Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 133

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Baseball Bugs

I would like to propose that Baseball Bugs is banned from editing the reference desk. His answers are very rarely, if ever, of any use whatsoever and do not address the questions but almost invariably insult the questioner. I suspect that he/she may have created multiple articles, yet their "skills" on the reference desk are no more than a troll. Thank you. 109.151.74.96 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're not the first and probably won't be the last person to make that request. However, you need to provide diffs to back up your accusations.--WaltCip (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for Baseball Bugs...--WaltCip (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Tough talk from a British user with a grand total of 11 edits. He's probably miffed that I dared to ask him what "Slick Slime Sam" was about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What relevance does their nationality have? Fgf10 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

An anonymous British user could be the banned user called "Light current". In any case, wish the IP well. He's planning to ride a motorcycle from England to South Africa. I'm impressed he's got a motorcycle that can be driven across water. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There are 67 million people in the UK. Might want to get that paranoia looked at. Also, you may be aware of something called a ferry (have a courtesy link, free or charge). Fgf10 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the IP plans to drive the motorcycle while on the ferries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't just appear and remove part of the reference desk's furniture, no way. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

IPs who post stuff like this should not be casting aspersions about "skills" at the RDs. MarnetteD|Talk 19:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We could compile a daily list of Baseball Bugs' unhelpful/useless RD contributions, if that would help (here's yesterday's!). Despite what Bugs would like us to believe, the complaints are not coming from just some random anonymous IPs. This has been going on for, what, 10 years? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware that there's a rule against asking an OP for clarification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That's hardly asking for clarification, it was just rude and confrontational. At this point I'm just assuming that you're rude without realizing it; I get it, that's how people are sometimes. You also don't have to respond to everything. Maybe you get off on constantly displaying your ignorance? I dunno. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to ask what "How many are Inscriptions in Osco-Umbrian languages?" meant. In his response, I still didn't get it. Sorry, I'm just not as smart as you are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Funny that, because if you simply Google it exactly as the question was phrased, you get the answer, or at least a starting point which would have been infinitely more useful than just saying you didn't understand the question. Perhaps leave some of these to other people, there's no requirement to comment on everything, especially if you're adding no value. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 12: Again, if you don't know, you don't have to answer. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't an answer, it was a question. Show me a rule that says I can't ask a question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Dweller also didn't understand the question.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And today's unhelpful/useless RD contributions: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Creator of the motto "Land of the free, home of the brave" fiveby(zero) 17:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A response to the unhelpful/useless comments by the OP. He makes editorial comments and then says he doesn't want them challenged. His comments should be redacted, after which I could redact my response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Your contributions are a net negative here. If you are unable or unwilling to abide by the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines then perhaps you should go elsewhere. fiveby(zero) 17:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

More pointless timewasting (and subsequent responses) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

As expected, your first edit in more than a week is to attack another editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Might as well add this one to the list, although that one is kind of an embarrassment all around Adam Bishop (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Especially to those who claim it sounds like English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Adam was pretty much the only person giving an actual answer, which is what a reference desk should do, rather than just offer inane commentary. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

At least one other editor agreed it did not sound like English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Bishop could provide a complete translation, so us mere Pawns can see if it works? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Adam already linked you to the song. Perhaps you could try that first before making any more such comments. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Baseball Bugs exhibits here the very same behavior that got the thread open in the first place. I would say it is somewhat related to sealioning in that they make posts that could on their face be reasonable but actually intend or manage to derail the conversation and make others uncivil; however, unlike sealions, the derailing happens not by walls of text but by excessive parcimony of words, forcing others to guess an interpretation which they will later deny.

See for instance the motorcycle/ferry stuff above (last diff here). Presumably BB knows of the existence of ferries, and "I'm impressed he's got a motorcycle that can be driven across water" is a joke. But that kind of dry humor falls flat in context, so Fgf10 brings up ferries thinking it was serious. Then BB doubles down on the serious interpretation. BB presumably thought the last post was very funny, Fgf10 presumably thought it was inane, and outside observers presumably thought it was tone-deaf. Notice however that nobody fucking cares about the ferry thing and the result is only to derail the discussion (which up to this point included an accusation of sockpuppetry - which BB was wise to drop since that would actually be somewhat actionable under NPA/CIV).

I doubt one could get any sort of enforcement action. Making jokes that are not funny is not actionable. The only cause of action would be disruptive editing by leading other editors astray with their antics, but since they usually prey on unclear/polemic questions it is a bit of a "garbage in, garbage out" situation; plus, a fair fraction of outsiders think rightly or wrongly that the refdesk is a jungle and the monkeys only deserve attention for the most egregious cases of misconduct.

Just to be clear, I think BB should knock it off, and I have yet to see a single contribution of theirs to the refdesk that improved or answered the question in any way. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Then you're not paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How many times has your behaviour at the ref desk been brought up? How long has this been going on? Certainly as long as I can remember, and I started editing in 2005. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick look through the talkpage archives is very instructive for those who aren't completely up to speed with the chronic nature of this issue. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I knew that was supposed to be a joke but just wanted to point out how utterly ridiculous it was. Highlighting his disruptive behaviour and general complete uselessness on the Refdesk. Fgf10 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly urge contributors here who aren't familiar with this chronic problem to examine the archives of this Ref Desk talkpage. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting this, The Rambling Man. For as many years as I have been contributing and using WP as an editor, I have frequented the Entertainment Desk. Obviously, when one uses WP as much as I do (daily), one tends to see the same editor names show up in response to daily asked questions on desks and boards: hence the term "community". I am quite familiar with Baseball Bugs at the Entertainment Desk; along with Viennese Waltz, et al. Likewise, at the Help Desk, AlanM1, David Biddulph, Colin Fine. We come to count on these experienced editors to answer our valid questions with a serious approach; and if they do not know the answer (or do not wish to partake in the conversation, discussion or teaching experience) we also expect that they will not enter into the thread with non-productive comments that are belittling, demeaning or dismissive. What bothers me most in this situation is: Baseball Bugs is very knowledgeable at this reference desk. I marvel at the rapidity and vast catalogue of research he seems to have at his fingertips. I have learned an extensive amount of trivia by visiting the page and reading the question & answer style forum. But in the very same breath ... I cannot for the life of me understand the cutting nature he displays to certain visitors to the page when they ask seemingly innocent and genuine questions. Some visitors for the very first time. It is really disheartening; and I find myself wanting to ask him: "Why are you doing this?" To what pleasure are you receiving in making such comments? When other editors come directly after the snide remarks and offer real honest and helpful guidance to the OP's question. It seems that the Entertainment Desk is at times here for the whim of the editor in question. I hope he will seriously take into account that even though many remain silent; his actions do not go unnoticed. As a community, his actions speak for all of us. These are just my 2 cents. Not that they are worth anything. Maineartists (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your final self-effacement is unbecoming. If your words were worthless, you wouldn't have written them. I agree with the general tenor of your remarks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. Maineartists (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ref Desk never changes

I used to be a regular contributor here on the Ref Desk. I have to say that having been gone for 5 or 6 years now it's really something to come back and see the exact same names arguing about the exact same things. I guess it's proof that things aren't really as bad as the complaints seem to make it sounds else this place would've been shut down years ago. That, or no one actually cares about the Ref Desk. Mingmingla (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I used to be a regular here, too, until I heard about StackExchange about six years ago. StackExchange is not only vastly bigger and more popular, but also has much more effective mechanisms for emphasizing good questions and answers, and quickly and efficiently getting rid of trolling and other crap. I'm also a little bit surprised that the ref desk still even exists. My perception is that "no one actually cares about the Ref Desk" is very nearly the case, but there's a small group of people who really like it for whatever reasons, and those people are very vocal about continuing to let the ref desk live, when the proposal arises every few years to just let the ref desk die in peace. I guess if a few people like it, it doesn't hurt much to keep it around. It presumably doesn't consume much in the way of resources compared to the encyclopedia, and the rest of the world can just continue to ignore its existence. Red Act (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've heard people like you banging on about StackExchange before but I'd never actually checked it out, so I went there after reading your comment. Are you serious? That site contains nothing but stupid questions and stupid answers. Thanks, but I'll stay here where the quality of discourse is somewhat higher than that trainwreck of a site. --Viennese Waltz 21:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen good threads at StackExchange and Quora (and other places) too, and I've seen bummers, just like here. I happen to be editing here, so this is where I'll stay for now. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe some parts of StackExchange are a trainwreck; I wouldn't know because I haven't explored all of their topics. I most enjoy answering physics questions, and the Physics StackExchange, at least, has a vastly larger supply of good, interesting physics questions to answer than WP:RD/S does. Red Act (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• User talk:Mingmingla and User:Red Act: Why do you give a damn, enough to come back here and make negative comments? What's in it for you to engage in that kind of time-wasting exercise? You say you've moved on, but you seem to be holding on when nobody's forcing you to. Either stay here and contribute positively, or leave permanently and contribute positively elsewhere. Those are your options. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's ok, even helpful, to point to other fora where some of the volunteers' curiosity, expertise, erudition, and google-fu might be of greater service, but, personally, I don't agree that StackExchange (or other places) are necessarily ideal candidates. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I mainly just stopped by out of nostalgic curiosity, to see if the ref desk still existed, and then replied to Mingmingla's post because I had my own perspective on what he said. If you find the ref desk rewarding, more power to you. I got years of enjoyment out of being a ref desk regular, too. I just happen to enjoy StackExchange more. There are just so many more interesting questions there to answer, in my experience, and much less drama. Red Act (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No other participation other than asking refdesk questions

What is our policy on editors who do nothing to build the encyclopedia other than asking huge numbers of refdesk questions?

In my opinion, these editors are causing us to wast a huge amount of time and effort answering questions nobody cares about, leaving fewer resources for those who ask questions that really want answers to.

In my opinion, the answer is a specialized topic ban, limiting the editor to only one question in any 24 or 48 hour period. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy, and imo there shouldn't be. Sometimes it's obvious that a question is related to something an editor has read here, or wants to add but needs further information. Sometimes there is such a connection but it's not made apparent. Sometimes it's just "idle" curiosity. I put that in quotes, because curiosity is perfect in itself and does not need to have an ultimate goal, just as pure mathematics does not. It's really none of our business to what use an editor puts the answers we provide. If you want to answer a question, do so. If not, not. Nobody's time is wasted. As for "questions nobody cares about", we can reasonably assume that at least the OP cares about it. We shouldn't need to know or care where the OP comes from, their personal details, or what other contributions they've made to the encyclopaedia, if any. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No limit? It's OK to add 10,000 questions a day? And no, I don't think we "can reasonably assume that at least the OP cares about it" when the OP posts 20 or 100 questions every day for months. -Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Who's the person in question who's been adding 20 or 100 or 10,000 questions a day? If there was such a user, then perhaps we might have a discussion about how such editing might constitute disruptive editing, but it seems to me like spelling out a codified "here's the numerical limit on how many questions you're allowed to ask" and "here's the topic ban protocol if you run afoul" seems a bit legalistic. I also disagree with your characterization of the ref desk as a "resources" game, because again, I don't see the evidence that others have been somehow neglected because of other people's questions. Besides, we don't guarantee that every question receives an answer in the end. We all respond to questions as we please, and we all reserve the right to ignore questions posed; no time or resources are wasted other than that which the respondent desires to offer in the first place. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The "limited resource" vision is contrary to Wikipedia consensus that anyone can edit whatever they want at whatever time (as long as it follows the policy) when it comes to refdesk volunteers. However, it has a point when it comes to refdesk askers: if an "editor" will never edit anything else than RD pages and their questions never result in article improvement, from the point of view of building an encyclopedia, it would be a net gain to kick them out if only to save on bandwidth costs.

My answer to that is that first, it would be a lot of bureaucracy and game-able rules to enforce this, and second, building an encyclopedia is not what I care about. I care about improving the general level of knowledge of humanity (or at least the small subset of humanity that can speak English, has access to the internet, time to spend reading Wikipedia and the will to learn stuff; volunteering in school charities in Africa would probably be morally better, but I cannot do it from my comfortable home). Editing articles is one way of achieving that, answering refdesk questions is another. While the refdesk pales in comparison to the stackexchange websites for most questions (about half of Computing refdesk questions would be answered better and quicker on stackoverflow), it still is a good place to ask open-ended technical questions.

One might argue that the refdesk answers questions for one person when Wikipedia articles are a MOOC and hence the same amount of effort will benefit more in the article space. Well... One can probably count on the fingers of one hand the people who would benefit from the ~1h I put into writing this refdesk answer, but the same can be said of the ~1h I spent reading obscure century-old chemistry articles to partially fix the dates of first use of sodium amalgam. Yet, I doubt anybody would object to the latter as "a waste of resources" - after all, I corrected a factually-wrong article that not many Wikipedia editors would have the knowledge to fix, so it is a net positive. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If I may, I think that whether or not someone is actively building the encyclopedia is irrelevant to a problem of excessive RefDesk questions. Many people use/read WP all the time and do not edit. Those people, I think it reasonable to assume, would be just as welcome to ask questions to the Ref Desk, maybe even a lot of questions, as any prolific editor would be. In short, if someone is spamming the Desks with an absurd number of questions, I think it could just be handled on a case-by-case basis using common sense. Ditch ∝ 01:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Medical advice

This question appears quite dispassionate—not a specific request for actual medical advice, but instead answerable in general with links to WP articles, references to scientific literature, or other WP:RS external sources. This response by Guy Macon seems to contain that that: although it is clearly written as medical advice because it's an extensive quote from the ref, Seattle Children's seems like a reliable source and there is neutral information in there. A statement such as a paraphrase of the "Sun exposure can darken scars permanently, making them more noticeable" portion, and maybe that sunscreen can mitigate that effect, cited to that ref seems like it would be valid in our scar article. Abductive thinks the question is a hopeless request-for-advice as a whole. I'd welcome others' comments on the suitability of the question, and at least a portion of the Seattle Children's info as a response. DMacks (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Let people Google it themselves and delete with prejudice. It's better that way. Abductive (reasoning) 04:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA HAS NO POLICY THAT SAYS THAT MEDICAL ADVICE IS NOT ALLOWED. We do, however, have a Wikipedia behavioral guideline at WP:TPOC that says that deleting other editors comments is not allowed except in certain circumstances -- and deleting an answer from the refdesk because of an imaginary rule about medical advice isn't listed on that page.

Some medical advice ("don't risk eating rotten food. Throw it out and thoroughly clean anything it touched") is OK, and is vastly preferable to "ask your doctor if eating rotten food is OK". Other medical advice ("go ahead and eat rotten food") is definitely not OK. The difference is that telling someone not to eat rotten food is not a harmful post as defined at WP:TPOC, but telling someone that it is OK to eat rotten food is a harmful post.

There are some miguided editors who believe that Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical, legal, and business advice, but no such policy or guideline exists. (If you are about to cite the reference desk guidelines, please read WP:LOCALCON and then show me where the Wikipedia community approved them).

Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't. (medical disclaimer) Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is. (legal disclaimer) Here is some professional advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will use up all of your money and is likely to get you fired. Don't bother asking a certified financial planner if becoming a meth addict is good for your finances. It isn't. (general disclaimer, risk disclaimer)

There. I just provided medical, legal, and professional advice, and while I did make a point, I did so without being disruptive.

Feel free to report my behavior at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline. But don't delete other people's edits. Do that again and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia for ignoring an actual guideline while enforcing an imaginary one. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So you can just ignore the work editors put into Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice, building consensus for how best to handle medical and legal advice? Why should your interpretation of the talk page guidelines override that of editors who actually discussed these issues and their application to the ref desks to build a consensus? fiveby(zero) 13:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. I sure can "ignore the work editors put into the refdesk guidelines , building [local] consensus for how best to handle medical and legal advice". Oh sure, some of it is good, and I follow those parts, but some of it is against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and I will gladly ignore those parts any time someone tries to enforce them.

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments gives you a complete list of when you are allowed to remove another editor's comments. "Any answer that provides medical advice, whether the question sought it or not, should be removed" is not on that list.

• Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

• The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has ruled that "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. "

You claim that editors put a lot of work work into the refdesk guidelines. I suggest that you either do the additional work to make your local "no more status than an essay" page follow Wikipedia's real guidelines or that you do the additional work to get the real guidelines changed to agree with your "no more status than an essay" page.

Also, and I can't emphasize this strongly enough, don't do crystal meth. It really is bad for your health. See Methamphetamine#Adverse effects. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

All i see in the above are insults and WP:Gaming the system. fiveby(zero) 15:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not gaming the system. Pointing out that someone else is violating WP:TPOC and WP:LOCALCON is not gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, could you tone down the bold and all caps a bit. I'm sure there's no policy against it, but it makes your entire post look louder and more aggressive than necessary. It doesn't make it more readable for me, and one can be emphatic in one's choice of words rather than font style. Thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Will do. In a perfect world, all I would have to do is type WP:TPOC and the person reading the post would follow the link and discuss the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It happens every time someone asks any question even remotely related to human biology. It's like people either don't actually read the question and just default to MEDICAL ADVICE OH NO, or - far more likely - don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. I'd ignore them, and answer the question with and RS, like what happened here. To suggest good and interesting questions like these should be deleted is quite frankly astonishing and shows that people indeed don't know what they're talking about. It's the same as why most Wiki biological science articles are so terrible, because of the bizarre edict against "primary sources", IE, the actual research. Just means they're always several years out of date, as you can't use the actual sources you need. Means I don't waste my time writing any. Refdesk is at risk of turning out the same way, with polices written by people who don't have a clue stopping good work being done. Fgf10 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Alas, "just ignoring them" only works when they make "No medical advice" comments based upon, in the words of Arbcom, "Local policies that have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process and thus have no more status than an essay" Ignoring them doesn't work then the violate an actual guideline (WP:TPOC) by deleting other people's comments.

As a great example, look at this completely bogus removal: [2]

I mean look at it! On what planet is that medical advice? Free clue: a refdesk answer about someone's possessions cannot be "medical advice". Also note that it wasn't done as a revert so as to hide it from my notifications.

Not that it not being medical advice matters, because the is no guideline or policy against giving medical advice (did I mention that my medical advice is that you shouldn't do crystal meth?), but deleting things that are not medical advice just shows that some Wikipedia editors are just looking for any excuse to censor other editors by deleting their comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: Debates that follow the removal of an edit on the grounds of medical advice always seem to focus on whether or not such edits should be removed. Instead, such debates should focus on the dual questions of what is the risk of harm caused by the answer, and what risk is avoided by removing the answer.

There is nothing intrinsically unacceptable about medical advice; the thing that is unacceptable is that some answers on Wikipedia might present a risk of harm to one or more potential victims. Besides, there is no litmus test for medical advice; one person’s helpful information is another person’s medical advice.

I have looked at the original question about wounds, sunlight and scars, and at Guy Macon’s answer. I have asked myself about the risk of harm that might flow from the answer. I can find none. I have asked myself about the risk that might be avoided by removing the answer. I can find none. I have gone in search of the victim of this answer. I can find none. The worst thing that might flow from Guy’s answer is that one or more people might apply sunscreen to a healed wound. No victim there.

One of the principles that applies to our interactions with others at Wikipedia is that we rarely remove another User’s signed edit. If we do so, we must have a damn good reason for doing so and, more importantly we must be willing and able to objectively and comprehensively explain our actions. We must expect our removal to be challenged so we must be willing to spend as much time as necessary to give an account of our decision to remove. A few hundred words would seem to be the minimum to adequately explain why we removed someone else’s edit. Abductive has dismissed DMack’s challenge in thirteen words. In my view it suggests that Abductive, while willing to remove Guy Macon’s answer, is not willing to objectively and comprehensively explain why. Abductive’s response is unsatisfactory because he makes no attempt to identify the risk of harm that he saw in Guy’s answer; or to identify the benefit that might flow from removing the answer. He has made no attempt to identify the potential victim of Guy’s answer. Dolphin (t) 06:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I should have thought that my lack of response here would indicate that I don't intend to keep deleting people's signed edits based on what I thought was a pretty clear rule that there is to be no medical advice. Abductive (reasoning) 07:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a very clear rule that we don't offer medical advice so we must keep that in mind as we compose an answer to a question. There is no similarly clear rule about removing other User's answers. Remember, there is no litmus test for medical advice - one person's helpful information is another person's medical advice. If we see an answer that might be medical advice we need to move carefully and think clearly. If we go ahead and remove the answer we must be willing and able to give an account of our action, objectively and comprehensively. Dolphin (t) 07:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: "what I thought was a pretty clear rule that there is to be no medical advice" and "there is a very clear rule that we don't offer medical advice", NO SUCH RULE EXISTS. Seriously. A small group of Wikipedia editors decided to make up a new rule which they have never submitted to the community for approval. Please stop saying that an actual rule exits. It does not.

The actual rule is "no harmful posts". The actual Wikipedia policy tells us that Some medical advice ("don't risk eating rotten food. Throw it out and thoroughly clean anything it touched") is not harmful, is allowed, and is vastly preferable to "ask your doctor if eating rotten food is OK", while other medical advice ("go ahead and eat rotten food") is harmful and is not allowed. The difference is that telling someone not to eat rotten food is not a harmful post as defined at WP:TPOC, but telling someone that it is OK to eat rotten food is a harmful post.

Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has ruled that "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. "

Those who wish to enforce made-up rules should either either do the additional work to make their local "no more status than an essay" page follow Wikipedia's real guidelines or do the additional work to get the real guidelines changed to agree with their "no more status than an essay" page.

Also, and I can't emphasize this strongly enough, My medical, legal, and professional advice is "don't do crystal meth. It really is bad for your health." See Methamphetamine#Adverse effects. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: you have emphasized that global is used even if local contradicts it but that local is used when thre is no global, and the policy>guideline>essay hierarchy. I don't see where you have stated with link what the relevant global guideline is that overrules the RefDesk local guideline about medical advice. Do we have a guideline that says something like "it's okay to give advice, even medical advice as long as it likely to be considered harmful"? DMacks (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that "global is used even if local contradicts it but that local is used when there is no global" is incorrect. The actual policy is "on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account." There is a global consensus that certain specific things are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia and that anybody wishing to add to that list, whether they want to forbid Depictions of Muhammad, Xenu, calling pseudoscience pseudoscience, or giving medical advice, must first go through the standard procedure for suggesting changes to Wikipedia policies.

You appear to be taking the position that unless Wikipedia's policies and guidelines explicitly allow something a handful of editors can forbid it. New rule: taking such a position is now forbidden, so please stop doing that. (If other people can make up rules and act as if they are actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines, why can't I?) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not there is the following advice: However, general medical and legal questions ("What is sleep apnea?", "What is the role of the U.S. President in making laws?") are fine.

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Why? there is the following advice: The purpose is to avoid doing harm to readers by advising them on medical issues—either because the advice is dangerous or because it discourages them from seeing a medical professional. Dolphin (t) 13:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to a non-policy that Wikipedia's real policies say has "no more status than an essay". Your point being? The part about avoid doing harm to readers is also found in an actual policy (WP:TPOC), but of course not all medical advice is harmful and discouraging someone from seeing a medical professional isn't always harmful either. Example: Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. That's a total waste of time. Your doctor will tell you that crystal meth will screw up your health. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI for violating your made-up rule. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: My point is that DMacks asked Do we have a guideline that says something like "it's okay to give advice, even medical advice as long as it [is not?] likely to be considered harmful"? I think he is sceptical that such a guideline exists. I provided two quotations that respond to his question, and I provided links to the source pages. Dolphin (t) 01:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

...except that the pages you quoted are not policies or guidelines. They are simply advice that we are free to ignore. This has been explained to you several times. What part of "no more status than an essay" are you having trouble understanding?

Also, I couldn't help noticing that you used the letter "e" several times in the above post. That isn't allowed. See No Es allowed! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:DMacks asked for certain information. I supplied that information. It is a matter between him and me. There is no dispute between you and me, and I am puzzled as to why you have joined. Dolphin (t) 07:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want to have a private conversation with DMacks, here is the link.[3] If someone asks for a guideline and you post a public reply that quotes a non-guideline, you shouldn't be surprised when somebody calls you on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls it a guideline (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice); tens of thousands of Users call it a guideline; you don't. That's OK but why direct your views at me? Where can I go to read your carefully reasoned, objective, constructive argument in favour of deleting or re-naming this "guideline"? Have you persuaded any other User to join you? Dolphin (t) 13:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls User:Guy Macon/Guidelines/No Es allowed! a guideline; tens of thousands of Users (I have the same amount of evidence backing up this claim as you do) call it a guideline; you don't. Where can I go to read your carefully reasoned, objective, constructive argument in favour of deleting or re-naming the "No Es allowed!" guideline? Have you persuaded any other User to join you?

It just so happens that we already have a policy on Wikipedia that tells us what is and what is not a guideline. You can read it at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (shortcut: WP:RULES). We even have a list of them at Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines (shortcut: WP:PGLIST). And we have a policy and guideline proposal process (shortcut: WP:PROPOSAL) which explains exactly how to turn your made-up rule into an actual rule.

You may find WP:IDHT to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

So we need to look at this closer. Let not talk about the wrong behavior but rather what is wrong with said page. See this is being talked about on the chat line ....let not metion blocks but rather content involved. So called gaming the system may be unintentional and based in good faith understanding of our policies--Moxy 🍁 03:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Company page Sadas

Hello, I would like to create a company page for Sadas, Italian multinational computer technology company. I created a trial page in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox and I kindly ask some feedback before the publications in order to respect Wikipedia best practices. Thank you for collaboration -- Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Giuseppe. I'm sorry to have to ask you to repost, but alas this is not the right place for your question. Could you please go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and put your question there. The friendly volunteers there are more experienced with the inner workings of Wikipedia and will be able to help you with the next steps. All best, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank 70.67.193.176 (talk) you for your advice Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Homework policy

There are now many sites on the internet where students can get help without any requirement to show any effort, e.g. here: "Here you can ask reddit to do your homework assignments. There's no need to show effort or attempt to learn anything."

It's therefore better if we got rid of our policy because students will go to these other sites if we don't help them, so there is no gain by not providing the students help if they don't show effort. But by providing help in comprehensive way the student is likely going to learn more than if only answers are posted without much explanation. So, we then do make a difference by providing help to lazy students. Count Iblis (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Count Iblis makes a very good point. How about replacing the advice (not an actual Wikipedia policy) to not answer homework questions with some carefully worded advice that basically says to help them in such a way that you are helping them to learn rather than handing them the answer on a silver platter? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of evidence that homework doesn't affect outcomes, so why should Wikipedians worry about whether a kid might be taking a shortcut and asking for help here? Either they are shortchanging themselves, or they are learning the answer by reading. Maybe they'll remember it better if they learn it here? Abductive (reasoning) 07:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was an encyclopedia. We're not here to help with homework. If this is something you want to volunteer to do, get your own website. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

An RFC was held to close down the ref desk some time ago, but there was not enough support for that. So, while Wikipdia is an encyclopedia, it is not bound to restrict its activities to those that are directly related to self-maintenance. Count Iblis (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference?

I have seen several people claim that you cannot stop people from asking for advice but you can stop people from answering them. Have the reference desks changed in some way from "anybody can ask a question and anybody can answer a question?" Please explain the logic behind this claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Guideline status change

PLS see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#‎Marked as a guideline page.--Moxy 🍁 20:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It's like being North Korea in a World where all other countries have adopted capitalism (even communist countries like China and Cuba). The reality is that all over the internet you see people ask questions like this one, and they get answers to these questions. This happens on reputable sites and they do not get in legal trouble. They cannot be sued because of disclaimers that we have here too. Count Iblis (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Several people have asked the W?F legal team to please edit the disclaimers in such a way as to create a new policy that either forbids asking medical questions on forbids answering them. The W?F legal team has consistently refused to do that. If certain editors would stop trying to control other people and instead started tacking on links to the disclaimer, we would all be better off.

This is the kind of bullshit removal that the current fake guideline encourages:[4] On what planet is that "medical advice"? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that usually the people rushing to close things as requests for medical advise don't have the faintest clue about the subject, and close anything about human biology as medical advise. I hereby give notice I will be reverting such closures from now on. Fgf10 (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• The flaw with all of this is that it approaches the issue from the wrong direction. We can not control what questions are asked at the ref desks... what we CAN control is how we answer those questions. It isn’t wrong to ASK for medical or legal advice... what IS wrong is responding to such questions by GIVING advice. The focus of the policy needs to shift from controlling the questions to controlling the answers. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If a question asks for professional advice, but we are not allowed to give professional advice, then what value does the unanswered question serve? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Such questions can be answered by addressing the general issues rather than the very specific personal issues that a doctor would need to look into. Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Can you think of a good example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to jumpin at the rfc about this [[ Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#‎Does this page reflect community consensus. -Moxy 🍁 21:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • By giving answers by pointing to our own articles, as well as resources of official health agencies that doctors would ideally want their patients to read before they make an appointment. Suppose e.g. that someone complains about hemorrhoids, then our own article provides for a wealth of information that the patient can read and make whatever decisions he/she sees fit. The vast majority of doctors would prefer that their patients act in this way instead of making an appointment to check out something just because of fear, or by not reading publicly available information ignoring something that they should have gone to the doctor with. Count Iblis (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to address one issue that is confusing the discussions; the recurrent misunderstanding that the point of not giving medical advice on the RD is a legal issue. However, it is a matter of ethics: we want to avoid the real possibility of doing harm. That is clearly stated in the "Why?" section of the guidelines on medical advice.  --Lambiam 01:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but there is the rub. Do we need to eliminate all medical advice or (as is already policy) just harmful medical advice? For an example of non-harmful medical advice, see[5] For another, don't become a crystal meth addict.(general disclaimer) It will screw up your health.(medical disclaimer) You can waste your time asking your doctor whether becoming addicted to crystal meth is bad for you, but you will be wasting his time: his answer will be that it isn't.(risk disclaimer) Totally non-harmful medical advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If we want to guard the World's population against this sort of harm, then we should stop editing Wikipedia altogether (not just this Ref-Desk) and keep an eye on Trump's Twitter, correcting any medical misinformation there. Count Iblis (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If someone was to post the question whether we can recommend crystal meth addiction, I would conclude they are trolling. Have you read the guideline we are discussing here? Does the (easily referenced) response that crystal meth addiction is not a healthy lifestyle require a diagnosis, a prognosis, or a suggested treatment of the trolling questioner? No, it does not. Then the response does not constitute medical advice in the sense of the guideline and is appropriate. If an overzealous editor removes it, then they have, apparently, not read and understood the guideline. IMO that also applies to the two response abductions that rubbed GM the wrong way.
Would a clerk at a library reference desk give medical advice to the users of the library, like take some painkillers and tomorrow you'll be fine? Of course not, that would be highly inappropriate. The best way, in my opinion, is to think of the Wikipedia Reference Desk as an extension of the navigational tools and content of the encyclopedia. If the answer can be found in the existing articles, we can direct the user there. If not, we try to provide the best encyclopedic answer we can, as if we are producing an extension to the encyclopedic content – and that answer should conform to our main policies of verifiability, neutrality of point of view, and the BLP policy.
I do not believe that there is a reasonable way of distinguishing between medical advice in the sense of the guideline that is harmless and advice that is potentially harmful. Just imagine the chaos if the guideline simply said: you can remove harmful advice. We cannot diagnose questioners based on the texts of their questions. Even a qualified and experienced doctor should not attempt that. Many serious conditions have symptoms that are almost indistinguishable from common harmless conditions, but doctors know what questions to ask and often have access to an anamnesis. They are not going to base their advice on what remedy worked so well for their Aunt Sally. We have no practicable way of evaluating the soundness of any advice offered by a random respondent and no recourse to a guideline for removing it if our judgement is that the advice is unsound.  --Lambiam 20:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Language ref desk

Could someone please sign my comment. I can't do it with the limited tool I'm using during Coronavirus isolation without messing up the phonetic symbols... The message of "209.198.128.88 19:53, 22 August 2020". Thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I added your ID. Let me know if I did it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Political Smear Campaigning

Encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from the neutral point of view (NPOV) and that is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Are vested interests in the coming US election reason to abandon NPOV and encourage use of reference desks for political smear speeches? If Yes then this provocative post by Lambiam brings an old crude American tradition to the reference desks. 84.209.119.241 (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have regarded user:Lambian as a sane, neutral and constructive regular editor. His or her contribution to the thread on the RD / Humanities I find totally unacceptable and it seems a quite depressing example of the demise of the respect which must be due to fellow humans, whatever their political views, their ethnicity, their religion or their sexual preferences. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

As Lambiam explains in his follow-up post, the post you are talking about is not Lambiam's personal point of view. --Viennese Waltz 17:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The relatively recent decline in folks' ability to handle (or even recognize) irony is certainly unfortunate. Deor (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Irony is a razor sharp and subtle blade, requiring skill and intelligence. What was used by Lambian was a sledgehammer for the brainless, gutless, spineless and testicless. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

An audience of gruesomely deformed people, then. In other words, the voting public. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• While Lambiam's opinion is easily discernible (at least, for anyone trying to actually read the sentence rather than make a keyword search to turn for a quick tribe affiliation check - "for more lack of detail" gives it away), and I think both sarcasm and political campaigning should be kept at a minimum, their answer includes what I assume are links to the campaign websites, thereby answering the question. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• It was, I say, it was a joke, son. Lambiam does like green eggs and spam. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As I tried to say diplomatically in the thread itself, irony and sarcasm are all very well between people from the same Anglophone subculture and with excellent English skills, but may easily be misconstrued by people from different Anglophone subcultures and/or those with a less than perfect command of English, which between them probably constitute a large majority of en.Wikipedia's readers.

