikipedia namespace.~~ oh, I see TB2 has already decided to issuse you a warning. --172.128.21.249 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You may also wish to consolidate the October pages --172.128.21.249 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, tonight or tomorrow. I have some other coding for the archive headers and transclusion as well that I'll be getting on soon. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 06:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick note. The main RD page is protected, but the header is not. I can't figure out which link you need to update, so check out Template:RD header. We should throw a party for Martin. After all the work is done, can we spontaneously make a collage on a page somewhere as a way to say thanks? :-) --HappyCamper 13:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What to do about question that is repeated two days in a row?

This question was posted yesterday and again today. Both times, the questioner included his/her email address. The first time, I deleted the email address and showed the questioner how to find the answer to his/her question. (And frankly, if the questioner can't follow the simple steps that I gave, he/she has no hope of obtaining his/her desired legal qualifications.) How do we handle this repeated request? Must someone go in and delete the email address every day? Can we just delete the question, since it repeats a question asked the previous day? What do others think? Marco polo 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Leave the header, delete the question, insert link to previously posted question. If it should happen a third time, just delete. --LarryMac 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to make some templates that make stuff like this easier, especially moving questions between desks (and linking), and referring to duplicate questions. I'll get on it after I finish a template that I need to make for the article space. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive faster

Just a thought...would it be beneficial if the popular desks such as science, humanities, and miscellaneous were archived in a way such that only 4 days of questions are live, instead of 7? --HappyCamper 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possibility. Do others think that would be a good idea too? I basically gave up on that because it's obviously not a long-term solution (we can't just keep on reducing the archive time), and there may be a lot of complaints about old questions disappearing. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reducing the archive time is the best incremental solution we have right now which involves minimal change. Historically, Wikipedians are pretty understanding when it comes to archiving faster. In fact, I did that the week before the bot was implemented! --HappyCamper 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the next decrease in archive intervals. 3 days is pretty tight, 2 days is rediculous. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That next decrease will probably not happen, because my guess right now is that by that time, we will likely have a new reference desk. This "archiving faster" is just a band-aid solution to buy ourselves some extra time to prepare for whatever changes ahead. At least, that's how I feel. --HappyCamper 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried the "new reference" desk thing, and it didn't take very well. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 04:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How come? I read about it (didn't participate), and from what I saw I thought it would be implemented. Anchoress 04:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I will propose the design changes again soon, but it is clear that there is a majority of users who would not welcome the addition of new desks. A few "prolific" users want to focus the desks, but most users don't want to see large desks such as Humanities and Science split into pieces. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do think that something needs to be done about the length of some of these pages - should I reduce the time to four days for science, humanities and miscellaneous, and the resond to any complaints which arise? M a rtinp23 17:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would be a good idea, and we've been thinking about it for a while with little opposition. Go ahead and reduce Science, Humanities, and Misc. if it's not a big deal. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 07:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving strategy

The new archiving stratergy is good, but I have a small problem. Currently User:RefDeskBot archives after only two days. Often on the mathematics pages discussions go on for a bit longer than that. I only answered one question after the discussions was archived which means that the response would not show up in the questioners watchlist. It might be better to leave a little longer before archiving, or posibly archive from the word go, so any new questions are put in the appropriate dated page. Thoughts? --Salix alba (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From a technical perspective, with the bot, I can easily get it to be archived from the start - ie the new date header is a tranclusion of an archive containing just that header. This will solve the watchlist problem for all time (basically, even after delayed archival). The problem with putting the archival back is that the desks will become so big that, at times, full scale editting will be difficult (as the wikitext will be too long). Therefore, I perfer the immediate archival option. After a consenus is formed, I'll be able to do it on the next weekend (due to real life in coming weeks :P). Thanks, M a rtinp23 13:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

uhh...couldn't you just have the bot act differently for different desks? From what i've seen, activity levels vary quite a bit between the different desks. --`/aksha 13:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on the activity levels, it already does, leaving only three days of posts (and the current day) on the most popular desks, with 6 days on the others (as far as I remember). Changing the time before transclusion for some desks but not others has other impications in terms of other parts of the system, so I'd prefer to make a sweeping change of tranclusion times for all desks, rather than writing two different versions! Thanks -- M a rtinp23 14:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Having new articles go directly onto the "archive" (daily) page is a very good solution, I think. The only drawback I can see is that the "+" tab at the top of the RD page would presumably pop the the RD page, not the daily page up for the addition. Still worth doing, though, since the "ask a new question by clicking here" link can be made to work. One advantage is that all the edits for questions on the archive page would be in the history of the archive page. -R. S. Shaw 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You should use "transcluded" to refer to the days that are still active, and "archived" only for those that have been taken off the desk, and thus are supposed to be rather static. I don't really agree that questions should be transcluded on the first day, for a few reasons. First, because of the way you're thrown into the archives after editing a transcluded question, instead of onto the main page. This is a minor inconvenience, but is confusing for new users, and if there's a 2 day buffer I think it will greatly reduce the amount of confusion. Secondly, the more edits that are done on an page after transclusion, the greater chance there is that something can go wrong with it, and screw up the layout of the entire page. If we wait two days, most of the edits will have already been done, and we can reduce the chances of something weird happening. You do have a point about the edit history, but I think we have to abandon that, at least for RD.

To clarify for the original poster, the pages are not archived after two days, they are transcluded after two days. The question is still active on the desk, and though your edit summaries won't appear if "Mathematics" is on your watchlist, your edits will appear on the desk itself and other editors will be able to continue to respond to your queries. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 00:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Search archives?

Is there any way to search the archives? I know that I question I want to ask has been answered somewhere, but I have absolutely no idea when it was answered, and I don't have the patience to look day by day in the archives. Is there any way to search them as a whole (or at least in one category), so I don't have to ask this question again? The Jade Knight 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can do something pretty close to this with google. Add site:en.wikipedia.org "reference desk" to the search string. For example, this link searches for "platypus" at the reference desks, including the archives. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict):Try entering your question at this WP specific search. If you can get the essence of your subject in only a few words, you'll probably get a hit. --hydnjo talk 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: Umm, I see that Rick's suggestion is more comprehensive than mine. --hydnjo talk 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To search the archives up to September 2006, add site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/ to your search. As of October 2006 we changed the directory structure of the archives, so you have to add site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives to your search to search those. — QuantumEleven 08:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'll update the instructions on the archives front page (which already links to google) to include a reference to the old archives. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 09:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Post deletion proposal

It should take the agreement of at least two regular RD editors to delete any post, be it stupid/offensive question or stupid/ offensive/completely irreleavant answer. No funny answers please 8-)--Light current 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with such a proposal. What makes the text of RD responses more precious than the text of Wikipedia articles? Do we require two regular editors to remove some text from an article? The point to the RD is to provide answers, not to chew the fat. -R. S. Shaw 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont like what you have just said in that post. So I am allowed to delete it. Is that what you are saying?--Light current 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No. This is a talk page; the RD "project" page is not. Talk pages are for discussion; RD pages are for answers to questions, much like articles are for presentation of information. An article can and should be revised to improve the presentation; an RD answer can be revised to remove jokes, bickering, etc. -R. S. Shaw 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RD pages are not articles. But I can remove your comments and anyone elses comments from the RD project pages if I dont like them? Is that what you are saying?--Light current 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't remove comments because you don't like them. You can remove anyone's RD text if it violates WP:Civility, WP:BITE, etc. or isn't relevant to the question. The RD is not an article, but it should be treated more like an article than like a talk page, or a bulletin board, or an IRC chat room. We should probably consider trying to avoid confusion of the RD with a talk page by prohibiting responders from signing their edits. -R. S. Shaw 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What R. S. Shaw said. I remind you, LC, that many people have complained in these pages about some of the drivel put up as answers; and I identify you as being in the vanguard of the complained-about camp. It ill behoves you to engage in further special pleading for the retention of troll spore. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Well I could have predicted that answer from you. And do you complian about the other posters of what you consider inappliacable material? No! Why is that? Also, do a statistical analysis of my serious to less than serious answers. I think youll find my ratio tends to be greater than 50% factual answers. Compare that to others before spouting off at me as the source of all evil on the RDs. As I said before, its people heckling from the sidelines who should keep quiet. I think yours is a stupid post. So I am allowed to delete it under your rules. Yes?--Light current 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, think a 2 editor rule is a very good idea. Something like this would be great:

Hi, where can I get exact measurements for absolute zero?

Zero. MrMan 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (DEL) - MrsMan

The second (or third, fourth, whatever) editor to think that the comment is a nuisance to RD could then remove it at will, and we would at least be attempting some form of consensus. Questions not removed after 2 days or so could be un-tagged. Thoughts? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 8-)--Light current 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion above was to use a strikethrough, and I like that as well, as it serves as a visual reminder without actually removing any content.

Hi, where can I get exact measurements for absolute zero?

