Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65

Insecticide Question

Is WP:RD/Science#insecticide a good faith question or a thinly veiled advertisement? Nimur (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There are a lot of superlatives in the section, however a Google search genuinely turns up nothing; as the questioner states, so it may be a legitimate plea for information. Fribbler (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe he spelled the product's name wrong. I gave him a link to the product with the correct spelling. -- kainaw™ 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's better to err on the side of assuming good faith.Gary (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

Is this question nonsense or not Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Inignorance ? Please delete, and probably block again. Bizarre behaviour.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=308545631&oldid=308529896 ??83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. It's the same guy. Nimur (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The person who posted this has been blocked for this, and other things I think. (2 weeks) If it happens again please report it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello all. Just to be clear, I am the one who did the latest archiving of talk page material. At the time (Aug 16), the page seemed to be getting a bit long and, while archiving is all about keeping pages short enough read easily, the RD talkpage is typically archived around the 4th of the month. I left it a bit longer than that as it is the size that matters! At the time, every thread seemed to be pretty quiet, so I pulled everything except the last question as that was the only one that seemed to still be "live". If I'd noticed that our favourite secular humanist had decided to join the discussion, I suppose I would have cut the archive off above that, but I didn't see it. Mea culpa and all that.
I've done the archiving stuff for the last couple of months; I figured it needed doing and I'd never done it before and wanted to learn how. Now I know how and just keep doing it when I figure it needs doing ;-). Anyway, it can be difficult to tell if/when a topic is truly dead, so I sure won't take it personally if someone in good faith feels the need to restore part or all of what I've done. By that same token, I am always open to feedback if I've messed something up. You can see who did the latest archive by checking out the history of this page. Matt Deres (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's something very wrong with the info-box above - none of the links point to the Talk:RD archives. SteveBaker (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
??? Seems fine to me. What are you seeing instead of the archives? Matt Deres (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong is that too much was archived. When archiving it seems to me that about half of the talk page should remain to show continuity of what's "hot" during the last week or three. The remnant after the last archiving is too brief IMHO. -hydnjo (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's cool and I appreciate the feedback, but that doesn't seem to be the problem Steve is having. Matt Deres (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Steve is referring to the fact that the year links (which are all that is visible until you click the 'show' button) don't point directly to the archive for that year, but to a page listing Wikipedia-related events for the year. In order to get to the archives themselves, you have to click 'show'. I suspect that this behaviour is deliberate, but at the same time I would question the necessity of having those links to the WP chronologies. --Richardrj talk email 02:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably, yes. Quite confusing, in my opinion. It would be better if clicking the year opened the box, displaying the links to archived pages in exactly the same way that clicking "show" does. --NorwegianBlue talk 09:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought so as well when I started the archiving, but the show/hide thing is a javascript function; I don't know scripting, so can't comment on how easy it would be to have the year perform the same function. I was also thinking about simply removing the links in the year completely so that folks really only had one thing they could press. If there are no objections, I'll remove the links and perhaps bold the text or something. Matt Deres (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It's horribly confusing! An utterly disasterous piece of user-interface design! I hover my mouse over the '2009' link - it shows a bunch of clearly, utterly unrelated stuff - why would I click on the "Show" button? The expectation is that it would show me the things I see when I hover over the link. We don't need a link to any other archives than the one for this desk. "Show" is supposed to show whatever it is you're looking at - not some other thing entirely. In any case, having year-at-a-time links is useless. If a thread that I'm looking for happened more than maybe 6 months ago, I'm really not going to go through and look year-by-year - I'm gonna resort to doing a search. What we need is a small set of month-at-a-time(ish) links for just the last few months that take you ONLY to the RD archives - and a search function to search through the RD archives for all of history. We don't need links to anything other than that...and keeping it simple means that you don't need "Show" buttons and all of that complicated crap. SteveBaker (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How to ask a software question

Refdeskers, questions like this have inspired me to write Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask a software question. Please comment or improve on it as you see fit. I've also created the shortcut WP:RD/ASK. --Sean 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be a very well-written tutorial. Should we start forwarding such questions to it and "deferring" any answer until the user properly phrases the question? Maybe we need a programming-help-template with easy to fill in fields (e.g. language, general problem description, etc). Nimur (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. No, I don't think we should have any policy about it at all. It's just a good thing to point to when questions (as the one above) are basically unanswerable. --Sean 16:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm tempted to borrow that for my day job and give it to people who are supposed to write requirements :-) --LarryMac | Talk 16:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea to have that page. I added a 'discussion' page to it with my comment. Tempshill (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed medical advice.

Just a heads-up -- I removed some medical advice. (See diff.) I believe telling someone that they shouldn't be concerned about something they have noticed about their body during a medical examination is a clear-cut case of giving them medical advice -- very vague advice, really, but still. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion reference desk