I myself as a British, rather than American, user was greatly taken aback by Lambian's seeming tone, and was genuinely unsure if he was trying to be funny or was being actually partisan. How much more confused would someone have been for whom English is an imperfectly learned second, third, etc., language? Or for that matter, someone unaware that Lambian is a long-established Wikipedian and a frequent informative responder on these Desks.

I suggest that we should always answer on the Ref (and Help) Desks bearing in mind the full gamut of possible readers, and avoid mixing subtle (or "subtle") jokes with our factual answers. We all like a bit of humour, and I joke around in these fora as much as anybody, but let's at least keep such material in small-type posts separate from the serious responses. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.158 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Posts that might do well in an SNL skit should be kept in small-type. It is then unnecessary to explain "I was only being funny" to those who did not understand at once. I have waited diplomastically until the provocative post of September 7th went to archive before I diplomatically adjusted both Lambian's skit post and subsequent comments to small-type. This is not intended to provoke and I trust that if anyone is offended by such alteration to their post, all are equally offended. 84.209.119.241 (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Satire should be left to the satirists.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Satire is too serious to be left to satirists. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 15:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal advice

Why is legal advice not allowed here, while any other form of advice except medical advice like e.g. financial advice, is allowed? Count Iblis (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

They're covering their backs. If someone were to do something based on legal advice they read on Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation could be held liable for that person's actions. The "no legal advice" rule is to prevent that from happening. As for why financial advice isn't also covered, your guess is as good as mine. --Viennese Waltz 08:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Financial advice isn't allowed, or at least shouldn't be. The reference desk used to explicitly prohibit "professional advice" of any sort, under which financial advice would fall under - anything that would require the help of a specifically contracted professional such as an accountant or tax preparer.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WaltCip, this is not the "tell people what they should do" desk. We don't give advice. This is the "reference" desk. We direct people to sources of information. --Jayron32 12:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

But, as I never tire of pointing out, it's a simple matter to circumvent the rules of the desk by depersonalizing your query. For example, "I have $50,000 to invest. Where would be the best place to invest it, if I am willing to take high risk in the hope of a high return?" would not be an acceptable question. But "What do financial experts recommend as the best place to invest $50,000, if the investor is willing to take high risk in the hope of a high return?" is an acceptable question. --Viennese Waltz 15:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not acceptable, in the same way asking for legal info in that roundabout manner is not acceptable.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No, depersonalizing a request for advice is not allowed either. --Jayron32 16:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that I find those last two answers quite unbelievable. How on earth are you supposed to know what a poster's intentions are? If an anonymous IP posted my second example question, would you strike it out as unacceptable, even though it is not prima facie asking for financial advice? --Viennese Waltz 19:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that I find the idea that depersonalizing a query is somehow a way around the policy. Seems like a case of sophistry. As there is no such thing as a single investment strategy which can guarantee success the question calls for debate which is also against the ref desk guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The question calls for references and information on what financial experts are saying are good investments. As for "a case of sophistry", how would you know if it was a question posted by an anonymous IP? --Viennese Waltz 20:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your post about "depersonalizing questions" is sophistry not anything written by an IP. On any given day you will find as many different strategies as the are "financial experts" so volunteer editors here have no business pointing a reader to any of them. MarnetteD|Talk 20:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I know my post is sophistry, that's kind of my point. But if an anonymous IP posted the same question, how would you know it was sophistry? --Viennese Waltz 20:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We need to be talking about what actually is the case, not some weird variation thereof.

• The only thing that OPs are directed NOT to do is post personal information.
• We don’t tell them not to ask questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice; all we say is that we don't answer such questions, and may remove them. That means that such questions are guaranteed to go nowhere (assuming we uphold our end of the bargain, which hasn't always been the case), but they are NOT prohibited from asking them in the way that they ARE prohibited from posting personal info.
• Same with requests for opinions, predictions or debate. They're not prevented from asking, but we are self-prevented from answering.
• Same with homework questions.

If we simply don't answer certain kinds of questions, there's really no point in still allowing OPs to ask them.

Maybe we can think about making the rules more clear cut. Let us instead say:

• DO NOT ask questions that require professional advice, e.g. medical diagnosis or treatment; or legal advice
• DO NOT make requests for opinions, predictions or debate
• DO NOT ask us to do your homework for you. We will help you past the stuck point.
• DO NOT ask us to conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas. We will help YOU find information you need.
• Any questions that breach these rules will be removed.

Over. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NOT medical advice

As I have stated I would do before, I have unhatted a simple factual question that was incorrectly shut down as a request for medical advice when it clearly wasn't. It did not contain any request for diagnosis. Stop doing this. Fgf10 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Fgf10. I support your action. We see too many examples of question and answer threads being hidden or removed from the Reference desks inappropriately. We have an excellent set of guidelines related to the Reference desks - see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. On the matter of removing question and answer threads related to medical and legal questions, there is even a Section directly addressing the subject - see Wikipedia:Reference desk#When removing or redacting a posting. A couple of pieces of advice are particularly relevant when a User is contemplating removing a question:

• But please use common sense — not all questions involving medical or legal topics are seeking advice.

• When you remove a posting, it is recommended to note this on the Reference desk talk page. Include a diff of your edit.

There is also extra guidance information directly aimed at requests for medical advice – see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice. In particular, see Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. This contains a couple of pieces of advice that are particularly relevant when a User is contemplating removing a question and its answers:

• Furthermore, as a courtesy, it may be appropriate to inform the person on their talk page why their response was removed.

• Although removal of questions is discouraged, if this is done, please follow the procedure below.

• Also, note the removal of the question by posting the diff on the talk page of the Reference desk.

I have seen a number of examples of experienced Users surreptitiously removing and hiding question and answer threads. I don't recall ever seeing one of these experienced Users subsequently posting their diff or a brief explanation on the Ref desk Talk page, as recommended in the Guidelines. Dolphin (t) 11:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I queried this with the editor who hatted the thread, Elizium23, on their talk page. Although they have edited since, they have not so far done me the courtesy of a reply. --Viennese Waltz 12:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Food and Drink

Food and drink should be categorized under one of the desk categories. Stuff like food history and dietary. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 14:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why? Matt Deres (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Science Desk "Water" question

I have just, assuming good faith, attempted to answer yet another question about interpreting (straightforward, for any English reader) food/drink advice from an IP. We've had a steady stream of these in the last few weeks, which may or may not be from the same user (I lack the Wiki-fu, and will, to check).

Firstly, if anyone thinks I've strayed too far towards giving medical advice (which is difficult not to do given the nature of queries), feel free to delete my post – I will have no objection.

Second: despite AGF, I'm beginning to think these questions might be a trolling campaign. I leave it to others to decide what, if anything, to do about it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe it is trolling, but it is definitely the same user. I'm not sure whether the user is not proficient in English, or has developmental issues that prevent them from understanding sentences that express loose recommendations (i.e. giving a range or a rough guideline), but this same person has been asking questions exactly like this for quite some time. It is best to just be friendly and to the point, address their misconceptions, and move on. --Jayron32 18:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Jayron32; your interpretation is also the one I favoured, and I tried to respond accordingly. In view of subsequent logical nitpickings by others over what was an attempt to deal with such a querant in the safest (for them) way possible, I'm going to hold back from further involvement. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Is my question suitable for the Reference Desk?

Recently, a very important, and in some ways personal, question came into my mind as I was browsing the internet. I am trying to figure out if it would be suitable for the Reference Desk. The reason why I ask this is because of two main reasons.

The first reason is that to fully understand the question, I have to tell you about a sequence of events that began three years ago. This will require a very long explanation. I am a little worried that I might be flooding the Reference Desk with far too much information. Are my concerns here legitimate?

The second reason is to do with the personal aspects of this question. To answer this question will require a slight probing of my mind. I believe that the question will involve a little bit of psychology, though I am unsure of this. What I do know is that the purpose of the question is to deal with an obsession I have had for a while, so I feel that I am dangerously close to asking for medical advice. All I want to do here is to determine the best course of action to pursue the contents of my obsession and to keep calm and sane during the rather lengthy time it will take to complete pursuing my obsession.

I hope I can ask my question on the Reference Desk, though I will not be bothered if I cannot. I hope to have some answers soon. 95.148.142.31 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We can answer requests for facts. If you want to know something that can be looked up then ask away. We've got some very good searchers here who are adept at figuring out the correct key words to plug into a search engine and get an answer for you. We've also got folks who have a lot of random knowledge rattling around in their heads that can help answer even very obscure questions. We can sometimes answer the trivialest trivia. From your description it sounds more like you want therapy, though, which we're not here for. Matt Deres (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok then, I may not have worded this very well. I was looking for some information that would help me with the subject of my obsession. I will reword the question to avoid asking for therapy. My obsession basically revolves around something that isn’t available in my country, but I want it to appear in my country as soon as possible. So, I was looking for ways in which I could get this thing I really want into my country. I hope that this new info clarifies my question. 95.148.142.16 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC) (Formerly known as 95.148.142.31)

Can you give us a hint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe that I am trying to coerce a certain ice cream store into opening in my country. If you need any more info, please let me now. 95.148.142.113 (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC) (Formerly known as 95.148.142.31)

That sounds like a G-rated "obsession". So your question might be, "How can I persuade a company to open a franchise near where I live?" (That apparently being Scotland.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. I can confirm that that is what I was thinking. So, is that a suitable question? Also, did you actually think that my “obsession” was vulgar in any way? 95.148.142.113 (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC) (Formerly known as 95.148.142.31)

Only because of your initial secretiveness about it. Have you contacted the ice cream company in question, to see if they have any plans for branching out to your area? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have contacted them. This issue is complicated and requires the full explanation. I will post this as soon as I have prepared it. Do remember, this whole interest began three years ago. I have heard from them that they are open to the idea of branching out, but it takes bloody ages you see. Obviously this year’s difficulties have caused delays, but even then, it is a very slow process. I will, of course, explain all in the full explanation. 95.148.142.113 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC) (Formerly known as 95.148.142.31)

You can try. The worst that will happen is the question will be rejected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will. I personally don’t expect that it will be rejected, because I plan to strip it of any references to the inner workings of my mind, so will have to slightly alter my original plans. 95.148.142.113 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC) (Formerly known as 95.148.142.31)

That would be good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That calls for a subjective judgement, and what any one person thinks is neither here nor there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what that means. I will probably end up asking anyway, just for suggestions. I am well aware of the obvious differences in opinion. Give me a day or two to get the question format right, and I’ll ask it soon. Do be prepared though, it is very long. 95.148.142.113 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC) (Formerly known as 95.148.142.31)

That was in response to your query about whether your obsession is vulgar. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to note calling for subjective answers is the same as calling for debate which the ref desks don't do. Also see WP:TLDR. I would suggest that you search the web for other sites to ask your question. MarnetteD|Talk 03:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If the question is merely about a company, it should be relatively easy to find. If it's about the OP's obsession, that sounds like a medical issue, which we don't do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to strip the question of any references to my mind. It will therefore be exclusively about the company. 95.148.142.113 (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC) (Formerly known as 95.148.142.31)

Question now posted. Also, I’ll stop doing the “Formerly known as” bit after my signature from now on. 95.148.142.113 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarity on the extent of our role

There's been a difference of opinion between two respondents on the Entertainment Desk, as to the extent of our role. One view is that OPs should Google or search elsewhere first, before coming to us; the opposing view is that the searching is our role entirely.

I'm quite sure that our instructions at one time exhorted our users to make an effort using Google or whatever other search capacities they might have to find an answer to their question, and only come to us when they came up short. That seems to have gone. I don't remember whatever discussion we had about that, but I'm left wondering why it changed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The boilerplate still reads "Before asking a question, please try the search boxes at right to search Wikipedia as a whole or the reference desk archives.", though that's only on our front page, not at the top of all the pages. AFAIK, that's basically the same suggestion we've always had. I don't see the point in chastising User:Jayron32 for his reply in this instance; if User:Viennese Waltz thought it was incomplete, then the correct thing to do is to add to it. Unless a response is factually incorrect or hostile or whatever, I don't see the point in getting upset about any of them. All of Wikipedia is incomplete; just add and move on. As far as suggesting/requiring that OP's search online first, I try not to make assumptions. Not everyone knows we have an article on everything, not everyone knows how to identify a reliable source from the chaff, etc. etc. If I find the answer via a search I try to just indicate what I searched for and leave it at that. At least, that's my intention; I'm sure I've been less than patient sometimes. Matt Deres (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the person in question's main purpose at Wikipedia is to chastise others. It's not really my deal, so I don't really pay any attention to it. When they say something useful, I'll take it on board. --Jayron32 11:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To me this seems sort of like "At the symphony, should you close your eyes and focus on the music, or should you listen with your eyes open, to also appreciate the visual aspects of the musicians' playing style, and the opulence of the hall?"

In other words, it's a question with absolutely no one "right answer".

On the one hand, yes, these days any educated and computer-literate person ought to know how to do an online search, ought to be able to find basic answers to easily-searchable questions. Asking them instead on a Q&A forum can seem lazy, or like asking the volunteer responders to be google-wallahs.

But on the other hand, there is no bright line between "easily-googlable question" and "stumper that's worthy of assistance". If everyone exhaustively researched their questions before asking, there'd be few if any questions left to ask. Some people are much better at searching than others, so for a complicated question, it's a reasonable thing to ask for help with. Finally, if you're on step #17 of a frustrating yak-shaving exercise, sometimes you really want to be spoon-fed an easy answer, so you can get back to your real problem -- I know I do.