~~Zero. MrMan 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)~~ - MrsMan

Check absolute zero. MrsMan

freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is already permitted under Wikipedia:Civility, which is policy. A response that is fundamentally nothing but a rude insult to a good faith question can simply be deleted by anyone. The message here is "cut it out". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility does not apply to RD, for it is not a talk page or comment bank. This is not about Wikipedian policy, because there is none for RD, it's about common sense and being Wikipedian. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Civility; it certainly does apply to RD edits, like all other edits. -R. S. Shaw 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this. I certainly oppose the original idea; giving "regular RD editors" more power here than anyone else is ridiculous, not to mention they are the source of a large percentage of the "unhelpful" answers. But I don't like Freshgavin's revised proposal much either: obvious attacks, clearly uncivil behavior, or outright spam/vandalism can just be removed on sight. A better approach for comments that are just deemed unhelpful would be to bring it up on the commenter's talk page if you judge it to be a problem, and ask him to remove it himself. The idea of voting to delete the comments of others does not seem in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia... -Elmer Clark 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK lets remove the word 'regular' from the proposal. THen even infrequent visitors can have their say. But remember, suggestions have been made to 'clean up the act' by a number of visitors to these pages. Also to counterbalance Elmers negative statement, I would say that regular RD editors (almost by definition) are the source of the large majority of the "helpful" answers--Light current 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The RD really has all its own policies (though the spirit is similar to the regular WP guidelines) based mostly on convention and pragmatism. I think he's perfectly justified in saying "regular" since regulars are far more accustomed to convention and better able to understand the specific complications involved in implementing a new idea to this very unique part of wikipedia. It's like the classic "article owner" problem blown a thousand times out of porportion: if one person basically is the father of an article, and it matures nicely, and some new guy comes along and makes some changes, the "owner" should have more say in it, especially if the issue has come up before and consensus had been reached (which the newbie wouldn't have known), or if the change isn't consistent with the article as a whole, in a subtle way that the newcomer may not have noticed. Now instead of having a bold editor coming along every few months, what happens when you have a page that's being edited multiple times per minute? Not only that, but the "owner" who is very familiar with the project is distributed across dozens of editors, who mostly all have reached consensus on convention. That is very difficult for a newcomer to challenge- almost to the point where the RD is paralyzed by its own decentralized ownership, since it's established on convention and it's not exactly dynamic. So newcomers aren't a bad thing; they provide dynamism and dissenting votes that can sway the over-rigid structure of the community- however, it's still not inappropriate (or unusual) to ask for comments from mostly "regulars". As to the actual proposal, it's a bad idea.. no replies should ever be deleted. This isn't an article that has to be pruned to get better; unlike the main wikipedia, the RD is an indiscriminate collector of information. No matter how bad the answer, nobody here has any liscense to to delete it. Now convention dictates that inappropriate or obviously troll questions should be deleted from the outset (but not deleted if they quickly generate a valuable discussion) so I won't mess with that, but come on it's usually just one or two lines, just leave them. btw light current you're the man :D --⁪froth^{T C} 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I appreciate it! 8-)--Light current 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Joke answers

I enjoy witty responses as much as the next guy, but I think it's getting a little out of hand here. I think we should try to avoid posting joke answers until the question has been legitimately responded to. This wouldn't apply for stupid/joke questions, but things like this are just uncalled for - the guy asked a fair and legitimate question, and I doubt he appreciates that kind of time-wasting response. "Willfull misunderstanding" is also a bit of a problem. There's an example of it in that question as well, but more common is when someone fails to mention his location, even if it's obvious from the context of the question, he runs a fair chance of getting "well I assume you're in Zimbabwe..." Humor is fine at the reference desk, but let's not forget its primary function.... -Elmer Clark 01:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

At least it's done with a smile - I find the quoted example much less offensive than the frequent 'first of all, learn to spell' comments. I do understand that bad orthography and grammar bothers some people, so my question is whether it would be appropriate for editors to correct the spelling (no other editing, mind you!) of an original poster's question or not. The advantages would be that a) the questioner wouldn't be perceived as uneducated, b) the editors wouldn't be distracted by the spelling and could focus on answering the question, and c) no one would feel the need to make harsh and subjectively insulting comments directed at the questioner. We seem to have a lot of posters who learned and are learning English as a foreign language, let's not discourage them, please. Sorry if this is only remotely connected to your comment Elmer, but the spelling police bothers me much more than the occasional teasing of an original poster.---Sluzzelin 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The questioner should never be the at the receiving end of a joke and especially an "in" joke that y'all think makes you appear "cool". It's one thing to banter amongst ouselves (in a limited way) but never at the expense of a newcomer that may have been naive or crude in their manner of questioning. I think that bringing this up may give pause to the sometimes thoughtless response that we sometimes feel will showcase our cleverness. --hydnjo talk 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Joke answers tend to be annoying. --Proficient 06:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not getting any better - e.g. this question about karma. What do we do? Post scolding messages on the talk pages of the "class clowns"? Seems like that would just give them the attention they crave. I'm truly at a loss. --LarryMac 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How serious was the questioner in asking such an open ended question? How do we know what he wants to know. Isnt a little fun allowed in trying to answer the question? Remember the people who give joke answers also give some serious ones. Do you want to lose the major conributors of answers to the RDs?

--Light current 16:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be time to start simply deleting nonsense "answers" referring to WP:BITE and/or WP:AGF in the edit summary. The house style should distinctly not be to ridicule, no matter how obvious or inappropriate the question may seem. There are no stupid questions. There are, however, stupid responses. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree: delete inappropriate responses. Remember that the RD is not a talk page, despite the fact that it looks like one because responders sign changes. Like an article, we should work to provide good answers to the questions, and that sometimes means removing material. -R. S. Shaw 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that maybe a lot of you guys are right; I'm not really happy with all of the "funny" discussions going on, and it's just getting worse and worse. I would fully support deleting off topic responses that give no attempt to answer the question or develop on a previously stated idea.

For example:

What is a Psyxioloit Oiniioinoin?

Did you read the article at Psyxioloit Oiniioinoin? It's onionorific! MrMan 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

...is stupid but OK by me, because MrMan attempted to answer the question. I also don't care about this:

How many oranges are there?

Can you expand? MrMan 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you expand MrMan? I don't see how that is relevant to oranges. He might be talking about the color orange. MrsMan 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

...because while MrsMan is fooling around, the conversation is relevant within the thread started by MrMan. I honestly don't care about stupid comments, but lately there has been way too much of this:

Hi, where can I get exact measurements for absolute zero?

Zero. MrMan 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. MrsMan 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez MrMan, that was cold. MsMann 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

...which is not only not attempting to correctly interpret the original questioner (who probably wanted the figure in C or F), but is drawing away from the original question and is very frustrating for the questioner.

I, and I'm sure many other users, have attempted to stop stupid conversations from continuing by simply ignoring them, but lately it seems there are many users that are intent to create such unrelated conversations, and in a way it's really polluting RD. I think it's time for us to be bold. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Well, I was bold and deleted LightCurrent's response here, and he just went and added it back in. I'm not about to get into a revert war. I could use some support though. --LarryMac 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So, Larry Mac, the answer about shagging is your idea of a proper response to a question on tongue piercing is it? Better get your windows boarded before throwing any more pebbles.--Light current 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It still in the history 8-)#--Light current 00:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My response was factual as well as amusing (possibly). Its very dangerous to start on the slippery slope of censorship. You may find your innocent comments suddenly being deleted because someone takes a dislike to them or thinks they are 'nonsense'.--Light current 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you tell joke questions form serious ones? Look at this one for instance:

I keep sitting on my testicles, is this normal, and how can it be avioded without cupping myself in public?

Is it serious or not? Does it deserve an answer? Should it be deleted.? I would urge editors to be VERY VERY careful before embarking on any form of policy of censorship.(except in the case of personal attacks etc) --Light current 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about joke questions here; thats an entirely different problem. And please be careful when you use the word "censorship", which implies a lot of bad things, and isn't really fair when most people here are really just trying to stick to the facts and make RD a more efficient tool. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats right. Censorship is bad. Especially when one person set himself up as the censor of all others. THats why we need a consensus to delete other peoples posts! 8-)--Light current 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with removing joke answers, and I only halfheartedly agree with deleting joke questions (my personal solution would be to leave them but add ~~strikethrough~~ to indicate that they should be disregarded), but I agree that things are going out of hand. Two recent examples: On the computer desk, the first response to a very legitimate, properly-worded question was a comment that turned out to be a joke (not trying to castigate the editor, I commend him/her for owning up to it), but it was worded in such a way that it looked to several other editors to be a legitimate answer, and an incorrect answer to boot; and on another desk, a respondent commented to an OP (who is the parent of a school-age daughter) that s/he hoped the child was 'above the age of consent', because s/he was fantasising about her and thought other editors were also. I mean, why are we here? Is it to amuse each other with our cleverness? Is it to subtly troll? Or is it to try our best to help questioners, or at the least to avoid confusing, misdirecting, or driving them away.

I just got a taste of what it's like to newcomers when I spent some time recently on a board discussing James Frey, and was irritated and put off by the numerous OT convos taking place between regular posters that interrupted the flow of the discourse. I urge all of us to:

Do our best to resist the urge to give joke answers to sincere questions (genuinely witty additions, or those added after the question has been answered are more OK IMO);
Keep asides and OT convos with other regulars to a minimum, at least until the question has been thoroughly answered;
Rigorously avoid biting newbies and being self-righteous (spelling flames, DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, etc);
Speak up when someone makes an inappropriate or unhelpful comment;
Resist feeding the trolls by turning insincere, unintelligible or bad faith questions into their own joke threads;
More kindness, generosity, good faith and helpfulness; less sarcasm, humour at other people's expense, and inside jokes;
Remember why we're here.

I'm not trying to be a process Nazi or make the board less fun, but consider that our 'fun' is making the boards a lot less fun for others. Anchoress 03:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope your urges are adequately recieved by the RD editor community. If everyone could claim to have said common sensibilities it would really do a lot to improve the quality of our vivid concourse. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 04:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, while we're speaking English... ;-))) Anchoress 04:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, WP:AGF is official policy, and it directly leads to WP:BITE. Nobody's talking about deleting or censoring questions. We've lost potentially useful contributors in the past due to an air of hostility (and, like or not, responses poking fun at "stupid questions" and extensively using in-jokes are perceived as hostile). People asking questions here are generally not looking to be amused. If you feel compelled to make jokes, please go someplace else (perhaps Uncyclopedia). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Joking on RD

I have recently recvieved this warning:

OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as vandalism and you could get blocked from editing Wikipedia for it. You might not get another warning before having a block imposed, so be careful and be serious from now on.

Is this the start of censorship of the RD pages?--Light current 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted the warning. And, no, it is not the start of censorship of the RD pages. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And so it begins... Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS}} 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If blocks are being threatened for the odd joke, then what else can it be called/--Light current 04:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe pretty much any admin wouldn't block for this but would just direct people to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. A solution I just thought of (but do not necessarily support) is only to have joke comments allowed after at least one constructive comment is given. --WikiSlasher 09:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But between whom would the dispute exist? Once youre blocked its rather difficult to argue your case anyway. You would have to depend on your associate editors to try to get you unblocked.--Light current 13:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The dispute would exist between you and Rick Block. I said admins probably wouldn't block. --WikiSlasher 13:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering how long this joking has gone on for...I'm thinking someone who got offended by the joking must have made a complaint somewhere. Maybe it would be a good idea to just limit the joking to only questions that are asked by those who also participate in the joking? So limiting it to questions where you are sure the question asker will not be offenced, or when the question is very obviously not meant to be serious. --`/aksha 11:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate venue for complaints is in the talk page, NOT to belligerent admins --⁪froth^{T C} 03:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gagging of editors

No it tends to be Admins and others who dont actually do any work on the desk who get upset becasue they think it presents a bad side to WP. However, if anyone can now be blocked for joking, I think this is a very serious and sinister development in the WP rules and effectively is gagging type censorship. 8-(( --Light current 13:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:-(:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

After reading through the page I conclude that joking on the Reference Desk is not vandalism. Interestingly it also says:

If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually :damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors.