How about starting a separate religion reference desk, just like computers is split from science? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Will there be enough questions? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Will there be enough trolls? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We point the trolls to the science desk. Mac Davis (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't see User:Elen of the Roads's coined expression on ANI: "Trolls for Jesus". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll echo DJ Clayworth's question, and add a bit more: are there enough questions to justify a new desk? Do the questions at present overload the existing desk? Is religion a sufficiently divergent topic from existing desks? Do gains in these areas offset the probable loss of eyeballs viewing questions on yet another desk? My view is that the existing desks (most specifically, Humanities) aren't overloaded, and that humanities/religion isn't near the topical divergence of science/how-do-I-use-X-program. — Lomn 18:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
To be more clear with the somewhat snarky comment at the end of my response: I see Humanities/Religion as analogous to a Science/Computer Science split. However, we don't have a Sci/CS split -- we have a Computing desk that answers (mostly) questions about how programs work, or what various peripherals do, or how to use the internet -- questions that never belonged under Science in the first place. There's a smattering of Science-related (or Math-related, depending on your preference) CS-type questions, but they're quite the minority. By contrast, religion is clearly a subset of the Humanities. As such, I don't see "just like computers is split from science" to be a useful comparison. — Lomn 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Finally, on usage: Just looking at the present desk contents, I count about 10 topics a day at Misc, 15 topics a day at Science, and about 11 a day at Humanities. I judge Humanities not to be overloaded. Reading topic headers and including broadly, I see 10 religion-related topics at Humanities (plus 1 at Misc), less than 2 per day. I judge Religion traffic insufficient for its own desk. Entertainment, the most often-cited case for Ref Desk contraction, presently pulls 4 topics per day. — Lomn 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The presence of a Religion desk "welcomes" religion-oriented questions. The Humanities desk is swamped in non-religion questions. A Religion desk would really welcome questions specifically about religion. In fact an off-topic question would be moved to the Humanities desk if it wasn't genuinely about religion. "Religion" would be basically synonymous with organized religion, that much maligned institution. A Religion desk would be a very special place in that it would be one place where all religions could be discussed. They would be discussed separately to the extent that they exist separately — which is a great extent. But they would be discussed under the umbrella of the name of a separate reference desk. That could possibly propel dialogue on the subject. I am not advocating for the blurring of the lines between various religions. Quite the contrary I am excited by there being a single place where all can exist distinctly. Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
We had the same argument put forth with the short-lived Psychology and History ref desks. Both were soundly rejected (see Archive 33, particularly subsections for Psychology Ref Desk, Fragmentation of Ref Desks, Poll on Desks, etc, etc). We have no reason to believe that questions are left unasked by people who don't know where to best place them. I see no reason to begin mucking about before a need is established (note: I do not wish to imply that participants in this thread are prone to mucking -- it's just that such behavior was a real problem a couple years back). — Lomn 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Psychology is a science and it is rational. History spans more than one discipline — and it is rational. The closest thing to religion might be something like science fiction — and that isn't even close. (Science fiction is often literature; it is an art.) Religion sits in a category apart from everything else.
It is not a matter of people not knowing where to presently place religion questions. It is a matter of actively welcoming religion questions. The establishment of a Religion reference desk actually does that. It prods people to ask that unasked question that might have been in the back of their mind. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Being a tad glib here — I figure our role as a reference desk is to answer the asked questions which are at the forefront of people's minds, not to try to generate 'new business'. People who wish to have long, philosophical discussions about the meaning of life would be better off seeking a more appropriate venue — I believe that Wikiversity is better-targeted to this sort of issue. We've never gone out of our way to create new desks to encourage specific types of questions before, and I don't see a pressing need to start. Desks have always been added in response to evident demand, not in hopes of driving new questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong spin. Not "hopes of driving new demand." "Welcoming" was the word I used. I would agree that we are "not to try to generate 'new business'." (Do you really think such a thing is possible?) Religion is unlike most subjects. It is not concrete. Even entertainment is quite concrete. The arts are real, even if sometimes intangible. Religion carves out a unique space for itself. Unless someone sees a sign saying, "Religion questions here," they are unlikely to speak up.
Also, "the meaning of life" would not necessarily be a question addressed at such a religion desk. Such a question would be tossed to the humanities desk, where it would probably be thrown out. If the question weren't about a particular point of, say, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any other recognized religion, then it would not belong at a Wikipedia Religion reference desk. I agree that such a desk would not be for idle musing. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The sign is out. From the RD front page, Humanities encompasses "History, politics, literature, religion...". On RD/H, religion questions are present (and answered). Your claims of religion's singular drive for uniqueness, in terms of the reference desk, are unsupported and unpersuasive. — Lomn 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, the comparison of religion to science fiction is highly offensive to many participants, as well as being an extremely dubious statement. The nuances of religious doctrine, for example, are no less rational and well-defined than much of history. The basis for such doctrine is no less irrational than much of what has passed for psychology over the centuries. — Lomn 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I said that religion was not very closely related to science fiction. But I did say that religion might be more closely related to science fiction than other fields of study. But I don't think I put too fine a point on it. It isn't a major theme which I have developed, is it? I think you may be suggesting that psychology is in some ways related to some aspects of some religions and I may not necessarily disagree with you concerning that. Concerning rationality and irrationality — they may be flip sides of two closely related things. If I used those words incorrectly I stand corrected. But I think we are getting off track. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of the addition of any desks, including one on religion. Bus stop's assertion that religion sits apart from other studies ignores the huge intertwining religion has with history, and, to a lesser extent, fields like psychology, philosophy, and the arts. My feeling is that fewer desks makes it easier for people to catch all the questions they want to help with. For example, my education in anthropology and archaeology might prove useful on a small subset of religious questions, but not enough of them to justify me wading through an entire desk of "Are any green eyed people Zoroastrian?" and "Is it true secular humanists eat their young?" type stuff, which I'm afraid make up a sizable minority of the so-called religious questions we encounter.
In fact, I'll step onto a tiny soapbox for a second to use this platform to once again suggest the removal of the entertainment desk. Matt Deres (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Why remove the Entertainment desk? Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a good idea would be to have just one reference desk with some sort of code indicating a category for a question. Choosing a category would be mandatory; choosing more than one category could be acceptable. Perhaps abbreviations for a variety of categories could make their appearance along with the section heading. This could arguably allow for a greater number of categories, but still keeping all questions in one centralized location. A table of these abbreviations could appear at the top of the reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the archive I linked above (proof that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it?), "I believe that's how the Ref Desk started out, but the sheer volume of questions made it umnanageable, which is why it was split up in the first place. -- JackofOz 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)". — Lomn 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
On the issue of Entertainment, do you think those questions would be better answered under some other desk (presumably Misc)? I observe that questions there generally get fewer answers, but I'm not sure if it's an issue of eyeballs or one of questions being about obscure minutiae. My impression from previous iterations of this discussion is that Misc/Humanities regulars are often grateful that said minutiae have been shuffled off. — Lomn 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we are missing out on the social engineering aspect of all this. Our aims involve facilitating activities of a reference desk variety. Many people stumble upon something that is interesting that they were not even thinking of getting involved in. What is called for in my opinion is the least intrusive means of designating questions as falling into one or more categories. I am almost thinking of a purely visual, non-verbal, means of representing this. Color coding would be an idea, but it would not work for the many people who are color blind. Abbreviations would seem like the next best thing. I think 3 or 4 letter abbreviations, separated by a comma in the instance that there are more than one category designation for a question, and placed in a field directly beneath the question's section heading, could accomplish this neatly. I am aware of the argument that the sheer volume of questions might tend to make this sort of solution seem unmanageable. But — has it been tried? Or has what's been tried merely been the undifferentiated mixing of all questions into chronological order? Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I am against the creation of any new desk, for the reasons hashed out previously, except perhaps for the "What Color is Jupiter Really? Are There Any Left-handed Sinhalese Muslims in Toronto? Aren't Proctologists Predatory Bottom Touchers?" desk. --Sean 23:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm very surprised at the response my question has garnered, and would like to respond to a number of the comments made:
I. I like BusStop's insight into welcoming religious questions. I, for one, have been on Wikipedia since 2005 and only found out about the reference desks about 2 weeks ago when I stumbled upon the science desk...but not from the main page. So yes, someone who happens to find the main desk page will see that religion is included in humanities, but it's definitely not very welcoming. I had a language questions that I hadn't been able to find an answer to for a while, and only because I noticed earlier today that there is a language desk did I ask the question.
II. I appreciate TenofAllTrades' concern, but I don't thing we will be getting what Matt is worried about any more than the science desk receives an overload of sexually-charged-dressed-as-a-science-question from wackos. The science desk will often have tangential questions asked that run off of previously posted questions -- that could happen nicely on a religion desk, but not in the current format, where the last religion question is followed by a question on Napoleon's last meal.
III. To say a desk does not belong until we a currently existing category is overloaded to the point that we split it is an interesting premise that I did not think about. But as a religious man myself, I sense that I can be a help to some people in answering their questions. There are "yahoo answers" out there that gather lots of religious questions, and Wikipedia is IMO a far better forum to garner thoughtful, constructive answers than yahoo. If we are out there to provide information on everything, we can't say that we won't start an article until more than 3 request it. We do not delete articles that have existed for 1 week without more than 1 editor contributing to it. Perhaps this is nothing more than an inclusionist/deletionist argument, and I for one have not decided yet to which category I belong...but I think a religious help desk would be a good thing. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Point 2: Why not? Science often gets interesting spinoffs, true. They're often separated by unrelated topics. Is the presence of Napoleon actively discouraging religious questions? That seems unlikely, since it didn't discourage the first question.