It bugs me when a site -- any site -- says "We're here to help! Go ahead and ask!", but then scolds first-timers incessantly for asking wrong, or for not jumping through all the right hoops first. So while I'm not sure what our guidelines do or did say, personally I'd rather they didn't say "thou shalt search first" -- although a suggestion is fine. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There's room for a lot of types of contributions here, and so long as a person's answer provides some sort of reference in the form of further reading of some sort, such as a Wikipedia article or an external reference, I think there's a wide set of responses people here can give that are likely to be helpful. The only kind of responses we should limit or eliminate (and I'm guilt of this too, lest ye think I am not aware of my abject hypocrisy. Don't worry. Self-awareness is something I've got in spades. But anyhoo) is answers where a person responds solely from memory or simply tells the questioner (what the respondent thinks is) the "right answer". We should strive to always and at a minimum back up any answer with a reference (either internal or external to Wikipedia) where the OP can find more information and/or research on their own to either verify or explore further the respondent's answer. While a reference with an explanation is best, a bare link is preferable to an unreferenced answer every day, since a bare link at least provides an avenue for the OP to research and get unstuck, whereas an unreferenced answer leads nowhere except to show how much smarter the respondent thinks themself. We are after all the reference desk, not the "prove how smart I am" desk, and the reference should be the bare minimum. --Jayron32 17:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Modest proposal

Inspired by Baseball Bugs' comment here that "you don't get to own the section". Maybe OPs should be allowed to own the section they created with their questions. What if OPs – and only OPs – were allowed to delete (but not to edit) other people's answers to their questions, if they considered the answer to be unhelpful? I for one would certainly be in favour of such a move. --Viennese Waltz 08:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Kind of like treating each section as an extension of the OP's user talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking of it in that way. It's still a reference desk, not a user talk page. I'm just saying that if I ask a question on the ref desk, I think I should be able to decide which are the useful responses and which are not. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Can't you do that by just reading the responses and choosing the one(s) you like and ignoring the rest? I'd be rather disinclined to get involved in answering any question if I believed there was a good chance my answer(s) were going to be removed at the whim of an OP. Or anyone, for that matter. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Then it would give you an incentive to make sure your response was a good one. If it's a good one and the OP deletes it anyway, that's the OP's call. --Viennese Waltz 11:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It would also take away incentive for busybodies to delete other editors' entries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A good answer, and an answer an editor likes, are not necessarily the same thing. I'm sorry, but I see dangers in this proposal. It goes against the whole spirit - and practice - of Wikipedia talk page protocol. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree. On several occasions I have answered a question with accuracy, with extensive links to articles, and links to new sources, but the religious and/political bias of the OP has meant they found themselves unhappy with my answer. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So couldn't we introduce a system of upvoting and downvoting answers, such as exists on StackExchange, I believe? 194.53.186.184 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In theory, that could be a good idea. Like, the idea itself is fine and I'd support exploring it, but the desks are drying up here. We're largely here to satisfy the curiousity of two or three people who post a lot of questions. I'm not saying they've done anything wrong, BTW, without them there'd be nothing here at all, but it seems silly to invest resources in an area of WP that's used by less than 100 people total. Matt Deres (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Time for a topic ban?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Jayron32 and Future Perfect at Sunrise:

• User talk:Futurist110#Your refdesk questions
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2021 March 15#Could transferring fetuses to artificial wombs genuinely be a replacement for the abortion pill?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#If a doctor does a perineal surgery/incision on a man by hand, just how easy would it be for them to subsequently access this man's prostate?

Is the disruption sufficient that going to ANI and seeking a topic ban is justified, or will such an effort be quickly shot down in flames? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about a topic ban for Futurist110, that could make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban for Futurist110. All medical topics? A reproductive topics? They have a tendency to wikilawyer and claim that whatever they are talking about at the moment is allowed, so it would have to be worded carefully. Someone at ANI is sure to say that the questions are fine and we should just ignore Futurist110, so I would like to see a rough consensus here before going further. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

For years he's been asking questions about his own reproductive health, but his circumlocution has gotten more advanced to give himself plausible deniability, I suppose, but they all relate to male-birth-control-related surgeries of some type. --Jayron32 18:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So, ANI or ignore? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Has Futurist been notified of this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's make sure. @Futurist110: --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention on participating in any such ban discussion. --Jayron32 17:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I am going to ignore it. Unwatching this page now. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring is bliss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

They've now been indef'd for "grossly inappropriate behavior on the Refdesk". Unfortunately, I missed it and it's now been removed. What happened exactly? --Viennese Waltz 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI about Answermeplease11

It turns out that now-blocked Answermeplease11 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Iceage 101 (talk · contribs). As was Nathan;dlsa (talk · contribs). Just an FYI in case he turns up under yet another guise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Perennial Questioners who Ignore Answers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've noticed a problem on this desk, which is that we have a (small number) of users asking large numbers of questions from varied topics, and then ignoring the answers. There is one user in particular that this applies to, who I'll name if others feel I should (I don't want to make this a personal attack), who is very regularly asking questions that even a read of the first paragraph of relevant articles, sometimes even a glance at the first photo of an article, would answer. We then go out of our way to provide them with answers to their questions, and their responses show that they aren't reading the articles we are sending them to and likely aren't reading the answers we give them ourselves. They labor under the same misconceptions that we told them were wrong, and they show now amount of attempt at understanding our answers to their questions. For one user in particular, this behavior has gone on for several months now, and it is tiresome. Is there anything we can do about this? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It reminds me of this:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If I were the guy in the blue shirt I wouldn't be discussing things with Wally. Likewise, there are editors whose questions I ignore - I rarely read them and barely ever answer them. That way at least it's not tiresome to me. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The individual's latest Science desk query of 00:12, 12 May 2021 has exceeded the limits of my own assumption of good faith, and I certainly won't respond to any further posts from them. I leave it to others in better standing and experience in these matters to apply, if they choose, any appropriate sanctions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we are well past the point of having some sort of sanctions. Where can I seek administrator intervention? Clearly, it isn't on this page. That's fine, maybe they don't monitor this talk page, but where can we go? This latest post is beyond a joke and troll of a question. The very introduction to the article they linked to answers their question very simply and succinctly. Enough is enough. We aren't dealing with a language barrier. We are dealing with a troll. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the admins who work within the ref desks could block that character. Failing that, you could take this to WP:ANI and see if you can get someone to look into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32:, what are your thoughts, as an administrator who is active on the science desk? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

As one of the more prudent admins in the corp, who tends to be slower to sanction than most, my honest opinion is this a "let it go" sort of situation. If there are questions that bother you, don't answer them. I agree that the OP in question seems reticent to listen when we correct their misconceptions, but the solution to that, if it bothers you, is to just not answer their questions. It really doesn't bother me that much, and I don't mind answering myself. I can see how it can be annoying, but as an educator myself, my tolerance for inanity is probably much higher than most. I don't see anything here that's really bannable. YMMV, and if you get an admin that's a lot quicker with the banhammer, you'll likely get a different answer. @Floquenbeam: may be another admin whose perspective is valuable here. Their mop philosophy may be different than mine.--Jayron32 18:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm an admin who frequents the ref desks, and I thoroughly concur with Jayron's response. "Bad" posters come and go on the desks and no one is forced to respond to anything; ignore whatever you find irritating. Deor (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged: I'm not a ref desk regular, but I have enough of them on my watchlist now that I think I might know one or two of the editors we're talking about (in particular User:Rizosome, the one that 2.125.* mentions above, who deserves to know we're talking about them and thinking of sanctioning them, so I will notify them of this discussion). It's an interesting question. My gut says "just ban them" because I personally find such constant goofing around on a public forum obnoxious. My head says "if you don't like it, don't read and don't answer". I don't think either one is fully correct. It's always hard to know where to draw the line between "dumb but good faith question" vs. "trolling" vs. "incessant dumb questions that might be good faith but are indistinguishable from trolling". But at the end of the day, intentional or unintentional trolling are both disruptive. It is almost always true that you can theoretically ignore trolling, but eventually it reaches a level where so many people are incapable of ignoring it that it legitimately becomes disruptive.

The general question of what to do with people like this is tricky. The particular question of what to do with this specific editor is easier, because they seem to go so far over any line you care to draw. I guess my thought is to tell them that there are two problems. First, a question like "Is Van de Graaff generator invented for funny hair stick out purposes" is just so dumb and obnoxious that, if they keep asking them, they will be prevented from asking them, via topic ban or block. Second, there needs to be a limit to the number of other questions they ask that can be answered by "read the first paragraph of the article you're asking about", because it's taking up too much good faith editors' time while they do not appear to be valuing the work, and making the ref desks look so amateurish that people with legitimate questions are tempted to look elsewhere. If they want to continue asking a few, less trollish, less blatantly obvious questions, they need to dial back the quantity, and improve the quality.--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that you don't often post here, but I pinged you because a) you're familiar enough with the history of the community and b) I know that you're an active admin with a different philosophy who's opinion I also value and trust, and for those reasons I thought the discussion needed different perspectives. Thanks for providing that perspective. I also note that Rizosome has commented below, and seems to be a bit more understanding of the annoyance and disruption they have caused, and I look forward to improvements in the future. --Jayron32 18:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Now I am staying on right track, I learnt my lesson. Rizosome (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I have admit to some skepticism, as this Van de Graaff generator question isn't the first example of this behavior (asking how STS-107 launched without rockets when the STS-107 article that they'd linked to literally had a picture of it launching with rockets comes to mind). In that very conversation, they were at least somewhat dishonest with their purpose for being on the reference desk in the first place, which I outlined in a response in that discussion. But, I'm certainly willing to give people second chances (and it isn't my call anyways, but if it was, I'm ok with second chances). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if he starts answering questions now that he's "on right track". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that answering questions on the ref desk was a prerequisite for being an editor in good standing. --Viennese Waltz 07:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In general, it's not. Try reading some of Rizo's work and maybe you'll see why OuroborosCobra has gotten frustrated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Rizo's work, in fact I was one of the first people to call out their behaviour on the ref desk. I'm just saying that they don't need to start answering questions to be "on the right track". Not asking so many questions about the meaning of lines of dialogue in movies would be a better start, imho. --Viennese Waltz 11:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Such as lines from Harry Potter, for example? Though if you're talking about the user who perpetually asks about plot elements that aren't evident in a film or TV show, he was banned long ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Rizo was the one who asked a string of questions on lines from Mank. I got a bit frustrated as well, tbh. --Viennese Waltz 12:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: I don't see any problem in Rocket question. I am clearly pointing out my issue on infobox. Rizosome (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC) @OuroborosCobra: I got warnings for what not because of spamming. It's because of posting questions without research i.e homework dumps. So ultimatly I find my solution on how do I ask question here. Rizosome (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You asked how STS-107 was launched without rockets when the page on it has pictures of it being launched... with rockets. That's the problem with your question; you asked something incredibly basic (to the point of being inane) that could be answered by a glance at the article you had linked to in your question. You didn't even need to read the article, just look at the pretty pictures, one of which was STS-107 launching with rockets. I have to say, your response here really seems to show that you have not learned what are the issues with your behavior on these reference desks. If you'd meant an issue with the infobox, you would have made a suggestion about changing the infobox, and not asked "how did it launch without rockets." You didn't. You asked how it launched without rockets, and didn't make a suggestion about the infobox. When asked why you were asking these questions, you didn't answer "I want to suggest improvements be made to the infoboxes to be clearer for readers," you answered that you "are just curious how rockets work." If you were trying to make some point about infoboxes, then I suggest you read WP:POINT, as intentionally wasting people's times to mimic what you think someone illiterate taking a look at the article might accidentally think is definitely a policy violation. If you have issues with the infobox, directly make a conversation about the infoboxes, and do so in the right place, which isn't the reference desk. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: Is my question on Harry Potter is also a incredibly basic? Rizosome (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Pending a reply from OuroborosCobra should he wish to make one, I would observe that driving within the speed limit on Friday doesn't excuse someone from paying the fines for having previously broken it on Monday and Wednesday.

Or to put it more abstractly, trying to excuse bad behaviour on occasions a, b and c by saying one didn't do it on occasion d is a classic trolling tactic that everyone here has been familiar with for decades.

You may not mean to be trolling or sealioning, but you are behaving like someone who does. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Behavior indistinguishable from trolling" is exactly as disruptive as trolling and merits an equal response. DMacks (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite honestly, yes, your question about a line from Harry Potter is also pretty basic. You asked what a very common English language idiom, "pathetic excuse," meant. Literally typing "pathetic excuse" into Google would get your answer in the first search result. Now, I'm a bit more understanding, in general, when the issue is one of language barrier, but I'm not convinced that you really have a language barrier issue. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As an example of asking a question that the most cursory skim of the article would answer, Rizosome asked why AEW Winter Is Coming is not on List of All Elite Wrestling pay-per-view events, despite linking to Winter Is Coming twice, he seemed to have not read the intro to that article where it is described as having been "broadcast on TNT as a special of AEW's weekly television program, Dynamite." --Khajidha (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC) (Obviously not directly relevant as it wasn't on the ref desk, but illustrative of Rizosome's pattern of questioning)

The latest is asking why there's no math associated with Grandfather paradox. Again, not understanding (or pretending not to understand) what the concept is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I believe mathematical formulation exist, you can see @Count Iblis: edit here. Rizosome (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Right. For further information, see Rube Goldberg machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:I don't see anything related to grandfather paradox in Rube Goldberg machine. Rizosome (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"I didn't know Abraham Lincoln was Jewish!" - Edith Bunker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YahooAnswers shut down and StackOverflow sold; start a Q&A sistersite WikiAsk?

Yahoo!Answers was shut down without even an archival. All the work by millions of people vanished just like that. Last week, StackOverflow was sold to a private company "Prosus" for $1.8 billion.[7][8] Just-for-profit websites have been repeatedly shutting down themselves without caring about people. There is a void for reliable Q&A website that respects people and uses a public license for content. Sites with wiki ethics are the best for any crowdsourced content. A new site called WikiAsk has been proposed as a wikimedia sister project for Q&A, it would be of very helpful if you share your expertise there for the proposal: meta:WikiAsk_(recreated). - Vis M (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? You've posted this proposal on the talk page for the Wikipedia reference desk, which is already the best place on the internet for reliable answers to questions. What function does your proposal serve that is not already served by this reference desk? --Viennese Waltz 06:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The good-faith reading is that the poster wants input about the proposal and therefore notified people who might be interested in participating in such a sister site if it were to be created. The bad-faith reading is that they expect people watching WT:RD are more likely to support such a proposal. (Even without the bad-faith reading, the non-neutral notice is already a violation of WP:CANVASS.) Also: the Wikipedia reference desk, which is already the best place on the internet for reliable answers to questions - Poe's law strikes again, methinks. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

But my point is that this proposal should not be being made at all. Thanks for the note on Poe's law, by the way, which I had never heard of before. For the avoidance of doubt, there was no sarcasm intended in my post. --Viennese Waltz 08:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe an application of Poe's Law is how hoaxes like Q-anon get started. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted the reference desk members to be informed about Y!A's shutdown without archival , and hopefully turn the already the best place on the internet for reliable answers in to a full-fledged Q&A wiki.😇 - Vis M (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The growth WP:RD is constrained by the "Wikipedia is not a Q&A" rule. StackExchange receives 5000 questions per day. With StackOverflow sold, people are looking for a Q&A site with FOSS ethics. - Vis M (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

What rule is that? We don't answer questions requiring medical or legal advice, and we don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. Those are the only restrictions I'm aware of, and they would of course be maintained in any so-called "WikiAsk" site. So I'm still confused as to what this new site would do that the current reference desk doesn't already do. --Viennese Waltz 12:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

A dedicated Q&A wiki will facilitate findability (Note RD is inside WP namespace), ease of use, newbie friendly, etc. (I mentioned "WikiAsk" just because it is the active proposal for a Q&A wiki at meta. I just need a Q&A dedicated wiki :) - Vis M (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You could maybe create on of your own under the Wikia umbrella. But what is it you want that the Ref Desk does not at least try to provide? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy issue on Misc Desk

This is to alert everyone that I've just felt impelled to apologise to a querent on the Misc desk and to chide Baseball Bugs for (what I perceive as) Bugs' discourtesy to the querant.

I fully expect a backlash from Bugs over this, and as a 'no-Account' editor of consequent little standing I'm not going to respond to it, or take further part in this discussion (if any) unless asked. I'm sure that we're all aware of the relevant background.