--WikiSlasher 13:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's NOT vandalism. Some jokes are actually helpful, like when someone says "You failed to mention the country, so I will assume Liechtenstein". This gets the point across without a tedious restatement of the rules. On the other hand, the constant restatement of the "no medical advice" rule has become tedious, indeed, precisely because it's done without any humor. StuRat 14:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption:

A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.

The examples given in this section of the blocking policy are much more severe than what is going on here, and (as I've said repeatedly on Light's talk page) I have no intention of blocking him. On the other hand repeated use of juvenile snarks and in-jokes and ridiculing comments is "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia". RD is not the place for showing off how much of a smartass you can be. As WikiSlasher points out, where this leads (per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes) may ultimately be WP:RFC. I sincerely hope it doesn't go that far. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I refute the allegation of my comments ridiculing individuals. Could you point some out to me?

I believe that there is generally a civil, collegial atmosphere and a process of editors working together harmoniously here. In fact the last serious argument on these pages was quickly moved to user talk pages and settled quietly with no disruption!

Anyway the RDs are not directly creating an encyclopedia but a lot of 'behind the scenes' work does actually improve the pages that we refer Users to. The rule quoted is obviously intended for the main pages and I would argue that jokes do not 'severly disrupt' anything on RDs.

The problem with even mentioning these ideas of blocking, Rick, even if you dont intend to follow thro, is that it may bring about a pack mentality amongst other Admins who can then use it as an excuse to block the user for any minor misdemeanour thay see fit. This has happened a number of times. Then everyone can sit back and disclaim responsibility for the blocking action. This leads to a big mess trying to get yourself unblocked again. And I really cant understand someone brandishing a weapon and then saying thay are definitely not going to use it. If this weapon is available and legal, believe me someone will use it.

The threat of blocking for jokes on RD should be lifted immediately and totally. Otherwise any one of the RD editors could find themselves blocked for any innocent slip of the keyboard.

My warning has now been commuted to this:

The jokes are getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions.

I didnt know this one existed either. How many other templates are there?--Light current 19:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Did Any other RD editors get one of these yet? If not, I guess its cos you just aint as funny I suppose! Or you dont make as many funnies as I do. Or some other reason.?8-)--Light current 19:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Those joke templates are for putting jokes in articles or making joke articles - not for talk pages (at least that's what I think). --WikiSlasher 06:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole policy is bull. crap. The RD is a refreshing escape from the technical drudgery of perfection demanded in the main namespace, and frankly I dont think OPs are at all opposed to seeing a lot of interesting (even if mostly unhelpful) conversation start up because of their question. If it actually becomes a disruption (like if jokers are regularly and maliciously confusing the posters by giving false answers) then we'll talk, until then you have absolutely no ground to stand on. In case you haven't noticed basically no rules at all apply in the WP namespace (see WP:FUCK for one example o_o) except convention, so don't quote rules on me now. --⁪froth^{T C} 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To which particular policy do you refer? I didnt think one had been formulated yet!--Light current 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, I meant more like the idea that the RD should be professional and concise like the main namespace. --⁪froth^{T C} 03:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think there is any chance of that purely becuase of its nature. Anyone can add anything in the form of questions in any order etc etc. Any attempt to organise the page like a normal page is of course doomed to immediate failure. I mean basically it is a talk page. Talk pages cannot easily be ordered. 8-)--Light current 15:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the difference I assume in my long post above that makes the RD different from the main WP --⁪froth^{T C} 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith apply everywhere. Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:BITE are guidelines that should be followed everywhere. The reference desks are one of Wikipedia's most public faces. Having them littered with unprofessional comments directly affects the perception of the entire project. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility deals with offending people, NPA is written to protect the OPs (and most of the jokes are directed at the questions- the only personal language at all I've seen is you guys telling light-current to stop), assume good faith is irrelevant to the question of deleting responses (maybe it could apply to stupid questions being deleted or not), although they seem appropriate I think the etiquette guidelines are written specifically with the main wikipedia in mind and can't fully apply to the RD (though this quote is interesting: Be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate, ... oops, shouldn't have quoted that page eh?), finally BITE is directly applicable to the RD though and there you have a point. However I would argue that we're not biting them at all but the humor is entirely good-natured and for the most part actually funny. What better way to welcome someone to WP than with a smile... especially if it's already been actually answered or will be answered by somebody else --⁪froth^{T C} 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Joke Templates

Actually I dont know to which guidelines or policies those joke templates apply. Can anyone point me to it/them? 8-(--Light current 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

These are used as warnings related to "silly vandalism", see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism, generally for jokes added in article space. As everyone has repeatedly pointed out, RD is not article space so not all the same rules apply. However, just as RD is not article space it's not talk space either. Given how visible it is, I believe the general consensus (which I will be the first to admit is perhaps not entirely embraced by at least some of the RD regulars) is that rampant silliness is not appropriate. I think I've said this before, but establishing a "jokes Я us" tone at RD affects the perception of the entire project. Please bear in mind that not all procedures and policies are written down, so not all possible situations will have a hard and fast rule that obviously applies. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh . So no guidelines then? And mysterious policies that are not written down. If they are not written down how are poele to know what they are? And who made up the templates if there are no guidelines on which to base them?--Light current 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So you mean:

Silly vandalism Creating joke or hoax articles, replacing existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or adding silly jokes to existing articles is considered vandalism.?

So not covered here then? But maybe those template were designed to deal with the above situations? So why aint there templates for all the other sorts of vadalism? --Light current 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, template:funnybut and template:seriously (as well as template:behave and template:joke) were designed to deal with "sillly vandalism" as defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism (which you quote, above). If you've looked at any of them, they pretty much all link to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace which has a whole plethora of warning templates covering a wide variety of actions. However many there are, they don't perfectly cover all situations. Any user is welcome to use any of these templates if the situation warrants it. Admins tend to use them more than others, but there are no exclusive usage rights (although misuse of them might be seen as a type of disruption that, perhaps curiously, is not listed as one of the types of vandalism). The "written" policies, including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, are meant to provide a framework within which reasonable people will act reasonably. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Collecting my thoughts

This para is my effort to distill everything that has been said so far on RD guidelines into the minimum number of simple rules.: KISS principle.

It is impossible to have personal attacks if the question rather than the questioner is ~~attacked~~ addressed. WP:NPA

I think that also covers politeness to the questioner and maybe politeness in general.

Possibly it also covers WP:AGF if your just looking at the question! Although if you think the question is nonsense then you must AGF and pretend its serious?.

It covers WP:BITE and, probably

WP:Etiquette.

Hey is there anything it doesnt cover yet? --Light current 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Quote from WP:civility

Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

If we address the question only, I dont see how we can be in breach of the above 8-)--Light current 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No answers in 24 hrs--Light current 19:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Politeness

Is this covered under civility or does it have its own guideline?--Light current 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a politeness policy or guideline. I assume its all included in WP:Civility unless someone knows any different. They mean the same thing anyway.--Light current 18:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No answers in 24 hrs--Light current 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jokes

Can anyone direct me to any policies or guidelines on jokes or humour on WP please 8-|--Light current 18:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No answers in 24hrs--Light current 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the above thoughts here please.

After all comments have been recieved, I shall attempt to put the proposed new RD guidline into as small a nutshell as possible. Please help me to keep it small.--Light current 02:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'No RD Jokes' scenario

What do RD and other editors think might happen to the RDs if all jokes and sarky comments were banned on pain of User blocking. I wasnt sure if this should have been put on Misc rather than here. But it could be moved for a wider audience if necessary.--Light current 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why this is an issue. The RD need not be treated any different to any other WP page. It has a function (to ask and answer questions), comments should be restricted to that function (to ask and answer questions) and those that deviate from this should be policed by the community according to policy (i.e. leaving polite requests for the offending editor to obey policy). To me, at least, the line is quite clear. If you are asking or answering a question then it matters not whether there is an element of humour or wit in the response. If you are not answering a question, then there is no justification for your content being there. If a user continues such behaviour, then a polite warning is merited and, if it still continues, the user may be blocked for disruption. This is exactly the same process as would happen when a user disobeys the rules elswhere on WP. If we follow these rules then there is no need for RD specific policies. Rockpocket 20:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What about answering a question in a jokey manner (or wearing a mask)--Light current 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as i said in my response above, "If you are asking or answering a question then it matters not whether there is an element of humour or wit in the response." The manner is not important, what matters is the content. If the content is genuinely informative and helpful, then be as witty as you please. The problem is not wit, the problem is when people feel the need to be funny (or worse, sarcastic) for the sake of it, without any other purpose. Rockpocket 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.(someone in the Bible)--Light current 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors would slowly quit with the RD realising how boring it is. Questions would take longer to be answered as a result and the quality of the service would crash into the wiki like a meteor crashes into Earth, wiping people off the face of the Reference Desk. --WikiSlasher 06:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Light current, stop trying to spin this to look like you're being horribly oppressed. Bottom line, if someone asks a reasonable question, he deserves an answer, not to check back to see some comedy genius has taken the opportunity to amuse his Internet friends at his expense. If you can give an informative answer in a way that's also amusing, that's fine, but simply using someone's question as an excuse to crack some joke (or worse, make fun of the question/questioner) is inappropriate and borderline uncivil. No one's being persecuted, no one's trying to quash the fun out of the reference desk, it's just a little ridiculous that responses like this are becoming as common as legitimate help. By the way, this isn't directed at light current specifically, just about everyone, myself included, is doing this more than we ought to. -Elmer Clark 10:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No its actually a serious question based on current threats of blocking 8-|--Light current 10:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Such a risk exists if gone goes too far in either direction. In the last few times I've checked the refdesk(s), I've certainly on occasion found the amount of in-jokes and plain silliness excessive, to the point where I've found locating any serious discussion among the jokes just too hard to bother with — hence my reduced participation on the refdesk lately.