Re: Point 3: But we're a Reference desk, not a quest for spiritual guidance desk. I, too, can be described as "religious". I harbor no illusions that proselyting is expressly against the purpose of the RD. As I see it, that's what most of the "Religion has a unique purpose" claims have at their center, but that's entirely inappropriate for this venue. We are not going to form a desk for people to argue the merits of following Buddha versus the Cargo Cult. — Lomn 13:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"Proselytizing" would be strictly off limits, or at least greatly discouraged, in my conception of a Religion desk. As for "spiritual guidance," that too is not at all what I have in mind. That would be sort of like medical advice and legal advice — not really what this is about. That sort of thing would no doubt crop up. But I think it should be discouraged. That may prove to be no more than a minor irritant. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be an "interesting" can of worms to open. Even now we have a hint of things to come, with the user who keeps trying to foment a debate about Secular Humanism. Just as a starting point, I can see someone asking, "How do I know which religion is the 'right' one?" You can point him to an article that leads to a website where such things might be debated; or you could foment the debate right there; or simply delete the question as being a mine field. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a great question...and a great comment on your part -- except at the end where you recommend censoring the desk. Just as Wikipedia regulates itself in terms of accuracy and vandalism, so too will a desk regulate itself in terms of what questions belong and what does not. Questions are only as good as their answers. If vandals are ignored, they will eventually go away. On your larger theme, though, I say there is nothing different about religion than electricity -- as electricians do not hide their tools and pamphlets, hoping no one will ask them how the darn appliance works, so too, a religion should not hide in fear that someone will figure out the undermining factors. If there are burdensome fundamental questions, perhaps it speaks more loudly about that "religion" than anyone could ever do while using superlatives. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really too keen on censorship. In the case I'm referring to, the guy kept posting the same question over and over, on different help desk sites, talking about being angry about the contents or premise of some book. You're right, the best way to deal with those trolls is to ignore them. But it's abuse of the help desk, regardless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
What people are failing to realize, or perhaps they are realizing it all too well and are trying to avoid it, is how very different a Religion reference desk would be from anything already here. I don't think I am going too far out on a limb to say that there is a lot of contentiousness between religious factions on Wikipedia. This should come as no surprise. That is just reflective of the quarrelsome divisions of the world. On the other hand there is isolation. There is no natural space in which all the world's religions get addressed for their commonality as religions. Let me reemphasize that I am not suggesting a space for the blurring of the naturally existing lines of distinctions between the various religions. Therefore questions such as, "What is the meaning of life?" would have no place on such a reference desk. Nor would "What is the meaning of life according to the Xyz religion?" have any place on such a Religion reference desk. A fairly stringent test would have to be applied to any questions deemed worth addressing on such a desk. It should not be a desk for idle musing on tangentially "religious" questions. Some of those sort of questions, paradoxically, would be better suited to the Science reference desk, or the Miscellaneous reference desk. The sort of questions that would be apropos to a Religion reference desk would be those that would be addressed to an authority within that religion. Needless to say this allows for contradiction, because different religions have different views. Ideally, the more specific the sorts of questions asked the better. References would certainly be preferable to the merely anecdotal on such a desk. Even those who deem themselves authorities should be expected to provide sources for responses given. Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It would be worth a try, to see what happens. Where's the harm? At worst, it doesn't work out and you meld it back into the humanities page. How dare you change your post after I've already responded. Just for that, I'm changing this response. So there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That is funny. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I would look forward to a religion page so that we can explore some of the more obscure topics, like The Church of Baseball, and The Church of What's Happening Now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for my apparent partisan platform, but I believe a free market, capitalistic approach would be best. Would we really have security measures on a religion desk? Would we really have criteria? I mean, whatever the market will bear will be what it will be -- sort of like the AfD pages, on which, I think, the initial point was not to vote but rather to discuss. Bit no matter how many times it's mentioned and rementioned, AfD pages are concept elections where the most votes win. The only people who complain about this is the people who lose the vote. So too, to restrict questions...I mean, it's not at all similar to asking someone to stop asking homework questions on the science desk, or to ask someone to refrain from asking literature questions on the science desk. If someone, and yes, we are all considered equal here, thinks that his or her question is religion related, I suppose he or she will place it, and if others feel the same way, they will answer it, even if you, me or someone else thinks its ridiculous. Asking philosophical, theoretical science questions that cannot possibly garner quantitative results, such as time travel questions are no worse than meaning of life questions. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We don't need "security measures," agreed. I was just trying to spell out what I think is ideal. I was describing "criteria," but I am aware such criteria would likely be ignored by many. A "Religion desk" would have problems, just as any other reference desk would. Obviously I am trying to present it in its best light. But I think its potential for addressing certain types of questions outweighs its downside.
Anyone who has found themselves in the middle of emotionally-charged discussions on Wikipedia should know this. One consequence the establishment of such a desk would probably have is to syphon off some of the steam that takes place on Talk pages of articles where primarily religious questions are weighed.
But even beyond the above, I have a hunch that such spillover activity would stimulate further inquiry. This is not an attempt to generate questions where none exist. I think provided the platform the questions would flow to it. A natural place for such questions to be expressed is what I'm suggesting. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really understand what all the brouhaha is. Just be bold, create this new page, and see how it goes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea! Why doesn't everyone just stop arguing and just do what I already agree with? APL (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Since I seem to have been too subtle above: past consensus was overwhelmingly against the previous bold actions to create overly-splintered single-purpose ref desks. If we determine that consensus now is to add a desk, fine. The bold route here has already been rejected. — Lomn 12:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd vote no because I don't want another refdesk link to have to click every time I visit. I disagree that RDH is "swamped" with religion questions. This is a solution in search of a problem. Tempshill (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that the Humanities reference desk was "swamped with religion questions." I said it was "swamped in non-religion questions." Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not try it for 30 days and see what happens? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I quite like the idea - especially if it reduces the number of nut-jobs on the humanities desk.. Let me put that another way - isn't there a danger or creating a 'honey pot' for the 'wrong sort of question' . Only a "reference desk\race" could possibly be worse. All this is irrelevent.
The big problem is reformatting Wikipedia:Reference desk - a new icon would be needed as well...83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that any good will come of an attempt to provide a nutjob honeypot. First, how many questions will qualify for "religious nutjob" in the first place? Second, once they're ignored on RD/R (because, as above, there isn't enough traffic to support RD/R anyway, much less RD/RNJ), what prevents them from posting right back to Humanities? The solution to bad questions isn't a new desk that asks for more bad questions. — Lomn 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Also TenOfAllTrades seemed to be saying (see above) that there was a place on wikiversity for those that seek to discuss rather than plain answers - is there a specific page to direct to for such cases?83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Are there really too many religious questions for the WP:RD/H to handle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So what's stopping anyone from just doing it? Is it that it would mess up the nice 2 x 4 symmetry at the top of the main page? Is it that it would be tough to find an appropriate icon? This is not an article, after all. Just do it! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, we're effectively already at the point of discussion in the WP:BRD cycle. At this stage, I don't think that the "just do it" philosophy is advised. A good summary of pros and cons would be welcome, though. — Lomn 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
So someone already created it and it was reverted? Why revert it based on what might or might not happen? Why not just do it and see what happens? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A good icon could be an illustration of the sun. Religion is often associated with "enlightenment", while sinfulness is often associated with "darkness". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That may favor Sun-worshipers over non-Sun-worshipers -- it should be a candle for that. But I disagree with that entirely. Perhaps it could be the icon that includes the religious symbols for the most-oft discusses 9 religions? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be a big icon. Would the word "God?" be non contentious?83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Whereas from my Jewish perspective God would certainly do justice (ha! no pun intially intended, but perhaps so after this emphasis for those who otherwise would not have caught it), it might would be tacky. But some organizations that consider themselves religions, such as Buddhism, either do not possess or do not focus on a God, and that would sort of exclude them -- and they might not take that too lightly. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The only correct icon for such a reference desk would be a picture of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. --Carnildo (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have referenced this discussion on RD/H in an attempt to seek wider consensus. I have done my best to remain neutral in that announcement so as not to prejudice the discussion here. — Lomn 14:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you said that the question "What is the meaning of life according to the Xyz religion?" would have no place on such a Religion Reference Desk. What purpose would this desk serve if not to answer sorts of questions like "what views does the xyz establishment hold regarding abc?". I think it would mostly serve those types of questions and "Where are there a lot of xyz followers?"
I think this discussion should instead boil down to:
  1. Does the amount of religious questions warrant the creation of an additional desk? At two per day, as someone figured out, I don't think so.
  2. Does whatever distinction exists between religion and the rest of humanities hinder the effectiveness of the Humanities Desk's ability to answer religion questions effectively? I think these questions currently up there have been: Christ killers, Judaism Ethnic divisions vs. denomination, Districts of West Bengal versus religion, and Is there any religion where there are two good Gods?.
So in my opinion, if these reasons were true, a new Desk would be warranted, but since they are not, it should be left as it is. —Akrabbimtalk 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I. Desks are based on qualitative difference, not quantitative. They can also be split for quantitative considerations, but that should not be primary.
II. Religion is such a specialized subset of Humanities that it doesn't jive well. It's not entirely clear that Humanities includes religion, and the fact that it is listed within Humanities on the Reference Desk mainpage doesn't help those who don't get to desks from the mainpage. I actually just visited the mainpage 2 weeks after I found the desks -- the interdesk link at the top of each page negates the necessity of such a page outside of formality.
III. What's the trouble with discussions? Would it be entirely inappropriate if the religious desk generates some a quasi-forum that is question based? That seems to me to happen in respect to the majority of science related questions, time travel being the biggest example off the top of my head.
DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think User:Akrabbim has missed the point - the new desk may encourage new contributors, it's not simply a split. The argument doesn't boil down to "the library doesn't get many kids in - therefor we don't need a childrens section" - spot the mistake in logic83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why "consensus" is even needed. This is not a dictatorship. Just create the page and see what happens. If it doesn't work out, get rid of it. This is not rocket science. As for an icon for "Religion", maybe a block letter "R". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