I invite third parties to assess the situation, to edit my response if they judge this appropriate, and to issue whatever ukases they see fit. I may have spoken inappropriately, but I could not bear to let the matter go unassuaged and unchallenged. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.31 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. For some reason BB seemed to think it was important to take the poster at his/her word and assume that they wanted to know the answer in meters only. This was clearly incorrect and unhelpful. --Viennese Waltz 20:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It clearly ignored this urgent request from the guidelines: "Please don't start adding jokes just for the sake of it, and don't let humor get in the way of providing a useful answer. If you must make jokes, please wait until after references have been provided. [...] In particular, don't poke fun at a poorly written question." Unfortunately, BB appears to have an urge to belittle or berate the querents, often by asking them a direct question implying they should have done more work before posting to the RD.  --Lambiam 23:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Another decidedly unhelpful BB response here, by the way. If you can't answer the question as asked, preferably with references, then it's best not to say anything at all. --Viennese Waltz 17:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk/Science#Sertraline and grapefruit juice

When did we start dispensing medical advice? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you indicate which response constitutes medical advice? All I see is people saying "speak to your doctor" and directing people to relevant Wikipedia articles. Can you quote the problematic words that have been written? --Jayron32 13:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "speak to your doctor" is also medical advice :).  --Lambiam 14:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

No. Advising someone to speak to a professional. is not professional advice. Advising someone not to speak to a professional, that is self-styled professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Saya tidak bisa melakukan pemblokiran kepada akun yang melakukan vandalisme

Bagaimana cara memblokir akun yang melakukan vandalisme di Wikipedia Kalashnikov5427 (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kalashnikov5427, see Help:Simple guide to vandalism cleanup. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Indonesian: "I can't block the account that did the vandalism​." "How to block a vandalizing account on Wikipedia." Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the Table of Contents?

It seems to be missing from most of the desks? I could force it, I guess, but it's not clear to me why it's not showing. Humanities has two dozen questions on it, so it should automatically get the TOC, right? Matt Deres (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I was seeing the same thing; but when I did a null edit on the page, the TOC reappeared. Probably some reversion to a template edit or some other change that hasn't propagated everywhere yet. Deor (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Weird. MW has some odd behaviours. Matt Deres (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Missing TOC? (permalink). It was bug (caused by trying to fix another bug) which should be fixed now. the wub "?!" 21:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The "rescue request"

Is there any reason why this giant dump of content on the Science refdesk was not reverted on-sight? If you ignore all the initial copy-paste, it seems to be some sort of question about cryonics, but which one is hard to tell.

I would have removed it myself but apparently Tamfang saw fit to let it stand, so maybe it’s just me... Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Was coming here to ask the same thing. In theory there's nothing inherently wrong with someone organizing or presenting their thoughts outside of WP and asking related questions of us, but in practice it seems to always be perpetual motion machines, half-baked fringe theories, and the like. There's often a kind of non-standard English used as well, as if built to hide the quackery. Matt Deres (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 8 § Computing reference desk

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 8 § Computing reference desk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

When and how was the Kachwaha dynasty established?

(Query moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities by Deor (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC))

Discretionary sanctions

I am unsure if this is the proper reference desk for this inquiry but I would like to know how long discretionary sanctions last? I have been sanction in US politics post 1992 and am unsure what that means. I do realize that I have vandalized certain articles namely the Critical Race Theory Article and I intend to make right on my errors by going through the proper channels to seek guidance before editing controversial articles. Thank you for your help.Godspeed18 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You are not subject to any sanctions, you were just notified that they exist. Your short block has expired, and now you know that any future disruption will likely lead to a ban; provided you don't cause any more disruption in those topic areas, all will be well. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How did this end up at the Ref Desk talk page? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that new editors find our range of different help pages somewhat confusing. Ref desk is a new one for me, but still thought it more useful just to answer the question than to send them to the WP:TeaHouse, which would likely have been a better venue. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no basis to question the good faith of Godspeed18 but Godspeed18's edits to the Critical Race Theory article in August 2021 and January 2022 have both been immediately reverted by different editors. The latest reversion of Godspeed18's edit was inevitable because it sought to reverse a characterization of a source (from "anti‑racism" to "racist"). That kind of edit should not have been attempted without first seeking a consensus at the correct venue for proposing change to the article which is Talk:Critical race theory. Godspeed18's claim alone that "My edit deserves the light of day I believe this is a matter of discussion." does not carry weight here and Godspeed18 needs now to take note of clear warnings received (as well as some offers of help) on their talk page. Philvoids (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

unsigned references

I like to add just plain references w/o comment to the end of a question, but this seems to confuse everyone and SineBot. Tried {{reflist-talk}} but that doesn't work very well. Would an HTML comment <!-- refs, don't sign --> work, or should i just sign everything? fiveby(zero) 18:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Help:Reference" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Help:Reference and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Help:Reference until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Deeds

Not here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello is it illegal to have the freehold and deeds together on one document Kastley3 (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC) In what jurisdiction? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC) This isn't the place for that question, and Wikipedia is not a good place to go for legal advice. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC) He's only posted twice in 11 years. Maybe he'll get back to us in 2033. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Incitement to danger?

Ordinarily I try to refrain from criticising other editors, being on thin ice as an accountless IP user, but I'm worried by some recent posts from Sagittarian Milky Way on the Miscellaneous Ref desk topic Walking on a Manhattan road.

This user appears not only to be describing their own past recklessly dangerous behaviour of dodging on foot through fast-moving traffic on a motorway, but to be close to advising others of ways to practice in order to get better at it.

Fairly obviously, doing this has a high risk of injury or death not only for the pedestrian, but for the drivers and other occupants of cars who might well crash either through hitting the pedestrian or through taking avoiding action. Speaking as a driver, the described behaviour terrifies me.

Could someone please look at this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.224.157 (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never actually cut it close enough to cause a high risk of injury, death, property damage or significant evasive car maneuvers and am not enough of a jerk to be willing to risk that but am open to deleting or adding more disclaimers (I at least know enough about driving to not cross if pavement isn't dry or if someone overreacting somewhat would cause a brake check (I don't know what brake-checking is called in other parts of the world)). When you watch traffic while waiting to cross your whole life and very gradually take less generous openings the brain can get skilled at motion extrapolation, at least in persons good at spatial things, the word reckless is almost the opposite of how calculated it is, I've retreated up to a significant distance to wait for the light before when I realized the amount of speed I'd built up so far might be insufficient to avoid making a car brake more than softly, reckless people wouldn't care (it's a bit like taking a run in the Ashes, you don't see them lose by run out very often do you?). Also 99.9% of the time it's been speed limits of 30 mph or less (48 km/hr), I've only crossed motorways by jaywalking about twice in my life. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way, you repeatedly refer to "motorways" in this and the Ref Desk discussion. I don't know what that word means in your culture, or to you personally, but for a great many people this is the descriptor of the sort of roads where (in my country for example) the official speed limit (routinely exceeded) is 70mph and ordinarily the minimum safe speed is about 60mph. They often have quite high traffic density, since they are designed as commuter and long-distance routes.

Whether or not you mean something different, this is what readers of your text are likely to envisage when you talk about dodging through motorway traffic on foot. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.123.164 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You are right, we don't really use that word in this part of the world but yes basically what you would call a motorway, I have clarified what refers to what. The highest speed limit in New York State is 65 mph in rural and outer suburb motorways and 55 mph in many or most suburbs, I don't remember which of those I've crossed and I've also crossed 70 or 60 mph depending if it was inner enough to get the inner suburb number. Speed limits are commonly exceeded by about the same mph range everywhere so that might actually add an insignificant margin of error, as it'd make the ratio of real speed to speed you're most used to less than the ratio of 55, 60, 65 or 70 divided by 30 (default NYC speed limit was 30 mph then and since before I started jaywalking, it's lower now). If you ever see someone adjusting their shoes or looking both ways on a two-way road that's your warning. Possible extreme jaywalker. A very advanced move, and the furthest I ever want to go is to tighten shoe velcro or shoelaces very tight far enough into the forest that no one can see, walk to the shoulder doing your best I might be about to be (illegally but no one cares much) picked up or go back to the woods or something that's not crossing impression (an Uber stopped for me on the shoulder once due to a GPS error, and I don't need anyone to know I'm watching for gaps) till there's a huge gap, then look the opposite direction real quick and if you can beat those cars too bolt while you're still turning your head back so can't see the cars you're crossing yet except by a mental continuation of their approach in your head. i.e. two of the cars on the other side of road will be past me by the time I get there, I can beat the other two even if they don't slow down and I can beat the two on my side too plus the near car won't run over my foot if I wait till I hear it's passing before going. If you can think all that without language, faster than your internal monologue can think it in English it's very intellectually stimulating. I forgot if I've ever done this at 55-70 mph, I think I've done it at 45 mph speed limit. Alternating which way to look multiple times and knowing which way should be the last look before bolting blind is also intentionally stimulating. Blind cause you can only look one direction at once. If there's a way to stop in the middle like a wide enough traffic island or a Jersey barrier in a wide enough shoulder then you don't even need to look both ways on a two-way road. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

By UK law motorways are not to be used by pedestrians [9]. Philvoids (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That's also true of the US equivalent, the interstate highway system. [10] --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

One offender even died recently by firing squad. —Tamfang (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How to search for speech

Moved to Humanities desk here. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

American Maps what reference would I consult to find the value of the commissioners map, a map issued in 1811?

Moved to Humanities reference desk.

Questions

Unfortunate that most questions are looking for technical help rather than seeking knowledge.--TZubiri (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Uploade File

Hi, I would like to upload a movie poster for this article 09 Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by هۆگر صڵاح (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, هۆگر صڵاح. This is the Talk page of the Reference desk, intended for discussing the running of the desk. I suggest you repeat your question at the Teahouse (a Help Desk for people inexperienced with editing Wikipedia). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.123.235 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

List of online resources

What are people's thoughts on creating a list of useful (if not necessarily reliable in the WP sense) online resources? For example, I think most people are aware of the IMDb, but fewer are probably aware of offshoot sites like those listed at the end of that article. And those are just the ones with articles. Until today, I had no idea that there was a site for watches worn by celebrities (in movies and not) at https://www.watch-id.com. I assume there are many others, of varying degrees of quality.
While it would not be hidden or anything, it would perhaps be more targeted towards answerers than questioners, in the sense that we would then know in advance of places to go for the first stage in helping craft an answer. For example, knowing in advance of the existence of the Internet Movie Firearms Database would help us research a question about a revolver used in a film.
In a related vein, we could also create a list of other online places where people can query users to get questions answered, especially ones more targeted or specialized than our merry band here. For example, the Internet Movie Cars Database has a place for pictures of vehicles in need of identification, as well as a forum where questions can be asked. While I think we have a great group here, it's bound to be the case that more targeted queries will tend to get better results. What do people think? Any value? Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think yes. I just don't know how to bring a "list of ref desk resources" page into being, technically. Oh, but I wouldn't like us to start snottily shooing users away to use a search engine: I like that the ref desks are a place on the internet where humans take time over answers, even if that just means we searched the standard sites. I don't have a problem with enabling the lazy or bewildered, within reason, I think it's pleasant. People answering questions on other forums too often act like their time is precious, and are rude to everyone for not knowing everything already. So although we can list the resources, there should be a note saying "nobody should be looked down on for not using or not knowing about these resources, they are optional".

So I agree it should be "more targeted towards answerers than questioners".  Card Zero  (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page when it comes to "just Google it"; I'm sure I've failed at this more than once, but when a question seems easily searchable, I try to phrase it as "When I googled XYZ I found this site, which blah blah blah". Teach a man to fish, kind of thing, I guess. Creating the page itself is as easy as creating any other page; it can start in draft space, or a sub-page or user space or whatever until it's in some kind of reasonable shape and then it can get moved into Wikipedia space. I've decided to be WP:BOLD and created it as a user subpage here: User:Matt Deres/List of RefDesk Resources. Obviously it's open to editing by anyone, but I started it with the contents of the IMDb See Also section. Matt Deres (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:RESOURCES is like a bigger version of this.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Matt, I think you are definitely on a good track and your idea has a lot of merit. I like the idea of "commonly-referenced references," and I think it could positively impact the quality of our reference desk answers.

As I've been stewing through some of the follow-on consequences, I hope that I don't sound adversarial. I only raise a few points of consideration that I don't have clear solutions for.

Is not the "list of reliable references" simply "the rest of Wikipedia"? At least - in my mind - that's what the rest of Wikipedia is supposed to be...

One of my go-to strategies is to search our own Reference Desk archives for earlier discussions of the same topics. Sometimes we have linked to great resources in previous discussions. Sometimes we have linked to Wikipedia articles (which have, or should have, citations)! When I find myself re-referencing the same external resource, I sometimes take the initiative to add it to the relevant encyclopedia article(s). So, is the reference desk not also a "list of reliable references"?

The issue is, both are diluted - so you're looking for a more succinct version of both. "Just the useful parts," and none of the chaff we find as we cursorily read the recent desk posts (... or the whole encyclopedia, for that matter).

Well, the chaff accumulates because we are a free source of information, and it is easy to add new content. Statistics seem to indicate that deletionism removes content slower than inclusionism adds it back. Your clean, perfect list of references shall become polluted and diluted.

Some other challenges we will need to overcome - we don't want to have a giant list of unsorted lists, right? There has to be some kind of organizational strategy. How do we navigate an enormous list of references? As an individual who enjoys structuring information hierarchically, I have to resist my initial instinct - which is to build some kind of hierarchical tree-of-links. I know that hierarchical arrangements of "all of human knowledge" have been tried before and often fail (DMOZ comes to mind...) In fact, Wikipedia is the case study in how a Wiki-style web of information seems to be more suitable for both curation and for search. Still others may argue that an unstructured natural language query to a search engine works pretty well for locating resources - but ... I respectfully disagree. I call this "dump all the knowledge on the floor, and rely on some kind of robot-vacuum to clean up the mess automatically." I don't like that strategy.

I think a kernel of wisdom gleaned from spending some time on the reference desk - we (the "regular answerers of questions") are generally better at navigating the encyclopedia compared to the typical person-who-asks-the-questions. The encyclopedia almost always already has the answer they seek - they just need a little experienced help to locate the right place to read! That's the best-case scenario, I think. And until my human thinkery is really replaced by an automaton who thinks better than I, ... I'm not sure I see how to organize the information better than it already is - in a wiki!

I would definitely be happy to hear feedback or counterpoints!

Nimur (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This could be like the inner-platform effect, an attempt to build an encyclopedia within Wikipedia. However my gut feeling is that "resources" are something other than encyclopedia content, or references. They are archives of cluttered information which might contain something relevant, or clues which might lead to a reliable source. Information which didn't make it into Wikipedia pages yet, I mean, since we don't track the fall of every sparrow. Lumber-rooms, so to speak. I think a hierarchical tree-of-links is a good idea. The value of the list would be for finding the site you hadn't heard of, or had forgotten about, because its use cases are narrow.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nimur Thank you for the thoughtful response; certainly nothing I would read as adversarial. Your point about it not becoming an unsorted list is particularly valid and something I've been pondering myself (albeit without a clear answer yet). With regards to your point about how WP itself is kind of the true answer, I'd like to provide a bit more thought on it because that topic has been raised on this talk page in other contexts. First, I don't think it's true that all reasonable questions on the RD could be answered by even a hypothetically "complete" encyclopedia. Someone who wants to know what model car was in a particular scene in The Godfather is probably never going to find this level of detail on the pages of Wikipedia; it's just not what we're here for, even if the answers were verifiable and the pictures not in copyright. Second, a decent number of questions on the RefDesk are of the kind: what bug/bird/flower/etc. is this? Now, us providing a link to the correct article is great, but unless you are already pretty close to the answer off the top of your head, WP's functionality is just not targeted to searches like medium size black perching bird seen in SW Ontario. In other words, the tools to figure out the answer are not on WP, even if the answer itself is. Finally, but in concert with the points above, the functional response group to questions here is a couple of dozen people, largely native English speakers from a relative handful of countries. We're really good at what we're good at, but there are also a decent number of questions on the RD that get no responses because nobody knows about them and/or they're hard to Google. Rather than leaving the OP hanging, IMO it would be more helpful to say, "Nobody here seems to know the answer, but the folks here or here might." Matt Deres (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion which may be of interest

This discussion mentions the reference desk quite some times so it may be of interest to users who help around here. Your opinions and comments are welcome there. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

English

Meaning of humble 154.159.237.153 (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See Humble. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Refdesk templates

I'm guessing this is the best place to ask. I'm sure I've seen a template used in the past that highlights the fact that a ref desk Q&A exchange has resulted in the creation or improvement of a specific article. However I can't for the life of me find it. Any clues?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

On the talk page of the article in question, you can use {{WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration}}; and if you want to tag the ref-desk thread itself, you can use {{WPRDAC attention}}. I don't think anyone pays attention to these any longer, though, since WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration is inactive. Deor (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Page on Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Page shows children. 7 She has 7 children in her family of origin. As far as I've read she has NO children. This is very misleading. Can someone research, site properly and correct? Thank you, Melanie Popp <e-mail address removed> 68.134.107.217 (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This sounds familiar. Does it relate to a question on The Chase this week? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, she has 7 kids. This article names them:[11] --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Temperatures in Greenland

Please Google Greenland. Scroll down to Temperatures. The range should be far less than indicated here. This is more like subtropical Temperatures. Thank you. 2600:1700:5AF0:D4C0:254F:250A:DA4D:F3CB (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The information in that part of Google's "knowledge graph" does not come from Wikipedia, and we have no control over it. (It appears to come from some Web site that's actually talking about Barbados.) There's a "Feedback" link below the box that you can use to report the error. Deor (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the talk page is starting to become another ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback requested for Bot request proposal

Hello, Reference desk volunteers, I've been thinking about how we could do better at keeping IPs informed, when they get responses here at the Reference desk. Your feedback would be welcome at WP:BOTREQ#Bot to add a Talkback template at an IP talk page after they get responses at Help forums. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to automatically remove date headers with no questions on them?