I still remember a time when the the refdesk was actually interesting; we had maybe 49% trivial or pointless questions, usually quickly dismissed, 49% interesting questions, or at least questions with interesting answers, and a few percent jokes usually combined with actual answers. Now it sometimes seems like a rowdy primary school yard, with less than 20% actual questions and answers and over 80% jokes, trolling and just general inanity. It's not as if most of the "jokes" are even funny. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The jokes don't detract from the actual answers. Percentage of jokes/answers is irrelevant, the OP is glad to read through all of the conversation that he sparked, and personally I find it funny when someone exposes some nuance of my question and twists the meaning around. --⁪froth^{T C} 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the standard should be "don't bite the user". That is, don't add either jokes or serious replies which insult the user. I tend to think that most of the replies which insult the question asker are serious, not jokes. StuRat 14:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think even gratuitous jokes (as in jokes that don't answer a legitimate question) are okay as long as they're rare and cannot be construed as insulting to anyone. But I don't think that's really the issue here. This issue arose because Rick Block warned Light Current for making lots and lots and lots of gratuitous jokes. I agree with Rick Block: Light Current, I think you should cut way back on the gratuitous jokes. --Allen 01:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well All my jokes are gratuitous. I dont charge for any of them. 8-)--Light current 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Will this be the last ever joke on the RDs? 8-((--Light current 00:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "dead serious" delivery can easily be confused for an actual attack. No doubt there are some serious disparagements like everywhere else on WP but I like to think that for the most part it's good-natured ribbing --⁪froth^{T C} 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"No joke responses" will work as soon as "no joke questions" and "no troll questions" is enforced. Right now many of the questions (especially about masks, seagulls, and skid marks) are facetious. Ask a silly question, get no answer or a silly answer. Many of the question here are obviously NOT questions one would be likely to walk up to a library reference librarian and ask. But serious questions deserve thoughtful answers. Please do not threaten to block editors who spend considerable time and effort finding answers to questions if on occasion there is a humorous answer to an absurd question. [User:Edison|Edison]] 06:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The RD needs some change

The sort of question we are looking for: [1]

The sort of question not representative of what we want to spend time with: [2]

Take a look at what the RD was like, say, around a year and a half ago: [3]

I distinctly remember the regulars from a year ago being concerned about the growth of the reference desks - one of the concerns was that it would dilute the quality of questions and answers being exchanged. This in fact, has happened, and in fact for a while now. The culture the reference desks has drifted significantly away from what it used to be. Correspondingly, the regulars from the past are no longer the regulars of the present.

Is this situation something that needs to be addressed? In my opinion, absolutely - and specifically for the reason that the RD has drifted too far away from directly supporting this encyclopedia. It is not serving the primary needs of what this project is all about, and something needs to be done about it, or at least, at minimum, vocalised. The RD is driving away the editors that helped to build what it is today, and in some sense, is now viewed in a less positive light by some of the silent. Now, I have felt rather ambivalent about writing this, because I have an interest in preserving some of what the RD used to be, as well as parts of what it is like today. So, the approach is simply a request for better self regulation - for wont of a better idea - post wisely, post intelligently, and post conscientiously - hopefully if we all take care of our edits to the RD, the RD will take care of itself. Not as tight of an argument I would like to make for lack of time, but hopefully the sentiment on what to do resonates with some. --HappyCamper 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All very fine. But we dont choose the questioners or questions do we?--Light current 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes silently and sadly, just watching. --hydnjo talk 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pleas dont be silent. Add your comment here!--Light current 03:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes silently and sadly, just watching, hell, back then we didn't even have dated sections. Until this subject came up I didn't stop to think about why the RD was such a pleasant occupation (diversion) back then and why it seems a bit less so now. There were folks back then who could recognize homework questions (no big deal) and could deal with them appropriately with a helpful nudge towards WP or other links. That still is the case for the most part but there seems to be a level of smarminess that has crept in. Harsh admonitions about "that question doesn't belong here" or "we answered that last month" (so feel uninformed) seems to be more the response of a bureaucracy than a voluntary group of helpers. Impatience for infractions of our boilerplate instructions should not piss us off. Shoot, how many of us read the entire instruction manual before going off on our own - not many I'll bet, 'cause that's the kind of folks that we are; intelligent, crafty, witty and self-assured. I just wish that when folks come here sometimes on a lark but sometime genuinely seeking help but are unskillful with their grammar or spelling that we would be more understanding. If appropriately, go to their talk page and explain something that is better done there (without the whole WP watching). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're not "traffic cops", we're more like resourceful councilors. We aught to be encouraging rather that scolding, helpers rather than embarrassers, co-questioners rather than chucklers. If there is genuine helpfulness and generosity in you then please, be an RD helper; as we grow this very visible window into our nature will be seen and criticized more frequently. Please forgive me, I've said much more than I intended at the outset. --hydnjo talk 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No its good to get peoples gut feelings which ever way they go.--Light current 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Gut" feelings should be moderated by one's intellegence, common sense, social values, respect for other's feelings, contextual appropriateness and lots of other behavioral reasons. If one acts on "gut" feeling alone then he will be at odds within the community for the obvious reasons. --hydnjo talk 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Action of Admin Rick Block

Admin Rick Block has deleted my (attempted) humorous remark from the Science Ref Desk:

"Energy dinsity" = How loud and annoying a form of energy is. For example, rap music played on a 2000W mega-bass car radio (so everyone in the area hears it) would rank very high in "energy dinsity". :-) StuRat 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While some humor is quite cruel, I don't feel that this was, and this remark had been made after a serious answer to the question had been provided, as we had agreed. My feeling is that he is exceeding his authority here and that the Ref Desk staff should be left to police each other, with Admins only being called in if things really get out of hand. What does everybody else think ? StuRat 21:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well clearly you aren't policing each other if that kind of thing is left to stand, so admins will have to get involved. --Cyde Weys 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedians need to be involved as administrators. They simply need to be involved as caring users. --HappyCamper 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked StuRat to remove what in my opinion was an inappropriate comment and he did not. So I did (and plopped a warning on his page). Any user could do the same. IMO, this comment (added after the misspelling was already pointed out) does nothing but ridicule the original poster's misspelling and is exactly the sort of posting numerous folks have expressed concern about (above). I have no issue with humor. I do have an issue with humor that can be construed to be directed at the poster. Anyone is free to "police" this page and I would encourage everyone who is concerned about the state of these pages to do so. The "regulars" have absolutely no special privileges and are not "staff". And, in case there's any confusion, I am speaking as a user (as any other user could). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't acting as an admin, then why did you feel it necessary to point out to me that you were an admin, on my talk page ? StuRat 00:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its only fair that admins should come out of the woodwork and declare their intentions to use force! That what I have been encouraging. seriously 8-|--Light current 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you seemed to be inclined to dismiss the opinion of anyone but an RD-regular (questioning my "authority" to make comments about this) and I wanted you to realize that I know what I'm talking about and you probably shouldn't blow me off (and ... I'm ... resisting ... making ... a ... very ... crude ... joke ... here). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do dismiss the opinions of those who criticize the work of others, but don't contribute in any way on their own, yes. And saying "How about we start with a warning?", after telling me you are an admin, had the distinct sound of a threat, to me. You also removed my contribution after I had explained why I felt it was acceptable, meaning you were dismissing my opinion as irrelevant. StuRat 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The energy dinsity definition was barely as cruel as it was funny, but it could very easily be construed by the questioner as mocking his lack of literacy; as such it had bite and was inappropriate. Removing it was a good idea and within the authority of any user. There is no staff and the RD is not a members-only staff club. -R. S. Shaw 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The RD is also not really a talk page in the usual sense, so I'm not sure the normal circumspection involved in removing other people's comments is called for. If any user, regular or not, thinks a response doesn't help and might even hurt a little, I think it's fine for that user to remove the response. --Allen 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The original section, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Energy_Dinsity seems to be a homework question. We have a rule against answering HW questions directly and have a history of doing a fine job of directing the student to helpful articles. This total waste of keyboard time has been triggered (as far as I can see) by someone using a misspelled word (Dinsity) as a platform for humor even though the spelling error was pointed out with the first reply. Let me admit to trying my hand at witty responses in the past so I guess I don't come with "clean" hands. On the other hand, mocking a questioner and perhaps deterring future contribution needs to be watched out for and justly should be commented on. I've been the butt of a joke myself even after significant contribution and can speak with some authority as to how belittling it feels to be caught making a "slight" mistake especially (I can imagine) if I were a newcomer. I know that humorous responses have been in the spotlight during the last several days and I agree that some discussion about it is healthy. I have no quarrel with wit and humor slipping in now and then (hell, we're all volunteers after all, smart and clever or we wouldn't be here) but we need to watchful of embarrassing the questioner in order to display our own cleverness. There has been suggestion above about when humor may or not be appropriate but it really comes down to our own individual judgement. If you trully have a witty or humorous response which you feel would add to our collective knowledge about the subject at hand then have at it. If your intention is to impress us all with your cleverness which adds nothing to the context of the question then well... go tell your family or friends about it. I'm sure they'll tell you if it should be posted or not. What I really mean to say in that last sentence was to suggest that we all not be so impulsive at jumping in with a "funny". --hydnjo talk 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm not asking about the issue of whether I should have added that comment. What I am asking about is whether we want anyone to feel free to remove any comments they don't personally like. I feel that a bad precedent is being set here, whereby anyone can just go ahead and remove anyone else's comments, if they don't like them. Is that really the way we want to operate ? The actual contributors to the RD could be quite negatively effected by this. Those who do not contribute to the RD in any way, of course, have nothing whatsoever to lose by deleting things right and left. Now, I do agree that extremely abusive language should be removed immediately, but my comments were nowhere near that standard, so that's not the standard being set here for future deletions. StuRat 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thin edge (of the wedge) as predicted!--Light current 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can remove comments that are undermine the purpose of the encyclopedia and/or the page in question, yes. If there is a dispute, sometimes discussion is required. Wikipedia's not a free speech site; if your comment was a bad thing to put on the page (something I haven't formed an opinion on), it follows immediately that any user could remove it. -- SCZenz 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but here's the problem as I see it, StuRat. For weeks now, a group of editors has been saying in a loud voice, 'THERE IS A PROBLEM ON THE RD BOARDS, WITH CONTRIBUTIONS WHOSE VOLUME AND CONTENT IS INTERFERING WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE DESKS.' And the editors with the worst record in this respect are shouting back, 'NO THERE ISN'T, AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING' coupled with straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks and distraction tactics. I personally disagree with removing answers, or questions. But when the editors who are responsible for most of the juvenile, unhelpful, sometimes disruptive, sometimes disrespectful 'wankswers' on the ref desks are so obstinate in their position that they don't need to change, there's really no other option than to delete. The fact that these editors have not (to my knowledge) communicated anything indicating their willingness to modify their behaviour for the good of the community, IMO indicates that their opinions of all editors is exactly that which is demonstrated by their actions on the boards; namely, that they don't give a flying fuck about the feelings, opinions or needs of any other editors, and therefore the community. And, they have no intention of working for the betterment of the community or towards fulfilling the goals and purposes of the community. Which put another way, means that they are trolls. And I know that we all agree; the disruptive contributions of trolls should be removed. Anchoress 04:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw quite a willingness to compromise, with suggestions for not adding funny remarks until at least one serious answer was given, for example. I've tried to follow this one, myself. There was also a discussion about what ratio of a person's contributions should be actual answers. Note that most of the "non-answers" aren't jokes but rather complaining that the user has asked a legal or medical or homework question or discussions that drift away from the question which was asked. StuRat 06:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, I didn't take that into account, sorry. I don't think it's enough though. Anchoress 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Most RD editors are guilty of inappropriate comments. So rather than start pointing fingers at each other, I suggest we discuss what action we are going to take to self police these pages, rather than have Mr. Plod come in with his baton swinging wildly in all direction.--Light current 12:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Except for those rare circumstances about which we all agree, neither questions nor replies should be deleted. There was a suggestion put forth several months ago that certain unworthy sections (Q&As) should be redacted rather than archived which would lead of course to the inevitable layer of bureaucracy and appeals etc. This kind of silliness will always be defeated (I hope). So, StuRat I agree that except for those clearly "offensive" remarks ( please don't make me explain at this time), be they questions or replies, should be allowed to stand. The community will, by either ignoring or responding, assign its collective value to the "offensive" text.
Keep with agreement, disagreement, dismay, ridicule, debate, comment or ignore. --hydnjo talk 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you say what 'redacted' means?--Light current 12:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As the article which you cite implies, to "redact" is to censor or otherwise make unavailable certain portions of a document. The context of my usage was referring to the suggestion that the archives of the RD might benefit from "selective" archiving. The idea put forth was that certain questions were not worthy of a place in "archive heaven". (belatedly adding my sig - sorry) --hydnjo talk 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