How is religion "such a specialized subset of humanities that it doesn't jive well"? That's why I included the point about the questions being answered effectively, which I think they are. I think it does jive just fine. It doesn't seem like there is a qualitative difference as large as youth and adult literature. As far as consensus goes, All actions on wikipedia are determined or confirmed by Consensus among editors. —Akrabbimtalk 16:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Similarly... We don't need a consensus. If you see a religion desk and you don't like it, just delete the page and see what happens. If it is really needed, someone else will recreate it. (In other words, consensus it required to avoid edit wars) -- kainaw™ 16:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually that isn't totally true - the relevent pages (ie links) are locked. Only god or an admin can actually add a link to the ref desk side bar link thingy....83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hence all the bureaucratic hand-wringing. Meanwhile, I've thought of a good icon: The illustration of "God" from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's the traditional "old man sitting on a cloud" concept, and since it's actually the cricketer W.G. Grace, it should appeal to any country that loves cricket, so between the monotheists and the cricketers we've got most of the civilized world covered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am against the creation of this new reference desk category. We seek (as ever) to avoid fielding requests for answers that do not rest in solid fact or referenced sources, opinions and starting debates and the like. What is left after those are deducted in the context of religion? Well, mainly human history, a bit of psychology, a bit of language, perhaps (at a stretch) some anthropology. Well, those are all covered by humanities, science, language and science, respectively. As said before, a solution looking for a problem.--Rixxin (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am against it because nobody supporting it has made the slightest attempt to justify why it is needed. They only say "let's try it!!!" Why!? The Humanities desk is not flooded with too many questions. It is not necessary to split it up. If the only reason is "let's try it!!!", then I don't see a reason. In my opinion, the burden is not on proving that we don't need a Religion desk. The burden is on proving that we need a Religion desk. Please, someone make an attempt to explain why it is needed. -- kainaw™ 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the unspoken justification is the Science-v-Religion false dichotomy. APL (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the opposition to creating a Religion reference desk is an argument in favor of creating a Religion reference desk. Most people outside of those interested in religion are hostile to religion. The humanities, after which the Humanities reference desk is named, generally exist in an antagonistic relationship to religion. There are exceptions, sure, but they are few. A common cliche heard is that religion has been the cause of all the wars of history. A movie like Bill Maher's Religulous is criticized because in religion it had such an easy target for its satire. A person having a sincere question of a religious nature is not going to ask it where the likelihood of being ridiculed is high. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Just have faith. God wants it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
And W.G. Grace wants it. "OF COURSE it's a good idea!!!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not just needed, but needed more than the failed Psychology, History, Sports or Seagull desks, or any other desks that could be proposed. --Sean 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No!!! Wikipedia is about facts. Sure, there are facts about religion. But the vast majority of questions that would be asked on a Religion desk, would not be about facts, but about spiritual, existential questions more suited for a discussion forum than for a fact-seeking forum. We have more than enough questioners wanting to stir up a discussion. Adding a Religion desk would be a request for contributions from people with a religious agenda. No!!! Thanks, but no thanks. We just don't need that. --NorwegianBlue talk 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'd be in favour of creating such a desk. My reason is that it might allow those of us who have a religious bent to discuss matters concerning belief in (relative) peace: at the moment some people seem too eager to jump on the bandwagon berating believers and religion in general, which makes life a bit uncomfortable. Of course, it could have the opposite effect I suppose - attracting those who are looking for a fight. But we won't know until we try it. --88.108.141.215 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have a religious bent, as many of us do, please consider whether you are asking for factual information, or for opinion. As I said in a previous post: there obviously are facts about religion. I'm certain that virtually all regular contributors to the refdesks would welcome questions about facts about religion. If you are asking about opinion, however, you should do so elsewhere. -NorwegianBlue talk 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It's just been brought to my attention that I accidentally deleted 88.108.141.215's post. I apologize. Thanks to user User:Bus_stop for cleaning up after me. APL (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Who, familiar with Wikipedia, would be asking for opinion? Let me ask you, "Are all religions the same?" If you've seen one, have you seen them all? Are there any distinctions between the world's various religions? Do they all have the same sub-components? Do they all say the same thing about corresponding subjects? What, specifically, is the practice associated with death in each of the world's religions? How about birth? Do all of the religions of the world have a known ritual associated with passage to adulthood? The proposed desk is ideally a place for scholarly, sourced information. Most other settings are hostile to religion. The arts, the humanities, entertainment — are often antagonistic toward religion. Nobody with a serious religion question wants to be ridiculed so would not ask these and myriad other questions that fall under the rubric of religion on the Humanities reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Those were all factual questions, and would IMO belong in the humanities desk. I agree, however, that many of us who answer seize every opportunity to take a poke against religion. In my recollection, that usually happens when religion is touched upon in a question that has a different focus, but I may be wrong -- I haven't scrutinized the archives on this. Nevertheless, I think this is better handled through guidelines, consensus and discussion among the answerers -- such as what is going on here right now -- than by creating a separate desk. The questioner will want their question to be read. A separate desk means fewer readers. I don't think the number of such questions warrants a separate desk. --NorwegianBlue talk 02:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
There are also official interpretations of things, and the history thereof - all fact, and at the same time peoples opinion (not necessarily ours) - I agree with 88.108... for similar reasons they gave.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The reference desk is not a discussion forum. It's a place to get reference-type questions answered. If you're looking for a discussion forum, whether about religion or anything else, then WP:RD is not the place you're looking for. Anyway, religious topics work out perfectly well at the humanities desk and should stay there. If there was a religious desk, I'd have to dress like a pirate whenever I happened to wander past it, and that would be way inconvenient. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, There's already a humanities desk and I haven't noticed that it's overflowing with religion questions to the point that it becomes vital to sort through them. APL (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, humanities desk isn't crowded with such questions and isn't overloaded. The justifications sound to me like they are saying they want a discussion desk where questions are discussed and handled sympathetically. The reference desk is for answering questions preferably directing to wiki articles if possible. A little variety is good on the desks too to make them interesting. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am Opposed to a religion reference desk. I answer questions frequently in the Religion and Spirituality [1]subforum on Yahoo Answers and I think a religion reference desk would be similar. There would probably be a lot of atheists answering religious questions that relate more to personal beliefs than to the material one might expect to find in an encyclopedia. There are other forums on the Internet where religious questions can be asked, Wikipedia does not need to create a reference desk that will lead to little more than off-topic bickering. Gary (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - not enough traffic. If you analyse present traffic patterns, the most needed desk is the "Saying that time travel is impossible desk" which would get considerably more traffic than Entertainment. Besides, I very much doubt that sufficient reverence for Pineapple and bacon pizza could be maintained without someone calling someone else a "nut job". SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated above: not enough traffic, RD/H is enough and whatever anyone's personal attitude towards religion is, academic study of religion is part of humanities. — Kpalion(talk) 09:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind ... deleted because I arrived too late :P Royor (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Given the earlier disputes of archiving and without commenting on the SB issue, from my experience automatic archiving can reduce the number of disputes, as well as hopefully editor workload. And when disputes do happen there's less chance other editors will feel the editor doing the archiving is acting inappropriately and feel aggrieved. Discussion here is somewhat irregular but still it seems to me something like archiving threads after 3-4 weeks with a minimum of 5 threads left would be fine. Is there any reason why we're not using automatic archiving? I was actually a bit surprised to find we weren't Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Automatic archiving (say using User:Miszabot) prevents unnecessary contention, as well as archiving errors, and to me is a no-brainer. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Didn't even know such a thing was possible - could that be the reason? Sounds like an excellent idea. I can't imagine a topic that isn't totally dead within 3 weeks. I !vote yes to this suggestion.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and enabled auto. archiving with the parameters Nil Einne suggested. Feel free to tweak the parameters. We will need to list the newly created archives to the archivebox manually, since this page uses a non-standard listing scheme. Alternately we can switch to more standard archive box. Abecedare (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Even better, we've already had people expressing their utmost hate of the current archive box. Another excellent suggestion. Will it be compatible with Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives, and will there still be some manual tasks to do?83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Now there is no manual intervention required for creating or listing the archives. If someone really prefers the previous system, here are the edits to revert: [2] and [3]. Abecedare (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks from me as well. I was happy to do it, but it was a bit of a complicated chore. Just that much more time to copyedit stuff. Matt Deres (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed a link to a Windows XP torrent here [4]. I hadn't planned to mention it here but the user has disputed it so decided to mention it in case it's added back. I don't see any need for discussion here since as I mentioned to the user I consider it a clear cut violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works a core wikipedia policy which outweights any RD policy and any dispute over that is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights or perhaps WP:VPP Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan on adding it back, I don't wish to edit war. But you are wrong in claiming a link to a html page is copyright violation. If I had linked to WindowsXP.iso file then yes, that's a copyright link. But an html page is NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Well unfortunately the rest of wikipedia don't agree with you, including I suspect the foundation's lawyers, so... Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you're wrong but I'll drop the matter, I don't wish to argue. I promise not help people in the future by providing links. Happy editing :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The policy is very clear: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." It is abundantly clear that the torrent site does not have microsoft permission. 82.43's specious argument that she/he is linking to the HTML page and not to the torrent is just so much hokum. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I think you're wrong but I don't want to argue so I'm not adding the link back and I promise not to provide links in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that it seems to be a legitimate need brought about by the manufacturers failure to provide f****g disks for the software people have paid for. But rules are rules.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Not so sure about that. The OP has given no indication they've actually tried in any way to get replacement media. And I believe it is often possible to get backup media and if the OEM didn't provide any media in the first place I believe they often will on request. E.g. [5]. Also it is possible to backup Windows installation media, unlike with games which generally have DRM like SecuROM or StarForce making backups difficult. I believe you can usually get copies of computer/PC game media provided you can prove ownership too although the price may not be worth it if the game is rather old. For video DVDs and audio CDs/DVDs I believe you're right, if you lose the media your SOL. This is a bit OT so won't discuss it anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I shouldn't have added my personal gripe to the discussion. (Though the MS links are dead by the way). A torrent probably is 'cracked' software anyway? and not a good solution anyway I guess.
You're aware of the (fairly common) practice of supplying windows computers with no install CD, and the seller charging for the price of a CD (if you ask) for an install disk - for a +300 value unit I would expect a little better service. As I said I shouldn't have brought it up. Just a bee in my bonnet.83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing the past history of narrow-focus desks