Can we get a bot to automatically remove date headers with no questions in them? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Why? I think they're mildly useful. When you see them, you know positively that no queries were posted on that desk on that date: without them, you'd wonder if the page had loaded incompletely, or if there was a glitch, or vandalism, that had deleted material. (And yes, A vandal could delete posts without deleting the date, but they might delete the dates also, because vandals vandalise.) {The poster formerly known as 87.91.230.195} 90.193.129.9 (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ideally,at the top of each desk would be a notice:

When asking a new question, before publishing please preview your post. If the timestamp is for a day subsequent to the last date header provide a new date header.

The reason why I think this would be an improvement is that bots were not used to add dates until Crypticbot was devised in 2006. It was blocked in 2007 with the reason "...blocking here so it can't go berserk no matter how badly I manage to screw up." It was taken out of service on 1 July 2006 and date headers were added manually thereafter. A new "RefDeskBot" began work on 9th October - it was retired on 27 June 2007. Problems were flagged up by Root4(one) at 04:25, 26 May 2007 in a section headed "The Bot Has Failed!" It was replaced by Scsbot. At that time nobody needed to remove empty days because they became the subject of discussion (e.g. [12]).

The bot often doesn't bother to add a new date, saving editors the chore of removing it at the end of an empty day. Then it wakes up and adds two dates in inverse sequence (e.g. [13]). In this diff [14] a question asked on 2 January appears under 31 December and the next three dates follow in inverse order. Following a request a script was written which removed empty dates, but the bot didn't function for very long and a detailed scrutiny of revision histories would be needed to access its contribution record. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:D9B6:5B88:8E53:AED6 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You had me going there, for a moment! I was pretty sure I'd fixed the out-of-sequence bug years ago, and indeed, the diffs you cite are from 2010 and 2012. —scs (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW there was a bot that removed them but it stopped working 6 or 7 (or 8) years ago. Since then various editors remove them when they see them. You are free to do the same. You can also make a request here WP:BOTREQ and see how it goes. MarnetteD|Talk 19:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"6 or 7 (or 8) years ago" would be 2014, 2015 or 2016. So I extracted from the archive of the Mathematics desk the dates of the first empty day in each month in those years:

2014 Jan 2, Feb 1, Mar 1, Apr 3, May 3, Jun 3, Jul 3, Aug 9, Sept 2, Oct 3, Nov 1, Dec 4

2015 Jan 1, Feb 15, Mar 1, Apr 3, May 1, Jun 3, Jul 2, Aug 2, Sept 1, Oct 1, Nov 1, Dec 1

2016 Jan 3, Feb 1, Mar 2, Apr 18, May 2, Jun 2, Jul 3, Aug 2, Sept 11, Oct 2, Nov 4, Dec 1

Every single one of those dates was removed by a human being. The plot thickens. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:D549:172D:2E7C:BFE3 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• It used to be done by User:RonBot, a bot operated by User:Ronhjones, a deceased former Wikipedian. Not sure about what would need to be done to revive the bot task, but it should be doable; as a task it may be able to be added to User:Scsbot, which currently handles adding new headers to these pages. That bot is run by User:scs. --Jayron32 18:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

People have been asking me for years why scsbot couldn't remove empty date headers even as it added new ones, and I've always found various excuses, but lately the tide has turned, and I've been thinking, "Why not?". So give me a couple of days — the script is strangely written, and more complicated than you might think — and I'll see what I can do. —scs (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Implemented and seems to be working.
Still have a little more stress testing to do, and a unit test to write.
Please let me know if you notice any anomalies. —scs (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Archiving may be interrupted

Wanton

scsbot hit a brick wall tonight and is no longer able to add date headers to the reference desks, or archive them. Something seems to have changed on the Mediawiki side, exposing a new, unsuspected incompatibility in the way scsbot mechanically edits Wikipedia pages.

I'm not sure how long it will take me to track this down and fix it. In the meantime, archiving will be interrupted, and people will probably have to add/delete date headers by hand.

See also Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Archiving may be interrupted.

If anyone knows of any specific Mediawiki change that might have been rolled out in the last 24 hours, please let me know! Thanks. —scs (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Answering my own question, the change is almost certainly related (in some way I haven't worked out yet) to a new version of Mediawiki that was rolled out today. —scs (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Your donation dollars at work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:THURSDAY. Deor (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

scsbot wantonly fails to use the official API for automated editing, so I can't really complain too much. —scs (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is fixed (or, at least, worked around), and the bot is now working to catch up on its backlog.

If anyone is curious, the issue was reasonably obscure. Doubtless as a side effect of the recent Mediawiki upgrade, edit pages now contain the SGML comment

<!--__DTEMPTYTALKPAGE__-->

But for some reason, the homebrew SGML/HTML parser that scsbot uses gets confused by SGML comments that don't contain the usual whitespace.

So, for the moment, until I can track the underlying problem down, I'm using an extra sed invocation to change the offending comment to <!-- __DTEMPTYTALKPAGE__ -->, and that workaround makes the difference.

(Aren't you glad you asked? :-) ) —scs (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Odd response pattern of querant

Given the nature of User 86.140.120.168's Ref desk interactions on their queries posted on Miscellaneous August 7th & 19th [Edited to add: and 27th], and Humanities August 15th, does anyone else wonder if we're being trolled? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

"Add topic"

When did the "New section" tab at the top of talk pages change to "Add topic"? Can someone point me to a discussion of this change? --Viennese Waltz 09:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been seeing that recently when I click the + sign. It's got an option for the older way of doing things. Maybe brought to you by the same folks that added that "Welcome to the talk page" blurb to empty talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What + sign? I don't see any + sign. --Viennese Waltz 12:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That tab sits between "Edit" and "History". I'm using the older version of the interface, so it might be something different on the newer version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed (and is being discussed) at MediaWiki talk:Vector-action-addsection - it's actually a reversion to the MediaWiki default. @Baseball Bugs I'm guessing you have the Replace the "new section" tab text with "+" gadget enabled. the wub "?!" 12:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. FWIW, I fully agree with your intervention on that talk page. It's a good change, but it should have been more widely discussed. --Viennese Waltz 12:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And it's gone back to "New section" again, per the linked discussion. --Viennese Waltz 09:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the best way to continue a discussion that's been archived?

A couple weeks ago, I asked a question on the Computing Reference Desk about USB-C.[15] I got some great responses but now I have a follow-up question. But the discussion has since been archived. What's the best way for me to ask a follow-up question? Should I manually unarchive the discussion and pick up where I left off or should I create a brand new discussion and provide a link to the archive in question? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The second one ("create a brand new discussion and provide a link to the archive in question") is the better choice, I think. In posting your follow-up question, you may want to ping those who gave you the "great responses" to your original question. Deor (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You can locate the original question using the View History tab and include a link to it in your new question. Dionne Court (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That certainly beats trying to search the archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: As far as I can recall, in some similar case of a recurring topic I have also added a link in the past thread in archives pointing at the new thread on the same topic (but I suppose it was in some article's talk rather than RefDesk archives.) If you decide to do so, however, please remember to update your link in the old archive page when the new discussion gets archived so that the older and newer archives will properly point at one another.

Of course, section-links work in archives the same way as in all Wikipedia pages, for example:

• [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2013 May 27#Resumed Discussion of Reprised Confusion over Wikipedia Definitions of Sigma Additivity]]

becomes:

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2013 May 27#Resumed Discussion of Reprised Confusion over Wikipedia Definitions of Sigma Additivity

CiaPan (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

How to handle trolling

As a reminder, per WP:DNFT and WP:RBI, please do not leave loud, obvious memorials to trolling. If it is serious enough to "box it up" with hat/hab tags, it is serious enough to just delete it. Revert and ignore; if a block is needed, WP:AIV is the place to go. All boxing up does is draw extra attention to the trolling. Please just delete it. --Jayron32 12:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What if the troll or banned user has already received good faith replies? Should those also be deleted? Bear in mind that WP:TALK says other people's comments should not be deleted. The list of exceptions at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments does not cover this eventuality. --Viennese Waltz 12:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Angelino who set the trap on the 9/11 question certainly qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

In recent incidents, from a troll operating in the 166 IP range, whether I boxed them up or deleted them, the troll kept coming back and undoing those box-ups and deletions. So the other alternative is to let admins, such as yourself, handle them. Whack-a-moley. 14:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

WikiAsk

As many will recall - I gave up on writing answers for the RefDesk many years ago - for many reasons - and have been answering question on Quora ever since. I get between 1 and 2 million readers PER WEEK reading my answers - and have 45,000 people who requested notifications to read everything that I write. This, together with a much nicer set of interfaces to support commenting and such, is the reason Quora is so successful.

Pick any subject and you can find hundreds of questions that are worth answering, and the comments section is (mostly) filled with intelligent conversation.

However, Quora is for-profit and that causes all manner of problems.

So WikiAsk is once again springing into life - but this time, they have a usable beta version that actually functions.

Check it out: [16]

I really REALLY think that RefDesk denizens should be supporting this - and I know a lot of Quora folks who'd like to do so too. So I encourage everyone here to look at WikiAsk, not as a rival or something that will kill the RefDesk - but rather as an opportunity to kick the RefDesk's tiny audience and tiny pool of experts into the stratosphere.

You guys (mostly) do great work - and you deserve a much larger audience...and this is how that can happen.

So I'm strongly recommending that you support this proposal - and treat it, not as a rival - or a way to kill the RefDesk - but rather as the logical next step.

If WikiAsk springs into life this time around - I want to be there with you guys making it work.

SteveBaker (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I prefer addressing a tiny audience and being part of a tiny pool of "experts" (even though some of the answers around here call that last word into question). --Viennese Waltz 12:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pointer. I am inclined to test it out, especially since answers there require references (cough cough).

Regarding the benchmark with other sites... Quora is filled with loaded questions or POV answers (example). I assume it’s better in certain topics but still, that is a clear sign of policing problem.

The various StackExchanges fare better (bad questions are downvoted and closed) but have a different philosophy (multiple answers are allowed/desirable, sometimes personal experience is an acceptable source). Let’s see how wikiask fares. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Reference Desk subpages

Several subpages of Wikipedia:Reference desk have been nominated for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Obsolete Reference desk subpages. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Evangelion 10.28: You Can (Not) Delete

@Cambalachero You deleted one of my questions on the Humanities reference desk and the one with already two other users replying no less. This is the second time one of the questions I posted to the Reference Desk got deleted by someone else. Last time I let the issue slide only because I managed to find the perfect answer elsewhere. This time, however, I cannot. First, you could have just moved on if you did not like my questions or lack the knowledge to answer them. Second, I did not ask this question for opinions, predictions, or debate. Math and Math education are either racist or they are not. There is no middle ground. I asked a yes or no question and anyone up to it may reply with an answer along with the justification for his/her choice and/or dispute the premises of the question. Third, what type of question would start controversy is subjective. Any question that is tangentially related to any type of controversy could be interpreted in such a way. For example, my Are all white people racist? question and Transgender children and suicide question. Even my overpopulation question is related to an ongoing race-related controversy. So, you do not have sufficient policy-related justification for removing my question. If you understand, please revert your action as soon as possible so that others may take a stab at my question. StellarHalo (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• In your post, titled "is mathematics racist?", you:

1. talk about your own experience with math in school,
2. cite equitablemath.org, an advocacy organization, as "[a] 2021 California educational guide for Math instructors" (misleadingly representing their view as an official, state-of-California-approved position)
3. ask a different (loaded) question that you immediately answer yourself with the results of the 2019 math olympiad

None of that was needed if you were asking a good-faith question. It is pretty obvious to me that you have made your own opinion about the subject you pretend to ask for feedback about. It’s "more of a comment than a question" (the sound of that sentence is dreaded throughout academia, and I have witnessed two such "questions" in physics conferences; still, it is fitting that the best link I found to explain it is close to OP’s topic.)

Cambalachero was absolutely right to remove that "question". The fact that one editor (Askedonty) engaged with it does not mean it was a good question or make it immune from removal. The other editor who replied (Golbez) would probably support the removal, given their post.

I agree with Golbez’s suggestion that you bring your "upcoming Village Pump proposal" as soon as possible. (In case it’s not clear: that’s because I expect you will get swift and harsh feedback about your POV-pushing, possibly in the form of sanctions, in a way that the refdesk does not provide.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I wiki-thanked the person who removed it so yep, I did in fact support it. --Golbez (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want an answer, here it is. Are maths racist? No. Maths are pure abstract logic, they are beyond ideologies, beyond government styles, beyond good and evil, beyond justice and injustice. No matter what a random crackpot from under some rock may say, that's the way it is.

But there's a thing: you already know that. Even if your math knowledge was limited to elementary school notions, you know that. So why do you ask, then? I understood when I kept reading. First, you casually mention boolean logic as something that belongs to "white supremacy", and then brag that the Chinese are better in maths than the Americans. And then conclude with "Is Math education in the United States racist and white supremacist?", which is quite offensive: now you don't talk about math as an abstract concept but about people, calling them racists for no reason at all. If you want to denounce that math education in the United States was racist (which would be beyond the purposes of the Reference Desk, but let's follow the reasoning), then you would need to point academic standards that set apart white and non-white students for the benefit of the former, or cases of racist harassment in classrooms or schools that do not receive disciplinary action from authorities. As it is, this is just a generic "everybody is racist" accusation disguised as a question.

By the way, the Chinese are neither better nor worse than the Americans in maths. Those Olympiads you mentioned were won by specific students who are better in maths than other specific students; which is not because of their nationality or ethnicity but because of individual traits such as study, skill, hard work, etc.

And no, I was not following you, and I was not aware of your other questions. But if one of those so-called questions was "Are all white people racist?", you are just confirming me that you are using the reference desks for troublemaking. Cambalachero (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't the same question asked by (theoretically) someone else, some months ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's because this is not original, but a nonsense that's getting a number of supporters. Just google "Maths racist" and you will find plenty of articles about it. There's a number of people who believe the notion that factual information does not exist, that everything (literally everything) is subject to people's POV. This means that any insane nonsense they may come up with has to be respected at the same level as mainstream science, because someone believes in it. Needless to say, maths are the greatest example of factual information that is not subject to personal opinion, so of course they need to discredit it. Also, claiming that longtime accepted knowledge is "wrong" or "evil", and that you are among the selected few enlightened with the "real" knowledge, is always a welcomed thing among impressionable readers, such as teenagers. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It does not speak well of the user that he has apparently fallen for this hoax. I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's song about "The New Math". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, we have this nonsense detailed (sorta) in Anti-bias curriculum#Examples Cambalachero (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Rdconfigarray is nominated for deletion

Please join the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 10#Template:Rdconfigarray. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing edit?