YEs I only realised it was not a spelling when the lk turned blue. The problem with ~~your~~ the idea is that someone would have to do the refactring/editing/censorship (call it what you will)--Light current 16:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Light current: Please refrain from mischaracterizing my comments. If you were to take the trouble to actually read my comment above you would understand that:
1) I did not claim that it was my idea and
2) I clearly expressed my opinion that selective archiving was a "silly" idea which "I hope" would be be "defeated" (which means not accepted).

I note that some of the source of disagreement around this subject is due to some folks' want to read their own comments as being bolded and having more import that others' comments; a very human inclination which adds more heat than understanding. --hydnjo talk 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Im so sorry for misunderstanding your last post and innovcently twisting your words. I thought you were advocating it. Now I understand you are not Sorry. THere was no malice intended-- Honestly! I was only trying to find out the meaning of the new word.--Light current 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response. If only more folks would follow your example in such matters of misunderstanding there would less time wasted and fewer feelings bruised. :-) --hydnjo talk 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. That gives me a nice warm feeling 8-)--Light current 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Impoliteness undermines the functionality of these pages, and they are very visible front-end pages; that's why there are rules at the top of the page, and those rules should be enforced. No amount of "community consensus" can make any Wikipedia page into a discussion board or flame page. -- SCZenz 04:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the question at hand is how the "rules" get enforced. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, I don't think that "flaming" a newcomer whose first language may or may not be english for making a spelling or grammar mistake in the question or header makes any sense (except to demonstrate that we know better than they). So, what exactly are we trying to accomplish by offering a RD?

Well, I suppose that we could be good grammar, spelling, punctuation or coherence police, jumping at every chance to criticize the question rather than trying to comprehend the questioner's intent. We would be excellent at pointing out exactly which rule was being violated and admonishing the unlucky poster to "RTFM".

Somehow, I don't think that was the spirit in which the RD was envisioned or tolerated. We, after all, are not conscripted to do RD duty. If our lax adherence to the letter of the boiler-plate offends anyone then there are plenty of other places to make contribution, like writing articles or whatever. If poorly written questions or answers at the RD bothers you then the RD is not the place for you to be; it will just antagonize your need for compliance and strict order.

The RD is far from being a "discussion board" or "flame page". Those thrusts are nipped at an early stage with appropriate admonition. Repeated offenses are met with warnings and blocks. So, we seem to be back at the original question: unilateral decisions to delete questions or replies that are deemed unfit.

There have been all sorts of ideas to censor (two votes, three votes etc.) the give and take here at the RD. The best answer of course is to do what has been so successful over many years. Welcome all comers, identify trolls and flamers, help with but not answer homework questions, enlighten folks by pointing to an article link (of course we have an article about that!), embellish a reply with additional knowledge, add context to ambiguous queries, help newcomers with markup so as to improve future questions, help newcomers understand that this isn't a "discussion board", encourage folks to acknowledge our reply, encourage newcomers to sign in and establish a WP identity, discourage frivolous questions and on and on.

All in all, the RD is a welcoming place which for many is their first WP experience. A grand opportunity to distinguish ourselves and this project from the rest of the web. What an opportunity lost if our main concern is our concern that a newcomer has misspelled "density" as "dinsity". --hydnjo talk 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Could have been worse (or is it better). Could have spelled it Dynasty. Think of the fun with that one!--Light current 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, spelling errors are so rampant, and they do keep people from being able to find the correct article. Perhaps we need a template to teach people how to check their spelling: 1) Use a dictionary. 2) Use a spell-checker and see if it suggests a replacement. 3) Use a Google search and see if it suggests a replacement.

I would have hoped these skills (at least the ability to use a dictionary) would be taught in the schools, but apparently, they are not. StuRat 06:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't seem to be "catching your drift". Are we here to address the failings of the schooling system? Are you suggesting that whomever dares to ask here had best be meticulous about their spelling and or grammar or they're to be mocked or played with or ignored? Excuse my ignorance about the RD in that case, I didn't realize that it was a place for the student of spelling and grammar to expand their curiosity beyond the classics. And you of all people SR, would in my estimation be the amongst the last to criticize those less literate than yourself. I come to that posit because of your own literacy in your occupational field. I feel now that if I were to ask a question beneath your level of competence that I would be made the fool.

OK, so lets start over. I've always admired your command of language and knowledge over a wide spectrum of information and I never ever expected to be at odds with your position on matters here. So, WTF happened? Have I misunderstood the subject entirely or perhaps your position? I am lost as to how I could suddenly become to be an adversary to someone that I have observed and admired.

Geesh! Grab my ankles and pull me back down if I'm floating above reality. I'm hoping that both of our positions regarding the apparent lack of literacy of any question being brought here doesn't influence our response so as to mock the questioner. If I'm mistaken about this, please say so - I'll not be embarrassed for any misjudgment on my part. Indeed, I'm hoping that I have misinterpreted something here and find that we are indeed on the same page. --hydnjo talk 09:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was that many question askers seem to be asking questions that they could easily answer themselves, if they only knew how to use a dictionary to look up the proper spelling (or the other two methods I mentioned). So, how can we encourage people to do that ? And to be clear, ignorance I don't mind nearly so much as apathy. In this case, it's the unwillingness to use a dictionary (or any other spell-checking method) that annoys me. My spelling is only so-so, so I therefore use a spellchecker. I can't understand why others don't seem to be willing to make this basic effort. But this is besides the point, I was using the joke to show the user the definition of the word "din" (note the Wiktionary link), which they might have heard somewhere and assumed to be the root of "dinsity". StuRat 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is true that many if not most of the questions posed at he RDs could be answered (I wont say easily as that is pretty subjective) by themselves. What the hell did you expect for questions, "please provide the answer for Fermat's Last Theorem"? Your quest to change human nature is futile. Do you really think that "giving the finger" to enough thoughtless motorists will have the slightest impact on the percentage of thoughtless motorists? If your intent is to reduce the number of stupid, silly, misspelled, ungrammatical or awkwardly constructed questions by poking fun then my colleague, you're doomed to a frustrated existence at the good ol' RD. --hydnjo talk 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't poking fun at the newbie, just trying to get the definition of "din" across in as non-offensive and non-boring manner as possible. There are definitely some Ref Desk questions which can't be easily answered by the asker. A good example is the "what's in this pic" questions. There is no way to search the Internet for a given pic, at least no way I know of, so asking knowledgeable people is still the best way to solve such a problem. Then there are people who read the pertinent articles and still don't find the answer. Those questions should go on the article talk page, but I don't mind them being mirrored here. StuRat 04:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What possible harm can it do?