I've noted above that Talk archive 33 makes for good reading in this discussion, as a couple years ago we discussed both a History and a Psychology desk near-simultaneously. There's been no structural change to the desks since then, so I think it still provides a useful parallel. From that archive (specifically, from the straw polls), here are the various objections that were raised -- I'm omitting as little as possible from the rationales.

  • There isn't the traffic to justify a separate Desk. The division will result in fewer questions answered because there will be fewer editors watching this new, overly-specialized Desk.
  • if we go this route there is no reason not to have a biology desk, physics, chemistry.... and on.
    • There is considerable overlap to not only biological, chemical and physical science, but also to those who answer the aforementioned questions. Additionally, it would force questions on biological/chemical warfare to be posted on two desks. :) DRosenbach

(Talk | Contribs) 14:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Irrespective of one's individual views on the split, it is plain that there has not yet been a consensus established for the creation of the psych desk
  • There's no need, and it might be asking for more trouble, if users interpret a whole desk dedicated to Psychology as a place to ask for psychological advice (instead of questions about psychology).
  • Makes asking questions more difficult, makes patrolling desks less appealing, adds no value. Let's not dissolve the desks.
  • What aspects of Psychology that can safely be addressed by the Ref Desk are questions of science. Everything else requires specialization of the sort (medical or legal) that Wikipedia cannot support.
  • If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It wastes people's time to have to click on a larger number of "desks" to see if there are questions to answer.
  • no need demonstrated.
  • Adds no value, reduces number of eyes that will see each question, over-compartmentalises.
  • No need to reduce the size of the Humanities desk (see above). History questions belong with the other humanities, clear borders of distinction don't always exist (this applies to all splits, of course, but having languages separated from the rest of the humanities is established and approved by the community)
  • There is no useful way of separating any thoughtful answer on historical matters from sociology, economics, geography, religion, and the list goes on.

I've omitted a few comments from those discussions, generally those related to the desks in question having already been established rather than, as here, being theoretical. However, it should be noted that in those cases only the original proponent spoke in favor of the new desks. That very definite consensus is why I think it's important now that we discuss and then act. Clearly more users are now speaking in favor of the new desk. What I want to know is how it will avoid the problems raised above. Some specific talking points I'd find useful:

  • How are religion questions not being appropriately answered on the Humanities desk?
  • How will religion questions be better answered on the Religion desk, particularly if we assume there are fewer users visiting it?

As a subset:

  • If the "honeypot" point is re-raised, how will encouraging bad questions help answer those good questions that are asked in the same place?
  • Is the "honeypot" point just a re-statement of "I don't like seeing bad questions on the Humanities desk"? If so, is there a separate way to address the issue of resolving bad questions?

Really, I think good answers on the first two can provide justification. RD/E tends to demonstrate that traffic isn't an absolute prerequisite (though I note again that it has more than double the traffic of the proposed RD/R) and it certainly demonstrates a clear division of content -- question moves in or out of RD/E seem comparatively rare. There's also very little crossover between RD/E and other desks. Note that I think this is a good point raised in the old discussions: with the proposed separation of history, one user noted that good history questions are rarely answered in isolation from sociology, economics, geography, religion, and so on. Can we not say the same of religion, that many religiously-canted questions have answers that also rely on history, sociology, geography, and so forth, and would thus benefit from exposure to experts in those areas?

In closing, it's obvious I'm not a fan of RD/R at this point. However, I'd like to make sure that I'm correct in saying "at this point" rather than being a knee-jerking opponent of all change. Prove that it's good. Prove me wrong. — Lomn 13:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there will be some overlap between religions and history. I say why not say "Try It", it's a perfectly reasonably idea, there may prove to be a demand for this that didn't appear to exist before, I'm sure the links can be made without any disruption.
I like to very strongly suggest that we all say "go for it" or "lets try it", and let the page be created.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Except many of us dispute that it's a "perfectly reasonable idea" -- and we're doing our best to provide firm reasons and examples of why it's not. At a minimum, let's establish the reasons to split the desk (per the above two questions; "try it" is not a reason), the duration of the test, and the criteria to evaluate the success of the test. I still don't buy that it's a needed idea to begin with, but assuming that we try it, and assuming that we let it run a month, how will we judge to keep it versus to roll it back in to Humanities? — Lomn 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a perfectly reasonable proposal assuming that the intended outcome is an increase in usefulness of the reference desks as a whole. Why not let the idea have a proper go at proving it's value, rather than what will be a drawn out discussion due to lack of any real objective evidence? That's my point. You don't know until you've tried.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Humanities already turns to discussion a lot more often than it should (i.e. never). I can't imagine a Religion desk being anything but a discussion forum - not to mention a magnet to our favorite secular humanism obsessed poster, and just about any other person with an ideology to promote. The test should always be "would you walk up to a ref desk librarian and ask him or her this question?" What questions that can be answered with reliable source and references are getting short shrift on RD/H? --LarryMac | Talk 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
For those wondering "What's up with the little palm branch crosses?" - those sort of questions are great for a religious help desk. Moreover, I'd like to see someone ask a librarian about slow ejaculation. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry...got cut off. Religion should be split from Humanities because of a qualitative difference between the umbrella and the "umbrella-ed." Low question rate is no reason to maintain two desks within one -- If we had two desks, like Literature and Computers, that did not generate enough questions for our liking (and even that concept is a dubious one), would we merge them? It's like having Bob's Autobody + Massage Parlor because Bob can't get enough business out of either one individually. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
What?!? Do you not know what the word 'humanities' means? From Humanities "Examples of the disciplines, related to humanities are ancient and modern languages, literature, history, philosophy, religion, visual and performing arts (including music)." APL (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is a reference desk. For religion, we could make a desk that doesn't allow you to ask a question. It just has a droplist of all religions. You select the which religion your question is about and it shows you a link to official religious text for that religion. There's your reference. -- kainaw™ 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Some religions have multiple texts. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we have a !vote, just to see what the overall response is like, leave it open for a couple of weeks, short comments?? Please?83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed own unhelpful comment. // BL \\ (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the scope could be broadened a bit - to include all the other questions no one can answer - eg "What does it look like from inside a black hole". It could be called the "existential and logical fallacy help desk" and denoted by a big ?.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a "Reference_Desk/References", then we could ignore all the other desks. :-) APL (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I !vote that we don't waste time with a !vote for something as silly as a Religion desk. -- kainaw™ 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If no one can give links to past questions that would have been suitable for a Religion desk but not for the Humanities desk, this looks like an attempt to drum up traffic on a particular topic, which seems very unlike a reference desk to me. I vote that we stick with the pragmatic split of desks based on keeping traffic and interest-alignment reasonably in line rather than an ideological split designed to "bless" certain topics with their own desks. --Sean 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the proposed refdesk would require a new disclaimer. Presumably trusting the well being of your immortal soul to a bunch of random internet strangers is even more dangerous than asking for legal advice. APL (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Game Over - Thanks for playing.