In the recent discussion on paintings in cartoons on the humanities desk, User:Card Zero made what I thought was a useful edit, see [17]. But for some unknown reason, the OP later deleted it, see [18]. I tried to undo the deletion, but received an error message saying that "the edit could not be undone because it does not exist or was deleted." What's going on here? --Viennese Waltz 10:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the archiving bot took it down? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

See this VPT post. Apparently it hasn't been fixed yet. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe the right term would be UN-"fixed". It sounds like another case of meddling / muddling by the developers. They get paid to do this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello... ello,,,ello

Does anyone miss the days when the talk page had more activity than all the desks put together? Nope, me neither! I don't know how exactly we got our shit together, but I'm glad we did. Matt Deres (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

One or two relentless troublemakers aren't around any more. That might be part of the reason. --Viennese Waltz 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

i'm not sure where to ask this but i've suddenly got an issue with how the english wikipedia is being presented

it may be a nitpick but it appears to me that the english wikipedia website is stuck in a mobile look on my PC instead of desktop one. i've checked other language wikipedias but for some reason this is the only that has this issue and i have no idea what's causing this. Tohchal (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

AI-generated answers such as by ChatGTP

Hi fellow volunteers, am seeing people post answers generated using ChatGTP, and thought it would be worth discussing if this is a worthwhile use of the reference desk. I see some issues with it, mostly that ChatGTP does not provide its sources. The mild version of that as a problem is that therefore an answer generated by it is no better than some random person spitballing - the serious version is that its answers could be seriously skewed soon by whomever manages to game its dataset best. (To provide a reference, here's a thoughtful look at this issue.). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of answers generated using ChatGTP? Answers without sources are generally pretty low quality, regardless of whose butt the text comes from (machine of bio). Matt Deres (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

:D have avoided mentioning names because I don't want to discuss individuals or call anyone out. I hoped as a group we might raise awareness/come to consensus/wrap our heads around it instead. Posters have openly said they used it. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm okay with being difficult. :) The only two instances (1, 2) I could find when I searched the archives were by @Lambiam, who added caveats both times. It seems kind of similar to posting Google translations here - perhaps better than nothing at all, but definitely needs to be specified (as Lambian did) so that people know the source of the response. It should go without saying that, semantics about robot consciousness aside, these are essentially just opinions or hearsay and can't form the basis of a proper answer. But the same is true of any RD responses and Wikipedia in general; anything worth questioning should be backed by a reliable reference. Matt Deres (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely better to mention you used it, if you must use it, to caution the reader. It seems to be very error-prone, per this piece on the major errors uncovered in the articles it wrote for CNET [19]. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we be equally concerned about ai questions at the Ref. desks? These two questions [20] and [21] are suspiciously vacuous and they have led to considerable work by responders that may not have enlightened anyone. Whether the IP-user OP is actually a human, a bot or a combination of the above their user-page declaration is unencouraging: I'm just here to ask questions in the science desk because I know how corrupt, and drama-ridden Wikipedia staff are, as well as fix miscellaneous errors if I happen to stumble across them. I hate enough Wikipedia admins, as too many of them are also big bullies.. I suggest that requiring questioners to pass a CAPTCHA test would be a negligible burden to our favoured humans but would be an effective barrier to bot invasion. Philvoids (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious sequence of Refdesk queries

Please see Lone Ranger1999's latest query Japan casualties in war agaist USA [sic], and their previous series of similar queries, on the Humanities Ref desk. I always try to assume good faith, but to me this is beginning to have a whiff not unlike that of trolling. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Original 1939 poster

User LoneRanger1999 is trying to improve various Wikipedia articles about:

US casualties in the Pacific War [22]

British losses in World War II [23]

And again about the losses in the Pacific War [24]

and has brought questions (that cite his references) to the Humanities reference desk. I see responders Binksternet, Jayron32, Khajidha, KnightMove, Lomn all giving helpful replies. This is just as it should be. Philvoids (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia topic distribution

Hey everyone, I'm finishing the process of going through the article Wikipedia, and have one issue that I can't seem to solve. "Coverage of topics and systemic bias" discusses the distribution of topics on Wikipedia using data from a 2008 research study. I would like to bring this section up to date, but can't find anything on this topic past the 2008 study; JSTOR, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Taylor & Francis, and Academia.edu were the databases I checked, and nothing came up. I do not have access to the Wikipedia Library due to the age of my account (5 months and 17 days, so close...) and therefore cannot check there. I put this up on the talk page last week but received no responses. Can you find anything related to this topic? Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You could look and see who posted those stats in 2008 or whenever, and if that user or users are still active you could ask them for advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Subpage headers

I realized that the header of the archive subpages (such as, e.g., Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/February 2023) contains a formatting flaw, as the line ! style="background: #5D7CBA; text-align: center; font-family:Arial; color:#FFFFFF;" | '''Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives''' uses both the bold pipe ! and the bold marks '''. How can this be fixed in a systematic way? Hildeoc (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Because it's poor formatting, causing "double boldface" in some browser renderings (e.g. Firefox). Hildeoc (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it bothers you a lot more to look at it than it bothers me. How long has this been going on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Dunno. Hildeoc (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's from 10 years ago. Does it have this same situation? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/February 2013 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup. You just need to check the source code. Hildeoc (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Or YOU do. :) Would changing it once alter everything, or would each archive have to be changed individually? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant: If you look at the code of the page you linked, you'll see that the same formatting issue occurs there. I was asking for a systematic approach to remedy this for a good reason, as the individual subpages are automatically created. So the code would need to be changed on some main page, but I'm not sure where exactly this would have to be done. Do you happen to know anybody who could solve this mystery? @PrimeHunter perhaps? Hildeoc (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The archive bot gets the code by substituting {{RD Archive header monthly}}. Changes would only affect future archive creations by the bot. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Instead of tinkering with the horrors of this double boldface "problem", a much better use of time would be to come up with a better archives search method. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Links to other articles

We used to be able to put two articles together, For example, one used to include the article on the films of Sean Connery with the main article on his life. Please can we have that facility again. Thanks, 87.115.182.131 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Sean Connery filmography is included as a link in Sean Connery, which is how it should be. Could you be a bit clearer about your concern, please? By the way, this page is for discussion of the reference desks. The best place for your question would have been Wikipedia:Help desk. --Viennese Waltz 06:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for an addition to the guidelines

See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines#Responding to a question by a counterquestion.  --Lambiam 19:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Reference desk/Miscellaneous" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Reference desk/Miscellaneous has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8 § Reference desk/Miscellaneous until a consensus is reached. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Where are links to the Help Desk archives for May 10 to 17?

At the moment, the Help Desk starts with May 18. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives has a row for May, with only the numbers 1 to 9. I presume those are days. 9 links to May 9. Oddly, the last few of these numbers are red and shouldn't be. I can edit the link to get to the other days above 9, but it's fiddly on Android. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The most recent archive file is May 17.[25] Hard to tell what's going on with the archive list. Maybe the SCSBOT is messing up. Have you asked at the Help Desk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of ChatGTP (and similar) for answering queries

A recent Science Ref desk question was answered by one User reproducing an answer they had obtained from ChatGTP, saying they had checked it and found it to be good.

I don't doubt the User's good faith, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea of allowing this to become regular practice. We all know that ChatGTP and its ilk can make both egregious and subtle mis-statements and even manufacture superficially plausible but completely false references. Particularly in the absence of an assurance by the respondent, I would feel unable to trust such an answer unless I were able to re-check every assertion within it, which for a lengthy piece, such as the one prompting this, would be onerous. Casual querants might or might not feel the same, and might trust an answer given on behalf of Wikipedia that actually did contain AI-generated falsity.

(Incidentally, I like an observation recently seen elsewhere – "What is 'Artificial Intelligence'?" "A poor choice of words 40 years ago . . . a more accurate term would be 'Applied Statistics'.") [Edited to add: John Scalzi has just reminded me that it was Ted Chiang writing in the Financial Times.]

I'm aware there's an ongoing discussion somewhere about using ChatGTP etc. on Wikipedia – has this yet come to a conclusion regarding the generation of Ref desk answers? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.195.5 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's hope it's a big fat NO! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment (i.e. ChatGPT stuff should not be used in RefDesk answers), but not with the reasoning.

One option would be banning machine-generated answers. IMO that is unenforceable in the medium/long-term, because detecting machine-generated text will get harder, not easier, over the time (at least that’s the recent trend - ChatGPT gets passing grades on many human exams, there’s a bot that can play Diplomacy at a very respectable level, etc., whereas ~2010-level chatbots were only good for romance-scamming fairly gullible people).

Another option, which I would prefer, is to treat machine-crafted wrong answers as no different from human-crafted wrong answers. After all, if we fail to police human wrong answers, that is a problem too. If only there was a small, incremental reform that would guarantee a minimal level of quality of the answers... Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Acceptable: Questions and answers about the utility and/or pitfalls of getting AI to answer on specific subjects where any examples of AI generated text must be identified as such. I recommend that AI generated text is always quoted with a reference footnote, example: "today's date is Friday, June 9th, 2023"

Acceptable: Wikipedia presents a formidable search space, now over 6 million articles. AI chat bots are proving to be so effective in finding Wikipedia mainspace references that they compare in utility with conventional search engines, including Wikipedia's own search engine. The user's diligence is always needed before they cite a reference. Since that is unchanged by the way the reference was obtained, I see no reason to deprecate the utility of AI for searches.

Real Danger: ChatGPT shows an impressive ability to identify songs from extracts of their lyrics. I tested ChatGPT first with an easy case (Who sang "We all live in a yellow...?") then with some obscure song texts from opera. In each case ChatGPT gave a definite "encyclopedic" answer stating the song title, its composer(s) and publication date. ChatGPT answered the first song correctly, no surprise! However for more obscure song lyrics it became apparent that ChatGPT was content to stop its searching when it found an approximate match. It would then declare as its conclusion a wrong song, with no disclaimer such as "I'm just guessing..." (not allowed in its vocabulary) and with the song's supposed named composer(s) - all wrong and in some cases naming living persons. Here is the danger: ChatGPT is oblivious to WP:BLP policy which it cannot understand, and may violate quite shamelessly. When it is suspected that any material about a living person is sourced only from AI, I propose that the material can be challenged and removed. It can also be argued that only confirmed users shall post any material about a living person. Philvoids (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No If someone asking a question wants an answer from ChatGTP, they can ask it directly themselves. This is a place for humans. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Speaking as a human, do you use search engines in your studies or research? Philvoids (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course but, as I instruct my students to, I try to rewrite answers in MY OWN words, and choose a balance that's most relevant to the particular situation under discussion, which I will usually know more about than ChatGPT. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

And you can also use human editorial judgment on the correctness (or not) of a supposed source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If a chatbot finds sources, and somebody likes finding sources that way, good for them: they don't have to tell us about the means, just present the sources for verification. The chatbot's chatter is not itself a source. If it appears on the reference desk, it qualifies as "fluff", in the same category as jokes, speculation, OR, and rambling gently off-topic. We tolerate all that from human users for reasons which it's slightly awkward to shine a light on, because it's all discouraged at the same time as being somewhat tolerated. In excess, it leads to people's replies being removed or hatted, but in moderation it's all part of levity, comfort, a collegiate atmosphere and human interaction. There's no reason to tolerate machine-generated fluff, and to my mind it counts as disruption.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives

I was trying to find a discussion between editors from March 6, 2023 but the AFC Help Desk archives are only listed up to December 2022. The note at the top of the page said to post here if there were any problems so here's my message. I'm not sure what bot is responsible but now that we are almost halfway through 2023, it seems like there should be a 2023 calendar on the archives page. How can we make this happen? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Scs:  --Lambiam 07:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Although not listed in the index, the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 6 exists.  --Lambiam 07:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the topmost index page — this is true for all the pages scsbot archives, including the Reference Desks and the Help Desks — is not created automatically. Once per year, someone has to do some manual editing.

Happily, at least at AFCHD, someone has utilized the very nice template {{Daily archive log}} which makes adding a year's worth of entries trivial. I've done that now, but someone's going to have to do it again in January 2024. —scs (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Archiving policy

Because it just happened that I lost my post on RD when the page got archived before I hit "Add topic", i learned that the policy here seems to be that “(non-empty) pages are archived a fixed number of days after they're started, irrespective of recent activity.” Why was it decided to deviate from the usual practice to respect activity? What is that fixed number of days? And why is that information not available on the page? (Cf. WP:ANI, which says “Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically …”.) Sebastian 18:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You are free to implement a bot with a more sophisticated criterion (and considerably more complicated operation). Pinging scs.  --Lambiam 19:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I always copy my text into the paste buffer before I hit "publish", just in case something like that happens; or, more likely, an edit conflict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Rather than implementing something even more "sophisticated", I wonder if it wouldn't be better to go for something radically simpler: just use one of the standard archiving bots such as Lowercase sigmabot III. This would merely entail giving up the deeply nested archive structure with separate pages per day and just have sequentially enumerated archive pages by volume instead. But would that matter? I suppose the separate pages by day made sense at a time when overall volume of questions was much higher than it's been for the past few years, but would anybody really miss them now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Why was it decided to deviate from the usual practice?

I wouldn't put it like that. The reference desks have always been archived using something like the present scheme, more or less since their inception, which was well before any Wikipedia talk page archiving scheme could be called "usual practice".

But that's certainly not to say we have to keep using that legacy scheme. If we wanted to use a different scheme, or a more mainstream archiving bot, we can and should seriously consider that.

In answer to your other question, the most recent definition of the current archiving policy I have a reference to — I grant this probably isn't the first place you might have looked! — is in this archived talk page thread. (I said it then, and I'll say it now: I certainly wouldn't mind putting scsbot out to pasture for a while.) —scs (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That bot can also archive per-thread based on number of days without a reply, which might be a good way to go. We could say, for instance: two weeks without any further replies, archive the thread.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That said, we may want to have a discussion about whether the time-capped approach to threads has actually served this space pretty well. Ostensibly this space is for providing references and other informational resources. While in practice it often functions more as question and answer and short discussion space, we are meant to at least be paying some lip service to the facial function of the space. Limiting threads to a week lifespan probably helps to avoid WP:NOTAFORUM violations from becoming more habitual than they already are, and cuts down substantially on extraneous commentary and clutter. At the same time, the occasions that additional references can be provided in two weeks time that couldn't be provided in one would be arguably rare. I'm not saying that for sure I favor the legacy approach: there are benefits to adopting a more standard archiving mechanism for sure. But it's worth considering: the RefDesks have an altogether unique roll on the project, and the status quo archiving approach is at least arguably well-tailored to that idiosyncrasy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we shuffle threads off into the (per-month) archives once per week? I hadn't noticed. Well in that case three days (or maybe 84 hours) without a reply makes more sense. I was aiming for the average length of a thread's lifetime under the status quo, which I thought involved monthly archiving.  Card Zero  (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The precise timing has varied over the years: it seems to be a week at present, but I haven't looked for the parameters the bot is currently working under: let me do that briefly. Your proposal may be a reasonable middle ground, as I see it. Another option is to extend the set timeline a little. Or a combination of both. If we set the bot (or bots if technically necessary) to archive either after a week or so without a response, or after two weeks even in the case of ongoing discussions, whichever comes first, we could arguably harmonize the archiving process with more common present day practice while also retaining some of the value of having a more fixed deadline in keeping things consistent with WP:NOTAFORUM here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, Scs bot is operated by manual inputs, not template tagging. scs, maybe I'm being dense, but I couldn't find anywhere in the current documentation to suggest where our friendly bot in question is presently operating and under what parameters? Could you shed some light on the current threshold of when it determines to archive a refdesk page? Also, while we're pestering you about that, can I ask if it would be capable of using a multiple criteria setup like I suggested immediately above (a set number of days, or a set number of days without response, whichever comes first) without your needing to do more to adapt it than plug the numbers in? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: The bot is quite simpleminded. If a thread's date — the date of its first post — is more than N days ago, it gets archived. N comes from that table I mentioned in a previous post.