All of the complaints so far relating to jokes/comments made by the RD editors seem to refer to WP:AGF and WP:BITE. So, if we were to

not make fun of the users serious question/spelling etc
answer any question seriously first

then, what harm would a joke or two or a little word play do?--Light current 12:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The harm is that in-jokes and "funny" side conversations among the responders is generally perceived to be at least unwelcoming. If you ask a question of a group of people and they answer and then start giggling about it the message is that they're probably mocking you. This comment (of StuRat's) is frickin' hilarious. Lately, most of the "funny" comments have been more like this comment (of yours) or StuRat's comment quoted at the beginning of this section which are painfully unfunny. A perfectly fine rule is if anyone finds a response offensive they should feel free to delete it. I really don't understand why you are so passionately opposed to this idea. Perhaps the diifference between us is if my words are offensive to someone I want to know. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agreee with your assertion of a right to delete anything you find offensive. Censorship is not "perfectly fine." I find that offensive. Edison 06:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, if the standard is that it must be highly offensive to most people. However, the standard we seem to be using is that IF anything COULD POSSIBLY be taken as even slightly offensive TO ANYONE, we delete it. Under this standard, most of the RD would be deleted, including any questions or answers about sex, politics, or religion. Note that my joke which you actually liked would have been deleted, under that standard, out of concern that some Mel Gibson fan might be offended. Also note that my "energy dinsity" joke did have a purpose, I was trying to explain the difference between "din" and "dense" to the question asker, who apparently has a rather weak vocabulary, that's why the joke had the link to the Wiktionary def of "din". However, just saying that directly to the user seems rather rude to me, so I thought putting it in the form of a joke would take the sting out. I may not have succeeded, but that was my intent, anyway. StuRat 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between discussing a topic that people find offensive, and making a remark that someone may find personally belitting. There is also a difference between discussing possibly-offensive things that serve an educational purpose, and making snarky remarks that do not. There is common sense involved in these differences; Wikipedia is, for better or for worse, managed by common sense a lot of the time. -- SCZenz 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and something personally belittling would look like this: "Hey, you moron, learn how to spell !". StuRat 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont actually believe Im trying to offend anyone. Neither do I think Sturat is. And I dont see how jokes between editors after the question has had at least one answer, AND not attacking the questioner, can do any harm at all to anyone other than a complete killjoy. Also this comment was removed by me as I thought the humor was a bit 'strained' in that case. You Rick, have to decide whether its jokes you dont like, or its possibly offending a questioner. THe two ideas are distinct. You are confusing them. 8-)--Light current 16:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it or not, find lots of things offensive on the RDs. Are you saying I can delete them all?--Light current 16:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you don't intend to offend people is irrelevant. Merely that what you say might offend them anyway is unacceptable, per WP:BITE and all that. -- SCZenz 16:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So, if I am offended, even thought the questioner/editor dod not intend it, I am allowed to delete the comment? To be honest, if this were allowed, I dont think there would be much left of the RDs! As judging by recent comments, some people are offended by anything! 8-( --Light current 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If your comment is possibly offensive to a new user (not if I am offended), and it doesn't help with the function of the page, then yes it can be removed. -- SCZenz 16:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats a very powerful weapon you propose putting in the hands of experienced and inexperienced editors alike. Are you sure its wise? After all the MOST offensive thing editors can do IMO is to delete someones post. Thats why I suggested gaining a consensus B4 doing it! 8-|--Light current 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Light current; you seem to be ascribing to the Reference Desk (or Wikipedia as a whole?) qualities that message boards have but that Wikipedia pages do not. Free speech is not the highest good here (as it is, or very nearly is, in the real world). Our pages have purposes, and it's a wiki so any user can remove posts that hurt those purposes. Inexperienced users will hopefully be (and generally are) careful about using such powers; I count myself as an experienced user, however, and I delete sections from talk pages as off-topic all the time. I've no idea why the Reference Desk should be different. -- SCZenz 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of many reasons not to delete things simply because they are off-topic, such as messing up the conversation flow, Here's an example:

Does President Bush have an MBA ?
   
  Yes.

     He also is the former governor of Maine.

        I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.

After unilateral deletion:

Does President Bush have an MBA ?
   
  Yes.

        I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.

It now appears that the last post is disagreeing that Bush has an MBA. This type of flow disruption is common where multiple deletions have taken place. Lining out the "offensive comment" is an improvement, in this case. StuRat 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Care must be taken to avoid such problems, to be sure. See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. -- SCZenz 18:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Incident talk (moved from public page here)

It's not nice to take the piss out of people's spelling mistakes. I'm all for having a joke, but the above comment is just rude. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but would you have thought that if you hadn't seen the discussion on the talk page ? StuRat 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who can say? I can't go back and not see it to find out. However don't use that as an excuse to dismiss my comment. Think instead of how Justing Chung might feel. If there is any possibility that hee might take offence at your joke you really shouldn't be making it. Perhaps I am oversensitive, my daughter has dyslexia and has had her spellings riduculed by her peers for years. They are only joking too but it's still hurtful to her. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can say. It's rather obvious, when there are far worse things that have been said at this Ref Desk without you commenting on them. As for the idea of always assuming everyone has every known disability, so as not to offend them, that seems rather unworkable to me (say somebody asked how to lose weight, and I was going to suggest he walks each day, but what if he's an amputee, then will I have insulted him ?). StuRat 06:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just come back from quite a long wikibreak, so I don't know what's been said recently. Never the less, that's beside the point really. An answer of the form "but he did it too Miss and you didn't tell him off" belongs in a schoolroom not here. I commented because I personally found your answer rude. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you making a big deal of this is really what makes a big deal of this. Had yo said nothing then the questioneer could have easily ignored it. It's like with terrorism. Tell people often enough that they have to be afraid and, hey presto, they are afraid (sorry if the comparision seems odd, but it's not all that different). DirkvdM 10:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Or he could have quietly thought "I didn't come here to be ridiculed, and simply walked away" Are you arguing that the comment was not rude, or simply arguing that i shouldn't have said anything about it? The first I can accept , opinions differ. But the second (which certainly seems to be what you mean) no way! Had the "joke" been at my expense, I would have found it offensive. That's why I spoke and if that means a big deal is made of it then so be it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But, of course, terrorism warnings must be given, so we don't have Americans and Europeans walking around Iraq, where their life expectancy would be extremely short. StuRat 14:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal #2

How about letting all the complainants run the RDs for a week while the workers have a rest?--Light current 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means, take a WikiBreak or move on to other pages for a while if you're frustrated. We all do it, and it's healthy. We'll look forward to having you back when you're ready. -- SCZenz 16:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Im suggesting ALL regular editors take a break and let those who think they know better have a go.--Light current 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're proposing a strike of some kind? Nobody can stop you from that either. I personally intend to keep answering questions, though. -- SCZenz 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're just being snippy now. Take the criticism constructively and move on. Natgoo 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt call it a strike as such-- more like a job swap! Im offering all those critics the chance to show us novices how it should be done 8-)--Light current 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see what your saying. It's rather annoying when people who don't actually contribute anything to the RD themselves, instead take the time to criticize, and now delete, the contributions of others. StuRat 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming this comment is directed at me: I have been an active contributor to WP:VPT and WP:HD for several years, at least partly because these pages were suffering from problems similar to what's been going on here (essentially, a hostile environment for "non-regulars", in the case of WP:HD highlighted by an incident involving an editor who dared to point out how rude the regulars were leading to interesting denials that I'll paraphrase as "who do you think you are, calling me rude?"). So, although I'm not an RD-regular, I do actually have considerable experience in similar areas (HD has perhaps the highest proportion of inappropriate questions of any of the desks). I think folks using the HD virtually never feel bitten these days. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I cant speak for StuRat but I would think the comment is directed at 'people who don't actually contribute anything to the RD themselves' as it says.

Rick you may have noticed that we are at present discussing guidelines for RD editors. We hope to have a full and frank discussion and bring all editors old and new along with us in the developing argument so that a consensus on acceptable behaviour is reached. You are welcome to contribute in a positive mannerto these discussions 8-)--Light current 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(edcon) Exactly my point. At least you understand what Im trying to say. Its a pity others cant 8-(--Light current 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have contributed to RD, and I have not deleted anyone's contributions. I am happy to let the "workers" (if that's how you see yourself) have a rest if that would help. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to take a break for a week if other regular editors on RD will join me. It will genuinely be interesting to see what would happen and whether the RDs would become truly 'better' places.

--Light current 21:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I ran it for about a month or so over the summer back when I access to a functional internet connection on a regular basis, most if not all of that work is being done by bot these days, in a sense, nobody runs the reference desk anymore, at least not in a technical sense, so there's a slight power vacuum, and I'm not sure people know what to make of it, which is why more of these sorts of problems have been cropping up since the bot went online, and I have confidence that we'll all work through them.--VectorPotential^{RD HAS A BOT !!!} 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi VectorPotential, by "running" the reference desk, I believe what everyone means is doing the actual work of answering questions. I don't believe a bot is doing that. -- SCZenz 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I realize that this is about question answering, not about bots and transclusions, but I think part of the problem is that some of the more regular editors have gotten used to "running" the desk in the other sense, and now, basically, there isn't any one person providing oversite so people seem to be coming into conflict more often--VectorPotential^{RD HAS A BOT !!!} 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we need or want a big boss in charge of RDs?--Light current 23:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not, that's the point, eventually everyone will work past all this stuff--VectorPotential^{The Reference Desk} 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I really have to go, and since I tend to disappear for several weeks in a row, along with my interent connection, I won't have a chance to finish this conversation--VectorPotential^{The Reference Desk} 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know Im not a bot??--Light current 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't ( : --VectorPotential^{The Reference Desk} 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

About being realistic

We all know that the devil is in the details and that any specific incident can be parsed to death. I believe that wit and humor are healthy ingredients at the RD as they would be in most any forum involving human interaction. The question here has to do with one individual's interpretation versus another's with regard to defining that subjective line between humor and sarcasm; please let's not get into a pissing contest about defining that line. And please let's not take it so damn personally if we are criticized about crossing that line. We're all from differing perspectives so censoring is not possible. Taking heed of another's critical perspective may be uncomfortable but it does help to set out a common understanding as to what is or is not on which side of a fuzzy line. Commenting here on the talk page ought to be a healthy thing that permits introspection about our own behavior and not a forum to "defend to the death" any witticism that another editor feels has crossed that indefinable line. --hydnjo talk 16:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the statement "We're all from differing perspectives so censoring is not possible". The worst type of censorship is possible under these conditions, where one person deletes any jokes they find, another deletes any discussions they feel have misinterpreted the question, another deletes anything critical of the Bush administration, etc. This is why it's a very bad precedent to encourage people to delete the contributions of others, unless there is a major reason which everyone else would agree with (like calling somebody by a racial slur). StuRat 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The worst kind of censorship is when a central government shuts down newspapers and kills journalists. When users of a particular website owned by the WikiMedia Foundation remove irrelevancies that could hurt the mission of that website (or portion thereof), that's not censorship at all. George W. Bush is kept NPOV, with both positive and critical facts, because that's site policy. Being nice to new users is site policy too. -- SCZenz 17:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What about being nice to old users? Or dont they count for anything?--Light current 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course that's true about killing journalists, but that's rather off-topic, as we are discussing censorship at Wikipedia here (but don't worry, I won't censor it for being off-topic !). And I'm not talking about articles here, but rather the RD and other talk pages, where we should be more tolerant of the contributions of others. StuRat 18:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So just because this is the RD we should be ok with people biting newbies? --Kbdank71 18:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We should be more tolerant of people saying things which could possibly be misinterpreted as biting newbies, yes. StuRat 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think that you get a free pass to bite newbies because you're doing it at the RD instead of elsewhere, maybe you should take a break from "helping" people and concentrate on contributing to WP in other ways. --Kbdank71 19:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Settle down. Might I point out that we have absolutely no evidence that the user was in any way offended by this joke. So, this is all just wild speculation on how somebody might possibly misinterpret it. StuRat 20:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How many other people saw your response and walked away rather than face being ridiculed by you? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the point of helping people is to make fun of them until someone does get offended, and only then stop. That doesn't deserve tolerance. --Kbdank71 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey this is discrimination in favor of newbies and against oldies. Is that fair? --Light current 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind being ridiculed and having my typos made fun of by StuRat and others. I puts me in my place. After all, we must all learn to laugh at ourselves.--Light current 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you not see, can you really not understand that it's different when you do it to a newbie? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Slightly different yes. But are we to offend older users? We have feelings too you know-- (even me) 8-(--Light current 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(Losing indent) Of course you have feelings too, I think you are arguing from them right now instead of your head. It must be horrid to work hard answering peoples questions here, interject a little light humor into the replied and then have that roundly critisized by lots of people instead of appreciated. It's not that I don't understand how you feel. I do. But what are we to do, let the pisstaking continue? All I am asking is that you consider a newbies feelings, is too much to ask? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of me consciously 'piss taking' of any questioners. If you know of some, please refer me to them so I may learn from my mistakes. 8-)--Light current 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lightcurrent I apologise - I was lumpimg you in with others, I have not checked your contributions. I have no problem with funny comments as long as they are not rude. It is newbie biting that concerns me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