This is Wikipedia. We don't vote - and we don't !vote either - we look for consensus for change. When nearly everyone agrees that a change is needed - the few who oppose it are supposed to gracefully give in - and we make the change.

If even a fairly modest minority oppose the change - it doesn't happen.

I've just read through the entire discussion above - and only THREE people out of TWENTY who discussed it came out in support of the proposal (DRosenbach, BusStop and one anon) - one other (BaseBall Bugs) seemed unconvinced but said "why not try it?" - the remaining sixteen contributors were clearly opposed. Not one person was convinced to change their minds - so continuing the debate, voting, !voting or anything else is entirely pointless.

Anyone prepared to read what was written would be forced to agree that there is CLEARLY no consensus to change.

The positions of both sides are now firmly entrenched - no amount of debate is going to change anyone's minds. I'm sorry but it's game over for the proponents of a Religion RD - they need to gracefully give it up and cease debating it. That's how Wikipedia works.

IMHO: DRosenbach should be ashamed of himself for attempting to drag the debate over to the RD/M user-side pages with one of the clearest "soapbox" questions I've seen in a long time. That's a big No-No - and it reduces the respectability of the "Support" side by approximately 33%. An apology for that would be appropriate. I have removed the question.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So everyone else doesn't have to go searching just like I did, the edit in question from DRosenbach is here.
I'm not sure it's soapboxing as much as it is an attempt at vote canvassing, but that's not appropriate either, certainly not in an ostensibly reader-facing page like a reference desk. APL (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, no consensus. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Re Steve's game over-post: Am I the only one here who doesn't know the term !voting? !vote is a redlink (as of 10:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)). Would someone kindly explain? --NorwegianBlue talk 10:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
See WP:!VOTE and Negation#Notation. (and no, you're certainly not the only one. I was one of you for a long time too. Lurking around WT:RFA taught me what it meant). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It means "not vote" - ie it's just a poll, with no binding consequences - the idea being, amongst others to get an idea of any general consensus, rather than just the opinions of the more vocal editors.
And !vote is a computer person type joke notation (in some computer languages !true=false.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Glossary (first section , after != )83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Being a hobbyist C++ programmer, and knowing that Steve is a full-time C++ programmer, I should have guessed that, but it didn't occur to me. And thanks to HappyUR for adding the redirect! --NorwegianBlue talk 15:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it contemptuous that TenofallTrades and SteveBaker are two out of 5 people who read my post -- the minority -- and came to the assumption of poor faith that I was intending anything of the like as mentioned above. At least 3 people responded in good faith with jokes and other responses. I was neither canvassing nor !canvassing. While posting the question, I thought about which words to use so that no one should mistake my meaning -- as I see people like to nitpick on details in questions (ala chameleon) -- I used the word "invest" and not "waste," because I thought the discussion was going on quite well. It is unequivocal that both TenofallTrades and SteveBaker assumed bad faith in violation of Wikipedia policy, and then one of them "closed" the discussion, as though it was a vote he was afraid he'd lose, and besmirched me for the entire RD community to see. His apology is hopefully pending. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you would call this. I wouldn't refer to it as canvassing (in the sense of trying to drum up votes of a particular kind), though I suppose it is canvassing in the sense that it was clearly there to bring people into the discussion. Lomn had done the same kind of thing in the Humanities desk. While I wouldn't presume to speak for Steve, I think your post would have gone without comment (as Lomn's did) if you'd done it in a straightforward manner instead of of doing it surreptitiously. While I'm sure you were thinking with the best of faith (pun not intended), it's difficult to assume good faith when someone is being sneaky, even if they're only being sneaky in a rather innocuous way. Do you see what I mean? IOW, you can help people see the good faith you're using if you do things transparently. Matt Deres (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I welcome your level-headedness but disagree with your premise that what I wrote was clearly there to being people into the discussion. After being at the RD desk for about 2 weeks now, I recognize a certain sub-set of users present at all times -- not only do I dispute that my actions clearly attempted to bring new blood to the discussion, but my intention was not even to surreptitiously bring new commenters. My intention was to ask the very people who would had read the discussion, thereby making a joke. A few people got it, and one person even made a great joke in response! But the others, it seems, did not take it that way. For that, I regret doing what I did, but only inasmuch as my intentions were misread. I maintain my innocence insofar as I have explained above. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the link that's relevant. In point of fact no one could care less about the particular post in question, except those who would rather not have a free-standing Religion reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I would rather not have a free-standing Religion reference desk, and yet I couldn't care less about the particular post in question. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I must retract...having read the full thread only now after Bus stop's post, I now think Abecedare had the best joke. Now THAT made me laugh! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
And re: your initial post in this section, SteveBaker, do you profess both honest and non-honest opinions? Can we now not call into question all opinions you have posted that were not specifically identified as being your honest opinion? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's not devolve into a series of snarky comments. Emphasis with a word like "honest" does not imply that honesty is otherwise absent. Common usage. BTW, I have been lurking/reading and would speak up if I didn't see this winding down (which is a good thing, IMHO  :-). --Scray (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. User:DRosenbach, new to the RefDesks committed a minor faux pas and then someone else cleaned it up. Done. Happens all the time. DRosenbach knows better now and presumably won't do it again. We don't need a four alarm debate on the topic. There's no possible conclusion to that debate that could make the RefDesks better. APL (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

APL -- And hopefully you will not remove other people's posts, as here: [6], [7] Bus stop (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hope so. I have explained to you that that was an error, and I apologized both here and on the IP's talk page. Every once and a while I get an edit conflict, but no edit conflict warning. I don't know why this happens to me occasionally or what I'm doing wrong to cause it. (I've mentioned this in the past. [8][9][10] But no one has been able to tell me what stupid thing I'm doing to cause it.).
Unless you're accusing me of something else? APL (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually you apologised to the wrong IP..You removed my post - but please don't make this an issue - I've seen it happen before - I believe it to be due to a bug in the software.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but at least I no longer feel bad about archiving too large a chunk of the talk pages. Look at all the space I freed up for this lovely debate! :-P Matt Deres (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know there was no real issue with your archiving - except one trouble causing user who insisted on reverting it (whilst at the same time removing content) - that user was blocked later the same day for similar disruptive edits. I should have mentioned it at the time.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Correction, one non vandal type editor had a legitimate gripe, that too much had been archived. I used to get into trouble for this too, now I don't archive at all. I suppose archiving 2/3 is a safe bet.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It'll soon be time to archive again.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Game over, number of keystrokes and all that