There is not much possibility of making significant alterations to this bot's algorithm, which is why it's worth considering alternatives. —scs (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I was feeling nostalgic, so I went and looked up the old thread where the then-new bot was first announced, which contains some additional information about its algorithm, for those curious. —scs (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

LGBT

are there people here with testimonies about their sexualities.such as me a im a lesbian.❤🥺👏 Lilitha Sqokwana (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors' personal testimonies on any subject are not within the scope of Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Eighth Reference Desk

I have wondered what the benefits would be of creating an eighth reference desk on this dear wiki? I feel that are some options available for this, such as a desk for geographic affairs, or culinary affairs. I just think that there are some unexplored areas that we could look into for the greater good of the Wiki or the people who call it home. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Over the years, I think I've noticed an overall decrease in the number of queries posted to the ref desks (although I don't look at the computing and math desks, so I can't speak to those). Questions about geographic or culinary matters can be posted to the miscellaneous desk, which gets relatively few queries anyway, and I don't really see a need to fragment matters further by creating new desks. Deor (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As Deor notes, we haven't really had any of the current desks overwhelmed with questions to where the pages become too big, and there's a "Miscellaneous" desk for a reason. If it doesn't fit well in the other desks, ask it there. --Jayron32 17:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Off-site References

I don't know if this is appropriate, but what would be the best reliable source outside of Wikipedia to look up information that you all would recommend, if there's not an article with information on Wikipedia? Triviatronic9000 (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It totally depends on what the topic is. DMacks (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. This time it's Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. I want to add the character epilogues to the comparisons section. I watched a few YouTube lore videos about them, but I doubt it's substantial enough. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PLOTSOURCE; for works of fiction, every work of fiction is presumed to be the most reliable source for itself. If you're looking to put comparisons between the character epilogues from the print version to the film version to the expanded film version, for example, you can just explicitly state the source of information (no footnotes necessary). You can say "In the print version, Frodo does yada yada yada, while in the the theatrical release, he did yada yada yada". That's sufficient. --Jayron32 12:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the past it's been considered WP:UNDUE to add such a comparison unless a source had made said comparison. Otherwise articles for films based on novels would have extensive "Differences from the book" sections filled with all kinds of WP:TRIVIA. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUE is a different matter; maybe it isn't maybe it is. That's a discussion for the article talk page, WP:BRD is the only way to handle those matters. Purely on the matter of references, however, plot points don't require explicit inline citations or footnotes. Whether such plot points are appropriate for a Wikipedia article is open for discussion and subject to discussion-determined consensus when there is a dispute. --Jayron32 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you two. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate"

Can anyone here explain how the question Cambalachero asked yesterday regarding the feasibility of building Star Trek-sized spaceships "at some point in the future" [26] could even theoretically be answered without involving either opinion or prediction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Meh. --Jayron32 17:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no lack of other people's published speculation on methods and feasibility of building such large structures, would listing some of the half-scifi proposals be a valid way of "answering"? Really want to jump in and say they are off by orders of magnitude in pessimism. Only about twice the mass of [[USS Enterprise (CVN-65)|its namesake], 500x mass and volume of ISS, 200x our current yearly mass to orbit, and about 5x that with a projected Starship fleet? Piece of cake. Could probably provide some valuable references for the OP, but much more fun to opine. fiveby(zero) 18:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I maintain that there is some scope in this question to process actual numbers and science. We can therefore present some facts that can make figuring out the answer to this question more straightforward. It would, after all, be fascinating to hear about what amount of materials and knowledge would be required to build such a craft and bridge gaps in our current knowledge of building giant things and exploring space. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Pablothepenguin had to be reminded that We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.(See top of page.) by Card Zero. In seeking to re-ignite and prolong his mistaken use of the Science desk as a forum for his "discussion" posts, Pablo reverted the "hat" enclosure that I extended on a speculative debate neglecting to give any edit summary. Pablo asks "Can we have more discussion here?" and the answer depends on the "where". At the Science Ref. desk the answer you already have Pablo is No. You may ask your question Pablo on this page for discussion of the Reference desk in general. Seriously Pablo, that choice would be less disruptive than your ongoing attempts [27] [28] to win the last word over other responders. Philvoids (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Pablo is an Enterprising sort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference Desk Suggestion

I would like to suggest that the archiving period be extended to 14 days. Sometimes I feel that 7 is not enough, and it would be nice for questions to remain live for a bit longer.

You should also look into the possibility of discontinuing the date-based archives, in favour of a new system similar to that which exists on most talk pages. In this system, questions will remain on the live page until a certain number has been reached, in which case the oldest question is archived.

I say these things, as on most other pages, stuff lasts longer than a week, often by a considerable margin. Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The archiving period is fixed to avoid giving anyone the contentious task of ruling when each question is resolved.

Anyone who enjoys reading the Reference desks can try these survey steps:

1. Select a random past month
2. In the archives for each reference desk...
3. ... note the timestamp for each question and...
4. ...... in the answers note for each given reference link that is both relevant and helpful the timestamp of the answer. Do not count references links that are frivolous or depart from the actual question!

From the collected timestamps tabulate or plot the average number of links appearing 1/2, 3, 4 etc. days after questions are posted. The first period "1/2 days" is 48 hours to overcome the effect of worldwide time zones.

If you survey past questions enough for a clear pattern of response delays to emerge, do post your result here! It will be objective evidence for or against Pablo's suggestion that a 7 day limit stunts the desks' productivity as a source of references. This assessment will ignore the idea that questions should ever be allowed to linger inconclusively on the Reference desks whose prime function is to handle question traffic, while other pages exist for long-term discussion on each mainspace article that is a work always in progress. Philvoids (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Discrimination at log in

The start of my day would be incomplete without the customary evacuations, breakfast and a look at the activity on the Reference desks. I routinely enter WP:RD/S on the log-in page www.wikipedia.org and the Science reference desk routinely appears....EXCEPT something changed this week because now this message appears:

Service Temporarily Unavailable

Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes.

But something is fishy here because I have only to name an article on the log-in page (any article will do, it seems) to get the article on screen, and then enter WP:RD/S which is served routinely. This behaviour has been consistent for several days. It suggests to me that a bug has been introduced by a recent change to the Wikipedia log-in process. Philvoids (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow. Are you saying that you have to log in every day? You shouldn't have to do that, if you've ticked the "remember me" box. By the way, this page is for discussion of the reference desks. The correct place to post your query would have been the help desk. --Viennese Waltz 10:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding Sections to Articles

Excuse me if this is an inappropriate thing to ask on this page, but how can I add sections to Wikipedia articles? I clicked a button that is something like a guide on how to operate in Wikipedia, but I couldn't find anything about my query, and I searched the topic on the Reference Desk's homepage, as it is I'm certain, but I didn't get an answer, and I tried being specific. Feel free to delete this after a while, if you want, because I know this isn't an appropriate question. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This sort of question is better asked at the Teahouse or the Help desk. However, if you're using the source editor, all you have to do is open the edit window, go to where you want the section to be inserted, enter a section name between sets of two or three equal signs (==Name== for a main section or ===Name=== for a subsection), and then write your text below that. I've never used the visual editor, so I can't tell you how to do it that way. Deor (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Expert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think User: AnonMoos doubled down on their closed mindedness by saying the neuter gender refers to "it" and forsook the opportunity to see things in a new way. It was upsetting to me because I felt it was a form of queer erasure. Moreover, originally the user's comment did not address any questions and had zero citations/references/sources, and instead relied on an appeal to authority. Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 03:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you expect people to know what you're talking about if you don't supply diffs? We don't all watch all the ref desks all the time, you know. For the benefit of others, Schyler is talking about this argument. --Viennese Waltz 09:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue that can be addressed is the lack of citations here and the appeal to authority here Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 16:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't know how to post diffs, do you? --Viennese Waltz 17:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I went to edit history and copied the URL. Sorry it didn't work. AnonMoss removed my post based on WP: NPA, so I thought it'd be fine to remove their post because of WP:RS and WP:VER. Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA says that "derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor". The same doesn't apply to the policies you cite in support of the removals you made. --Viennese Waltz 17:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think describing text as queerphobic is inherently derogatory, do you? And regarding the other policies, I understand there's no right to remove, but my point is that I would expect these policies are followed on the RD. Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 17:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "I don't like you." That's a personal attack. --Viennese Waltz 17:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but isn't that more like a fact? And an attack would be more like 'you're unlikeable'? Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 17:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing my question with warnings

Two users are removing my history question in Humanities and warning me on my talk page accusing me of using Wikipedia as forum. Can anyone look into this please? جانی گدار (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The questions were correctly removed. You are asking pointed questions, and asking for opinion. AS per the notice at the top of the Ref Desks, we do not answer such questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the removals were justified. The questions are weirdly phrased, sure, but at their kernel is a question that can be answered with references and is not a request for opinion. --Viennese Waltz 06:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for Time Increase

I once again suggest that the archiving system be changed so that posts are archived after 14 days rather than the current practice of archiving after just 7 days. Pablothepenguin (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I support your idea; seven days just seems like too short a time. Occasionally, it takes me that long to notice a query (suppose it's on the 6th day), think about it, formulate an answer in my head, check sources (or dates or spellings), and then post what I hope is a coherent, accurate, informative and pertinent reply. The drawbacks of cluttering the Table of Contents are somewhat counteracted by having enough different topics that nearly every reader will find at least a couple that match his or her interests, expertise or prior exploration. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It's been 10 years since I last visited the Ref Desk, good to see you are all still here. This place hasn't changed at all haha! MahouAvril (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers MahouAvril (Was this you 15 years ago?)!

Anyway, there used to be more traffic at the desks, and devices/browsers used to be less capable of handling long pages, but now I think Pablothepenguin's suggestion deserves to be implemented. If there are problems we can always change back to 7 days again. Pinging Steve Summit. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm traveling for the next week, with imperfect internet access (meaning normal archiving may not happen at all), but when I get back, I'll try increasing the interval. In the meantime, if anyone has any objections, speak up! —scs (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, done. It's a one-line change to the script, and it means the script won't archive any of the ref desks for the next week (whether I run it or not!).

As Sluzzelin said, if this causes any problems, it's easy to change back. (Also there's always the option of using different archiving intervals for different desks, as we once did.) —scs (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Where are the archives for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Where are the archives for those discussions? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There are monthly index pages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/[Month]_[Year], e.g. Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/December_2023. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for Time Increase

I once again suggest that the archiving system be changed so that posts are archived after 14 days rather than the current practice of archiving after just 7 days. Pablothepenguin (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I support your idea; seven days just seems like too short a time. Occasionally, it takes me that long to notice a query (suppose it's on the 6th day), think about it, formulate an answer in my head, check sources (or dates or spellings), and then post what I hope is a coherent, accurate, informative and pertinent reply. The drawbacks of cluttering the Table of Contents are somewhat counteracted by having enough different topics that nearly every reader will find at least a couple that match his or her interests, expertise or prior exploration. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It's been 10 years since I last visited the Ref Desk, good to see you are all still here. This place hasn't changed at all haha! MahouAvril (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers MahouAvril (Was this you 15 years ago?)!

Anyway, there used to be more traffic at the desks, and devices/browsers used to be less capable of handling long pages, but now I think Pablothepenguin's suggestion deserves to be implemented. If there are problems we can always change back to 7 days again. Pinging Steve Summit. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm traveling for the next week, with imperfect internet access (meaning normal archiving may not happen at all), but when I get back, I'll try increasing the interval. In the meantime, if anyone has any objections, speak up! —scs (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, done. It's a one-line change to the script, and it means the script won't archive any of the ref desks for the next week (whether I run it or not!).

As Sluzzelin said, if this causes any problems, it's easy to change back. (Also there's always the option of using different archiving intervals for different desks, as we once did.) —scs (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Where are the archives for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Where are the archives for those discussions? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There are monthly index pages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/[Month]_[Year], e.g. Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/December_2023. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I missed your reply. Thanks for replying. Where are the archives listed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. I mean how did you find the link you provided? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving for the next few weeks

scsbot, which archives these desks, has never been a fully-automated bot. I invoke it manually, and I eyeball its log messages for errors, which it still occasionally makes.

However! I'll be traveling for the next two weeks, with no internet access at all. So, unless there are objections, the bot will be going fully automatic, for pretty much the first time in its 16-year lifetime.

I don't expect too many problems — the bot has been pretty reliable lately — but if anything goes wrong, I won't be around to help it. If it makes a mistake, someone may have to notice and fix it. If it gets stuck and stops archiving a desk, someone may have to archive that desk manually. And if (this is super unlikely; I mention it only for completeness) the bot runs amok, someone may have to ask an admin to block it.

I'll be returning to the real world (or, at least, the Internet-connected world) on February 26, and I'll start picking up any pieces then.

This notice (that is, this change in the automaticity of archiving) also applies to the Help and Articles For Creation desks. —scs (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Village Pump thread

RefDesk contributors may wish to take part in this discussion on adding a new RefDesk. Matt Deres (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Dave Bristol

Why doesn't Dave Bristol's biography list that he was also a teacher at Murphy, North Carolina, doesn't list his wife or if he had any children, is he is still alive? 2600:6C55:600:6B6A:6500:AF33:4D9C:3C19 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the Reference Desk; the correct place to discuss improvements to the article on Dave Bristol is on the associated talk page, here. Broadly speaking, articles are incomplete because YOU haven't fixed them. We are all volunteers here and the only reason anything gets done is that someone just like YOU decided to improve things. See here for steps on getting started. Matt Deres (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and as for whether he's still alive, this site does not provide a death date, so I assume he's still alive, but that kind of material may be less well maintained than the statistics. This shows he was still alive in 2020. Matt Deres (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Banned user showing up again

I believe that user IP 172.56.186.104 who has started asking convoluted questions on the Humanities desk, is banned user Futurist110. This is from the style of his questions, and from the fact he randomly left a question on my user talk page, just like Futurist110 used to do. Could someone look into this? Xuxl (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPI has instructions on how to initiate an investigation, though there seems to be a substantial backlog. Matt Deres (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Are there any admins who are notably familiar with the user in question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Text

Hi, the text of this reference (no. 37 of the Fabrizio De André page) isn't completely understandable (e.g.: "È durata poco più di un'ora la..."): https://www.repubblica.it/online/musica/de_andre/fune/fune.html. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

See Mojibake. Nothing we can do here. —Tamfang (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It is also not a problem. Given that the article is from 1999, it is quite wonderful that it is still accessible online (dead links are all too common in references in WP), and with a little effort the weird characters can be translated back into the accented letters that they represent. In any case, the reference includes the date of publication, which should be sufficient to dig out the article in the print edition of La Repubblica in some library or archive. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Pesto

"There is a biennial international Genovese Pesto al Mortaio competition, in which 100 finalists use traditional mortars and pestles as well as the above ingredients, which 30 local and international judges then assess." This sentence is without reference; do I add the citation needed template or do I take the drastic solution of deleting it? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears that this article mentions all of the facts in that sentence. You could use it as a source. Deor (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Indef'd user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
can u update our info on page of Mr. Beast on Wikipedia cause our combined subscribers are more than written over article, - from team of Mr. Beast (contact us if you find anything inappropriate on this post {on our talk page only}) PLAYGMAN (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC) @PLAYGMAN see the responses you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hi. Asking the same question in multiple places wastes everyone's time. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Hey bro chill btw do you want a cookie or do you want to come in our upcoming challenge on YouTube channel PLAYGMAN (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) I'm good. Please respond to the messages posted on your talk page. If you're being paid by MrBeast's team to edit you must disclose it by placing {{paid}}} on your user page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Further reading

Is it permissible for an author --i.e., me -- to suggest his book or books be considered for inclusion the "Further Reading" appendix to an article? Specifically, for the articles "Brooklyn Dodgers" and "New York Giant," my book, "After Many a Summer: The Passing of the Giants and Dodgers and a Golden Age in New York Baseball." And possibly other books I've written on other subjects. Gowanusjosef (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You can propose it on the article's Talk page, but making clear that you are the author. —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)