THank you Theresa! 8-)--Light current 22:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What others? It's newbies insulting newbies here don't blame me :( --⁪froth^{T C} 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As perhaps the chief criticizer I'd like to publicly say that I tremendously appreciate the hard work of all the regulars here. Per comments elsewhere on this page, I am a regular at both WP:HD and WP:VPT and distinctly know how much time and effort goes into responding at these sorts of pages. Hardly anyone ever says thank you. So, to all the regulars here, most definitely including Light Current and StuRat,

THANK YOU

-- Rick Block (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Accepted graciously! Just a little appreciation does in fact go a long way! 8-)--Light current 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

~~I concerr~~ er, ~~I cuncur~~ err, ~~I conquer~~ Oh crap, I agree with Rick! --hydnjo talk 01:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate the "Thank You", too. I must say, that without the occasional positive feedback from Admins, I was starting to perceive them as a bunch of thugs and bullies, as my only interaction with them (which is quite rare) seemed to be when they were blocking my AOL ID (because some vandal was assigned the same dynamic I/P), falsely accusing me of being a sock-puppet, or deleting my contributions. Maybe you could convince the other Admins to be more positive towards the users ? StuRat 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had lots of positive feedback from admins, for my general contributions and specifically for my RD posts. Maybe your experience of admins has more to do with your behaviour than theirs? But... Admins are just editors with extra buttons. They are not parents or teachers or employers who owe us positive feedback. If we can't be satisfied just with building a better encyclopedia and helping people, then maybe we should look elsewhere for validation. Anchoress 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I've had lots of positive feedback from normal users and question askers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), just not from Admins (until now). The constant blocking appeared to be due to my misfortune of having AOL as my ISP (that has since been remedied). StuRat 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original question thing, response to whether you think the comment was appropriate should be a simple reply: a furthering of the joke perhaps if you liked it, or "That really wasn't appropriate. Read WP:BITE and be more conscious that your comments could be interpreted as insulting. To the OP, I apologise for him, we try to stay away from that kind of thing here". Since it's an open forum of discussion with opinions presented and disagreed with, it's awkward to remove contributions, even if they seem inappropriate. The cleanest way to address them would be inline, right where the OP can read it right after the joke. They might find the joke hilarious but appreciate the concern of the second poster, or they might feel insulted, but then after being assured that he didn't mean anything by it they would possibly think "ok ok I guess this place isn't so bad". Having people mucking about with reverts (I don't mean you specifically rick) is inappropriate to the venue. By the way, I'm not proposing anything new here, this is basically how especially bad comments have been dealt with in the past.. but I think it's a very effective way of addressing it, and doesn't impose anyone's freedoms on anyone else's, it just allows everyone to present their opinion. --⁪froth^{T C} 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Technical issues & red links

If you'll look through my recent edit history, you'll see that a number of loose ends have been left un-tied after our change over to the new archive system. If someone could go through the last few months worth of archives and try to anticipate any additional redlinks that may exist, and redirect them all to the current archive page--VectorPotential^{RD HAS A BOT!!!} 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it over the next few days. Can you tell me when the bot first went it to operation, so I know where to start ? 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

About a week ago, should be easy enough to find the exact date, because that's when Wikipedia:Reference desk archive became Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives, so the 24th, although the first of the new archives was for the 17th, since there was a 1 week backlog at the time that the bot went into operation--VectorPotential^{RD HAS A BOT !!!} 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the monthly links on the day pages before the 16th? I really don't think that's a neccessary burden, the final pages are all properly linked, and so are the monthly pages. The chance of any of those links actually being used (or rather, having to be used) is very small, and the trouble of editing 16 (20? 30?) pages seems like a waste of effort. My laptop also finally burned out 2-days ago (it was well past it's time), so I'll be on sporadic-vacation for a while. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 02:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines for RD editors

Lets make a start here.--Light current 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this - Please keep answers polite. Any remark that is flippant (i.e. does not answer the question), may be removed by anyone who feels that remark steps over the line into rudeness. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How about:

1. Address the question, not the questioner. ie assume the question has been asked in good faith

2. All answers should be polite; remember that English may not be the questioner's first language

3. Flippant remarks are discouraged and are at risk of being removed by any editor.

4. Removing the contribution of another person will quite likely upset them. Before removing a comment that you consider rude be sure that the remark would be seen as HIGHLY offensive to MOST people. Try to minimize the amount of offense given to everybody.

5. Questions that ask for opinions or have no factual answer may be deleted by any editor.

6 Continue to respond in a professional manner, even if abused by others.

Please add more suggestions. But lets keep it as short as poss.--Light current 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I really would prefer it if people could try to think laterally on this subject becauase I feel the RDs are rather special on WP. I have not decided yet whether the RDs should be treated in exactly the same way as the HD. Some of the existing rules may not be appropriate. Some new rules may be required. If it turns out the existing rules cover how we want to govern behaviour here, all well and good. But I dont think we should initially try to 'force the foot into what may be the wrong size shoe'.--Light current 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the above guidelines

I think that both proposals are instruction creep. The page already says to be polite, and we already have guidelines that allow editors to refactor edits that do not serve the purpose of the page. -- SCZenz 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

THats OK SC. I think we should just let the ideas flow here without too much analysis at present. THen we can see if our present rules cover it. OK?--Light current 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Edited 2 (lengthened) and 3 (shortened). --Tagishsimon (talk)

Strangely, I find myself agreeing with the latest mods to the 'guidelines'--Light current 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to get some discussion going on this a long time ago, see Wikipedia talk:Village pump (miscellaneous)#style suggestions for VP and WP:HD. For the linking impaired (egads! did the evil ogre just make a joke?), the list I proposed at the time is:

Anyone responding should practice utmost WP:CIVILITY, being particularly mindful of WP:BITE
Anyone responding should avoid use of wikislang, wikiterms, and wikibreviations (e.g. those at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend), but instead actually type the entire normal English words. If you can't speak normal English anymore, take a wikibreak (I mean take some time off). I think responders should specifically avoid use of "newbie" for "new user" since it has a dismissive connotation. "anon" for "anonymous user" is more neutral, but I suspect close to nonsensical to a new user.
Anyone responding should minimize use of wikimarkup and, where it's necessary, use the simplest markup that will do the job (which is often perhaps not the most compact or "elegant").

-- Rick Block (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rick: Please be civil and do not refer to other editors as "clowns" as you did at Administrators noticeboard at 05:49, 3 November 2006 .Edison 06:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The above were proposed, but never officially adopted (there was only 1 comment). There are a fair number of folks who respond at mulitple of these pages - I think it may be reasonable to have a common set of guidelines for answering. IMO, the "utmost civility" one covers both of the "RD rules" suggested above and more directly addresses the issue (without prescribing a remedy). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that a crackdown on mirth at the Reference Desk might be related to the fact that winter is creeping in in the Northern Hemisphere, reducing levels of good humour.

Still, it's fair enough if flippant/rude comments are deleted, though I'm not about to start. Personally, I'm happy to see a little joking around, especially on days when there's no interesting questions asked. -- Chris 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah these dark nights are depressing. Where to go for a good laugh? 8-(--Light current 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.theonion.com ? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Or at the Uncyclopedia --hydnjo talk 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Perry Bible Fellowship [4] – Updated Wed. — Chris

I'll add a proposed rule:

1) Before removing a comment that you consider to be possibly interpreted as rude, realize that removing the contribution of another person is denigrating that contribution, and will quite likely upset them. Therefore, before taking such a severe step, be sure that the remark would be seen as HIGHLY offensive to MOST people, not just something that could possibly be misinterpreted as slightly rude, by some people. The goal here is to minimize the amount of offense given to everybody, including the person who posted the original comment. StuRat 04:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is far too high a bar. A comment that can be seen as HIGHLY offensive to MOST people shouldn't be made in the first place, and should be immediately removed (and the commenter given a fairly stern warning). A comment that is merely HIGHLY offensive to anyone should also be immediately removed (and the commenter warned in perhaps a less severe fashion). A comment that might be reasonably interpreted as offensive (to anyone) should be removed with a polite message on the commenter's talk page.

Have you all read m:Don't be a dick? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. People being as hyper-sensitive as they are, somebody could be highly offended by just about anything, like any mention of the Armenian Genocide to a Turk. StuRat 23:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

THe definition of dick on that page seems to be one who does not fits in with the group. But if you have a group of dicks (like here) then no individual in the group can be a dick (by definition) 8-)--Light current 19:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of new guidelines, but I can't find the place to put my name. Anchoress 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not voting ATM. Just add your comment here saying why you disagree. 8-)--Light current 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Methinks some admins doth protest too much. Edison 06:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Minimisation of totality of offence

IOW get some advice and reach a consensus of sorts before deleting. Dont ever do it on your own!--Light current 05:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good!