I enjoy the English Wikipedia for many reasons, one being its inclusive atmosphere. There is obviously no consensus for creating WP:RD/Religion. Nevertheless, the tremendous amount of discussion is food for thought. I remember having read somewhat ironic, anti-religious comments which were unnecessary and uncalled for in the threads in question. My google-fu is not up to par on this Sunday morning, so I'm unable to give examples, but they were probably on the science desk, and in 2009. The English Wikipedia is *the* international wikipedia. Disrespectful comments about religion on the refdesk may alienate potential contributors. We really shouldn't be doing that. What do you think about adding some words of caution in the guidelines, section Content and tone? --NorwegianBlue talk 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything is anti-religious. Outside of religion itself, everything is anti-religious. That is the reason for allowing the Religion reference desk to stand alone. No one is going to ask a certain type of question about religion in the environment of a Humanities reference desk. All of culture opposes religion. I know that is an overstatement. But I will moderate it later. First it simply must be said. All sophisticated culture frowns upon or dismisses religion. The arts have very little regard for religion, with few exceptions. A person can't ask a question of simple practical importance concerning their own religion (or another religion) on such as the Humanities reference desk because for sure they would be ridiculed. That is tantamount to a fact of life. Just this very series of topic headings above indicates that quite clearly. I'm not making a value judgment one way or the other. But it is disingenuous to speak of a religion section to a Humanities reference desk. Such an animal does not exist. Bill Maher made a movie called Religulous. Do you know what was a criticism of that movie? A criticism was that religion was too easy a target. The criticism was that Maher was "preaching to the choir." It is a common refrain that "religion has been the cause of all the world's wars." Do you think it is religious people who say that? Or do you think it is more likely those who are not particularly religious who repeat that cliche? The use that I envision, that Wikipedia reference desks are presently not serving, is the individual with a largely practical question about how he/she should be living up to a religion that is desired to be practiced. There are many other types of questions that no doubt would come up. But I am just saying what I see as the need that could be served which is not now being served, and cannot be served by containing "religion" within the hostile environment of the "humanities." Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop making unkind claims about this desk without links to back them up. There are currently 8-10 religion questions on Humanities, almost all of which have helpful and/or thoughtful answers. I don't see a single instance of ridicule or dismissiveness; if you do, please point it out. A sloppy and absurd statement like "religion has been the cause of all the world's wars" would be met with a thorough spanking at these desks. Just look at the wonderful RefDesk response to "Cum natura humana" and point out the "anti-religious" post. Just stop. --Sean 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It is my opinion that creating a Religion desk will not be a cure for anti-religious comments. I base this on the local bookstores and libraries. If you go to the Religion section, you will find many books on Christianity and a few on Judaism. If you are interested in something like Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism, you have to go to Philosophy. There is a clear mindset that we accept one religion as "Religion" and all others are fake religions - or just philosophies. So, I strongly expect people on a Religion reference desk to be more anti-religious. If you ask about Buddhism, a group of Christian zealots will tell you that it is a Religion desk and tell you to take your question over to Humanities. In the end, all we will be doing is creating a new forum upon which the zealots will wage the continual war of religions. -- kainaw™ 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(@ Bus stop) Just to counterbalance your view of the desks' attitude toward religion, another editor left the reference desk with the comment that "there is a bias that is pro-Christian", "if the question at hand is regarding religion, it brings out all the religious fanatics, who then combine to present a solid front against anyone such as myself who comes along and demands academic integrity in what they write", and "the Ref Desk is a haven for religious nutcases". [11]
I disagree with both you and that editor, and I see a big difference between taking an anti- (or pro-) religious point-of-view on the one hand, and looking at religion from a distanced, encyclopedic perspective. We can report views on religion, both from within and from the outside.
Call me old-fashioned, but I do see this project in the tradition of the first modern encyclopedists of enlightment, not as an anything-goes place where every point of view needs its own protection in a walled garden. I'm a socialist, card-carrying, but I don't want my encyclopedia to write from a socialist (or any other ideological) point of view.
Ideally, questions on religion would be answered by historians, philosophers, theologians, and so forth. By priests and rabbis too, but in their capacity as scholars and experienced community-leaders, not in their possible function as protectors of religious thought. By atheists too, but in whatever scholarly capacity they have something relevant to add, not as attackers or ridiculers of religion.
We shouldn't argue over religious truth or ethics at the reference desk, but we can report and reference corresponding scholarly discussions. This is what encyclopedias are supposed to do. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sluzzelin -- Yes, of course "reporting views on religion," if well-sourced, would be acceptable. And yes, questions should be ideally fielded by someone with some expertise. I envision that as being someone with standing within that religion. Such a reference desk should be the equivalent of a person seeking a person of high standing within a particular religion, for advice, not of a general nature, but of a specific nature, therefore mostly of a "how-to" nature.
I think such a desk would be an ongoing project, not just in the usual sense, but in the sense of honing the desk into its ideal shape. Such a desk would almost need a separate forum just to guide it. But I think its a worthwhile project. Religion presents a problem, that I don't think Wikipedia handles well. I am proposing not just a reference desk, but a laboratory, in which to think about and to craft an approach to religion that is fairly workable and stable. It is a project fraught with problems. But it is a worthwhile undertaking, in my opinion.
You are jumping to conclusions, by overly concerning yourself with "priests and rabbis" and such "as protectors of religious thought." Ideally the reference desk would police itself against the promotion of any one religion. Neutral language would have to be used. The aim should have a greater emphasis on specific details, rather than on anyone's conception of the religion's overall philosophy.
Atheism (mentioned in your link), by the way, is not a religion. (If it is a religion, it is the most simplistic religion that I am aware of.) I think only established, "organized religion," should be represented. Very small religions would be fine. But to be considered it would have to have some "notability." Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I am taking a risk here speaking for Sluzzelin, but I do not think she intended to be discussing what would happen on a separate Religion desk, but rather on what should be happening on the Humanities Desk. In spite of my flip comment way, way up, I am also of the view that a separate desk is not needed, that the Humanities guidlenine and editors, in general, can handle such questions in a helpful manner. And this statement by Bus stop concerns me: I think only established, "organized religion," should be represented. Very small religions would be fine. But to be considered it would have to have some "notability." That's all well and good in articles, but anathema on the Ref Desk to exclude questions on matters (religious or otherwise) because they are "not notable." I hope I have misunderstood. // BL \\ (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
BL -- I envision a "religion" reference desk as not being about "spirituality" in general. I think it should be about "organized religion." Notability would not really be a problem, because virtually any religion is notable. Even if a small religion doesn't presently have an article, I don't mean to say that I would rule out questions pertaining to it on such a reference desk. So, I don't mean "notability," strictly speaking. So, I stand corrected on that.
The problem is that no one is going to ask a serious question concerning religion on a humanities desk. And no one is likely to be around to answer such a question if it were asked. I don't want to be beating a dead horse, but the humanities are opposed to religion. "Irreverence" is far more common than "piety" — in just about everything. I know that religion is not a subcategory of the Entertainment reference desk, but I would just like to point out that entertainment largely stands in opposition to religion. And the same holds true for more sophisticated expressions of culture — the so-called high arts.
This would surely constitute original research on my part, but religions, all religions, stand as outposts separate from everything else. That, in my understanding, is characteristic of religion, at least in the society that I am immersed in. Perhaps at a past point in time, or perhaps in some remote pockets of the world, religion still holds sway over the lives of the population. But in modern, first world countries, religion exists as a holdout — refusing to go along with the rest of the culture. That is why it is so easy to make fun of religion. Religion is the quintessential "stick in the mud." Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a fairly good representative of what I have in mind, concerning the Jewish religion. It is called "Ask moses dot com." I'm not super duper familiar with it. But my understanding of it is that it allows people to pose questions. Answers are given. Hopefully the answers are accurate. Hopefully they are not trying to "sell" Judaism to anyone, whether they be Jewish or not. Any religion should be able to be accessed in this way. That is the sort of thing the Wikipedia reference desk should be about, as I envision it. I don't think something like that is going to get off the ground if it lay buried within a humanities reference desk. My proposal is that we nurture such a desk into existence, to be there to address all of the organized religions of the world. It will not be an easy task. It is different than setting up the already existing reference desks. Basically people don't even have a vision of it. That is obvious from some of the comments I have heard. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me the guidelines already cover this. E.g. comments that jokes should not be needlessly offensive. And that "Responses are not deemed to be inappropriate as long as they are relevant to the question. However, we take special care to treat potentially offensive subjects with sensitivity, diligence, and rigor. Further, we never set out deliberately to offend, and we endeavor to quickly remove needlessly offensive material in questions or responses." Et al. I don't see any particularly reason to single out religion here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to repeat: Nobody here is changing anyone else's mind. Nobody is expressing doubt as to the validity of their present position - not one person has switched sides since the start of the discussion. There is not even the remotest possibility to change anyone's mind - either with stunningly new and unforeseen facts or with clever rhetoric. Since even the most ardent supporters surely have to admit that:

  1. There is nothing even remotely like a consensus to form a religion reference desk right now.
  2. There is absolutely zero possibility that something they might say would cause a dozen people to suddenly change their minds.