Now, I might be alone on this, but I think that the truly inappropriate responses at the Reference Desk are neither good-natured joking (what if you're wearing a mask?), or mean-spirited barbs (Q: where can I get exact measurements for absolute zero? A: Zero), but low quality jokes and barbs.

As of yesterday I'm as guilty as anyone on this, but perhaps it should be a general rule for regulars to only post something clever if it likely will give a good laugh. Keeping the Reference Desk a place of high-quality discussion needn't involve frowning upon frivolity, but perhaps a less welcoming atmosphere toward trite, obvious, or otherwise lame humour is in order. -- Chris 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you define lame?--Light current 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's up the the individual's judgement of course.

The basic idea is one that's been brought up many times here: the ref desk has been a bit diaherretic lately. Jokes should come out fully formed and not reeking of something questionable.

Perhaps the fact that this discussion is happening means that things will change for the better. If not, then do what happened yesterday: I cracked a lame joke, got told off, and was sent here. People might respond better though, if they're immediately told something like: we're trying to keep the Reference Desk sober, and have been discussing proposed changes on the talk page here (with a link; I can't get it to work). -- Chris 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But only say something like this if you've just read a weak attempt at humour. Leave the gems alone. -- Chris 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But also leave in jokes that actually give an answer, even if the joke isn't funny, like:

Q: Who is Bush's VP ?

A: Darth Cheney ... oops, I meant Dick Cheney. StuRat 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo corrections

Is it permissible to correct the typos in question headers so that funny comments about spelling are not attracted?--Light current 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So rather than criticise some ones typos or spelling, we should correct it?--Light current 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki after all. Can you see a problem with correcting someone's spellings for them? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

THere could be a problem if the questioner objected. THere is also the possibility of editors 'correcting' something that is already correct. Consider the word 'redacted' (a new one to me). I may think its 'redirected' and correct it.--Light current 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think in the case of "Energy Dinsity" it's pretty a safe bet that they were trying to refer to Energy Density since Dinsity just isn't a word--VectorPotential^{RD HAS A BOT !!!} 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(edcon)

Well yes of course its easy in this case but there may be cases where it isnt. Like for instance:

Whats a greek ern?

What would you say that question was asking and how would you correct it?--Light current 23:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(^{Edit conflict})You're suggesting that someone might accidently ask a pun?--VectorPotential^{RD HAS A BOT !!!} 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't in that particular case. That fact that you may correct a spelling doesn't imply that you must do it.

The questioner wouldnt know it was ambiguous. Thats the point. 8-|--Light current 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that no one would ask that unless they were making a pun or asking a rhetorical question, neither of which could actually be answered anyway--VectorPotential^{The Reference Desk} 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The questioner is not going to object. Why would they? Yes I suppose it's conceivable that someone may correct an already correct word by how likely is it in practice? I would think it obvious enough not to need to mention that someone correcting a spelling mistake should run the original through a spell checker first to make sure. Most spelling errors are blatent (not like redacted which contains three fewer letters than redirected) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean 'blatant' or was that done on purpose? 8-)

--Light current 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If I had done it on purpose it would be much more obvious. See my user page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry i didnt mean to criticise your spelling- I thought you were making a subtle point. 8-|--Light current 23:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I'd respond to Whats a greek ern?

Assuming you mean "urn", please see Pottery of ancient Greece.

i.e., just pick an interpretation that seems likely, but identify it. My assumption would be a person asking this question is either very young (hence the misspelling) or not a native English speaker. In either case, I don't think ANY sort of smartass response would be conceivably appropriate. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

...Depends on what job he does. *budda boom!* ;-) --hydnjo talk 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes its still allowed on the talk page (at the moment!). Actually the answer is about 10 (choose your currency) a week. 8-)--Light current 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Considerably more than 10 €s a week I'd say. --hydnjo talk 01:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You chose the wrong currency then! 8-)--Light current 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Q: Does everything need to devolve around here? A:Yes. --hydnjo talk 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Too subtle for me! 8-?--Light current 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I see a couple of problems with this:

1) As has been noted above, you may interpret what they are asking incorrectly. Then, once the question is changed, everyone else will also start answering the wrong question and it will be quite difficult to get back on track to the actual question.

2) The person who asked the question may not notice the correction, so will end up turning in a report on "Energy Dinsity", and getting marked down, accordingly. It's far better to tell them about the mistake, so they can learn from it. StuRat 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, you win, I quit. As far as I'm concerned you can go on with this defense of "Energy Dinsity" as long as your fingers or your keyboard hold out. I guess it's just less important to me than it is to you. So, lets praise the anonymous 208.163.32.57 who made the spelling mistake (which was after all corrected with the first reply) and may he/she go into the Wikipedia hall of fame as being the cause of breaking a thousand keyboards and bruising a thousand fingers by making the "fatal" mistake of using the letter "i" when the letter "e" was properly called for. (Oops, there I go again, ending with a ~~proposition~~ preposition). And, on his/her very first edit! Perhaps a special barnstar is in order here. ;-) --hydnjo talk 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That comment wasn't really related to the discussion in this section, which, as I understand it, is about whether we should change a posted question to what we assume they meant to ask. If you don't like that particular spelling error example, there are many others to choose from, like the question posted about "prizes", when they really meant "prices". StuRat 05:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we just change it to what we think its should be, leave a note to that effect, then answer the Q? If someone thinks we got it wrong, they can answer the alternative interpretation of the question.--Light current 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeesh, I was only trying to make a joke so as to lighten things up a bit. My IDing of the original poster of the now infamous "Energy Dinsity" poster was an obvious attempt at humor which after all is what this entire conversation was all about (wasn't it?). Cant I get a smile (OK, a snicker) out of anyone around here? OK then, come by my house tomorrow (US - Halloween) night and I'll guarantee snickers for all. :-)) --hydnjo talk 05:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this whole anti-humor discussion has left me in poor humor. StuRat 12:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an article to be improved, it's a discussion forum. It's like real web forums with the unfortunate consequence of being able to edit other peoples' posts. Lets try to confine ourselves to permissions we would have if this was IPB or something- that this is a wiki shouldn't be abused in the name of improvement; we don't need to improve OPs just take them as they are --⁪froth^{T C} 18:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

joke I just added

Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, this edit is itself a joke made in part as a peace offering. I am in no way claiming that jokes need my approval. I've intended to phrase it in such a way that anyone not up on the discussion on this talk page will perceive it to simply be a joke, although it is meant as a summary of much of the discussion on this page and as an example of a "safe" joke (explicit self-mockery basically cannot bite). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And so is this one (I think). Or this if you prefer to see the real thing. --hydnjo talk 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the best jokes are funny and informative. Like this one. Ignoring typographical inconsistencies, lacking in sexual and excretory references, yet somehow not without merit. Anchoress 07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it :(. Looks like i might have to ditch this joint and go somewhere where not making jokes is tolerated. Rockpocket 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont wish to appear rude, but I honestly cant see anything funny at all in any of the above. And I m really trying to see it. Is this a Europe Americas humor schism?--Light current 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the US, we have Congressional elections coming up, and each candidate is required to say: "I'm Dick Blowhard, and I approve this ad", if they have paid for it. StuRat 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of belaboring the points here:

1) I realized it was rather US centric, hence the inline apology. This makes it an in-joke (but in the US, not in Wikipedia), and this, too, was deliberate (if you're not "in" on an in-joke it's really just not funny). In-jokes are almost always bad in forums like this, especially if the only community that "gets it" is restricted to, say, the regular responders. If you feel compelled to make an in-joke, please try to structure it so there's a surface joke as well (however lame).

2) I realize the previous joke (the one I'm "approving") can be construed to be mocking me although I don't really know if this was part of its intent or not, but if this was the intent the joke I added both acknowledges that I get it and that I'm OK with it.

3) Follow on jokes are almost always bad (again, I knowingly violated this) because they tend to attract other follow on jokes which increases the noise to signal ratio on the page and makes it look like we're all a bunch of cut-ups out to amuse each other rather than interested in answering the questions. This is intrinsically bad because it discourages folks looking for serious answers. For the same reason, the number of questions that end up with any joke responses should be very small (like 10% or less).

-- Rick Block (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if we all just think twice before posting smartass responses the the Reference Desk, for maybe a week or two, the weariness with non-serious talk here will fade away, and before you know it it'll be business as usual: a fair amount of joking but hopefully reined inenough to keep everyone happy. -- Chris 23:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well personally, I think an air of sobriety has already started to return to the RDs --- how boring!--Light current 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed "let's answer the question" template

Humor and side discussions are fine, but this question also deserves a serious answer, does anybody have one ?

Would this template be appropriate for when a question lacks an answer despite many responses ? I find I skip over questions with pages of commentary, assuming the answer is in there somewhere. I had originally tried to address this issue by encouraging people to mark questions as answered, but that didn't catch on. So how about adding this template at the end of such a question ? StuRat 04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Great idea - let's mark questions as answered! --WikiSlasher 07:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Good thinking StuRat. Remember to force it to be substituted, so that there aren't a bunch of simultaneous template calls. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 09:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I "force it to be substituted" ? StuRat 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This code will print an offensive "THIS TEMPLATE MUST BE SUBSTITUTED" message if you forget the subst: modifier:

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Special:Undelete| |{{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|<div style="display:none;">}} {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|= |<div style="display:none;">}}</includeonly>|{{error:not substituted|Archive header}}<div style="display:none;">}}}} {{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|</div></div>}}

It may be possible to reduce the code a bit, I'll have a look at it when I have time. You should continue the code on the same line, so that there's no whitespace. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 04:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely use tags like that if you feel things are getting out of hand! -- Chris 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I like this tag because whilst being gentle and inoffensive, it does remind people that a serious answer should be provided sooner rather than later.

But can anyone at all use the tags? Even those who are anti mirth? (like admins)--Light current 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My idea for 'answered' tag. comments?

This question has received acceptable answers in accordance with RD rules, but further answers can still be added

--Light current 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"acceptable" to whom? You are not in a position to judge whether many answers are acceptable to the questioner. Besides which, fwiw, the notion of tens of templates littering the RDs seems an at best an unnecessary innovation (how did that creep into a discussion about diminishing chatter?) and at worst a layout design proposal from hell. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I am not judging. Read the template text again. 8-(--Light current 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)