Ergo - the debate ends here. There shall be no Religion ref desk. No more words are needed.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As the person who started this third sub-thread of the second thread on this matter, I would like to repeat the second sentence I wrote: "There is obviously no consensus for creating WP:RD/Religion". Perhaps naively, I went on to ask whether we could avoid alienating potential contributors by strengthening the words of caution in the guidelines. One contributor -- Nil Einne -- has responded to that question. The remainder, have only restated their positions in a debate that I had hoped was over. --NorwegianBlue talk 22:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding Steve's double directive, and your actual question, if others do not feel the topic is exhausted, it goes on. WP is like that. :-) // BL \\ (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
STEVEBAKER IS WRONG!! (Excuse my sensationalism -- I just wanted to make sure everyone read this :)
"not one person has switched sides since the start of the discussion."
I have now changed my position. I hereby rescind my promotion of a separate religion desk; it would not be a good idea, now that I understand the mechanics of the reference desk. Thank you Steve, APL and BusStop for (ultimately) being candid about my recommendation, the ramifications and the page/talk page debacle. I hope we can all work well together in the future. Well, now too. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Kudos to DRosenbach for graciously stating a change of heart at the end of a long exchange. So refreshing! --Scray (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel that it is still a good idea. There is really no reason not to do it. Resistance boils down to timidity. And it is shortsighted not to see the difference between religion and just about anything else. It is laughable to think that religion can function within the confines of a humanities reference desk. That is tantamount to the concept of freedom in a cage. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Your argument is, in my opinion, baseless. Religion is a humanities subject. It is not confined by humanities. It is part of humanities. Arguing otherwise is a pointless exercise in semantics. If you truly believe your argument then we need a hell of a lot more desks. How can calculus survive in the confines of the math desk? How can sports survive in the confines of the entertainment desk? Anyone else want to bring up another few million examples? -- kainaw™ 03:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Because math supports calculous. Because entertainment supports sports. The humanities exists in an antagonistic relationship to religion. Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What about the study of literature, which has influenced, and, more so, been influenced by, religion for several thousand years? I find your comments baffling. "Resistance boils down to timidity"? How about, it boils down to, "it does not enhance the value of the Reference Desk"? Tempshill (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comment "humanities exists in an antagonistic relationship to religion" is not supported or cited in any way and, in my opinion, is completely false. In the university I work at now, religion is in the humanities school. At the university I graduated from, religion is in the humanities school. At the local library here, religious texts are in the humanities section. Everywhere I go, religion is categorized under humanities. So, I see no reason to blindly accept the stance that religion does not fall under humanities. -- kainaw™ 12:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No one said that a precedent does not exist for the premise that religion properly belongs under the heading of humanities. But you are not going to get an optimally flourishing religion reference desk if it is combined with material that is anti-religious. No one seeking an answer to a question regarding religion, especially if it involves their own practice of their own religion, which I see as one of the ways in which a Religion reference desk can function, is going to pose that question in a patently anti-religious environment. We should be thinking about what fosters a religious milieu here on Wikipedia. I am suggesting that we break out a wall on the house and build a new room. The reference desks at present do not address themselves to the religious dimension. To do so we need to set aside a space where we can actually nurture the phenomenon of the religious dimension. It will probably take time for people to even discover that it exists. But eventually the Wikipedia reference desks will become a place where questions on religion can be posed. Authorities as well as curious people can meet to ask and answer questions regarding the world's religions. By the way, competition between religions is not necessarily a bad thing. Outright proselytization would have to be suppressed. But the clamoring to be heard by the various religions will be a force that will help to build this project. I think it should be nurtured into existence, and I think clearly the first step is to allow a Religion reference desk to exist as a free-standing entity. I'm not forcing anyone to do this. If I can't persuade you that this is a good idea, then I don't want it to happen either. It will take input from many people to keep it on course. I am not prepared to monitor it at all times, or to write up the literature that defines its function. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that your argument supports the creation of a Religion desk because:
  1. I have already stated that it is my opinion that a "Religion" desk will become a "Christianity" desk and be very anti-religious to anything other than mainstream Christianity.
  2. I do not see the Humanities desk as being anti-religious. I see people taking critical questions as being anti-religious. For example, if a person asks "How can I become a Buddhist?" and someone asks "What kind of Buddhist? Have you even studied Buddhism?", others will take the critical question as being anti-religious. It is just being critical. Further, it shouldn't be possible to be offended when asking for references. It is very easy to be offended when asking for opinions.
  3. The picture you paint is not a reference desk. It is a discussion forum. There are many religious discussion forums on the Internet. We don't need to create one here.
I hope you can see that I am not anti-religious (which would be rather funny if you know me in real life). I do not want a discussion forum and I do not want to open up a holy war. Until the humanities desk is flooded with religion questions, I do not see a benefit in making a desk special for religion questions. -- kainaw™ 13:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(after ec)Bus stop, I think you have misunderstood the purpose of these reference desks and the larger encyclopedic project. Our aim is not to to offer religious advice, "fosters a religious milieu" or "nurture the phenomenon of the religious dimension". As has been mentioned before, the Wikipedia RefDesks are akin to a library reference desk, which provides patrons brief factual answers culled from published literature on the subject, and guides them to scholarly references for further details.
There is nothing wrong per se with the type of reference desk you are proposing, where questions are of the sort "addressed to an authority within that religion" (as opposed to, authorities about the religion). Wikipedia is not the right place for it, but the internet is large! Abecedare (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Abecedare, Nowhere has it ever been suggested that a proposed Religion reference desk offer "religious advice." Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to continue to discuss this, could you at least give us some examples of questions where religious questioners have been harassed, marginalized, criticized or otherwise treated inappropriately? That would help educate this discussion. APL (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, someone did suggest that, but the desk obviously ain't happening so let's move on. --Sean 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sean, there are practical questions about how to observe a religion. I think the quote from me that you are linking to qualifies the term "advice" to refer to that of a "specific," "how-to" nature. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Screwed up Ref Desk

If I try to edit any thread on the Misc Desk from August 24, it says "No such section." The "August 24 " header itself comes up as "August 25." What gives? Edison (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem went away. Perhaps the Ref Desk had a poltergeist. Edison (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It happens. I think it is primarily caused by editing while the bot is archiving and adding date headers (so the sections all get renumbered), although it has happened to me at times when I didn't think the bot was doing anything. --Tango (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You were probably editing right when the archiving bot was running. Wikipedia's software is usually very good at resolving editing conflicts (where you and somebody else are editing different sections of a page at the same time), but it has known bugs in the case where, by the time you hit "submit", the page sections are completely different from when you started. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I've encountered this before on pages outside the RD too Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you thread

Am I reading this wrong, or is this comment wildly out of line: [12]? I've put a link to this discussion on User:Cuddlyable3's talk page. --Sean 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It struck me as odd when I read it, but then so did most of that discussion. This bit had "edge" though, in my reading. I'd have no problem if it were removed. // BL \\ (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It is out of line, but not wildly out of line, in my opinion. Though every point referenced in Cuddlyable3's comment already existed in that thread (in fact was introduced by the original questioner himself) there was little reason for the reemphasis placed on the OP's Jewish identity. The OP's concern was whether or not someone is correctly the recipient of a compliment for something that he or she did not earn. In this case the daughter was pointed out by the OP to have merely been the recipient of the genetic basis for "beauty." Therefore I think the impropriety, which I don't think is great, is reintroducing the OP's Jewish identity. The OP's Jewish identity remained peripheral to the discussion even after the addition of Cuddlyable3's comments, therefore it could perhaps be said to have been gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for offence caused and have redacted my answer. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ointments

Although I've already given an answer I'm a bit confused as to whether this is medical advice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Natural_number.3F_.28nummer.3F_wtf_lol.29

Someone else please examine thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a simple request for information (regarding natural topical analgesics), not a request for advice. No diagnostic or therapeutic judgment is needed to answer. The example given seems geared toward providing some specificity to the question, rather than being the specific target of the request. Looks fine by me. --Scray (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This page drives me crazy because there are no round trips. I'm on (say) Ref desk/Misc. and hit the "discussion" tab, which brings me here. But when I hit the "project page" tab from here, it'll take me to the general (and contentless) Ref. desk master page. From there I can hit the Ref. desk/misc. link to get back home, but why do we need to hassle that extra tedious step every time (at a time we don't need the Help desk or any of the other non-Ref.-desk pages)?

I know that I could do this myself, but I'd prefer to defer to someone who's been on these pages a little bit longer and is willing to just put links to the 7 or 8 Ref. desk project pages (Misc., Language, Entertainment, etc.) on this page, so we can find our way home non-stop. He or she would probably find the most appropriate format for the links.

Or maybe we can disaggregate this page, since some Talk:Ref. desk topics do in fact refer to a particular sub-page rather than the Desk as a whole. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! I think a thin, horizontal toolbar, at the very top of the page so it's right under the "project page" and "discussion" tabs, would work well. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As a point of departure, I just created {{WP reference desks (header bar)}} and included it on this page. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, nicely done. -hydnjo (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Belated thanks from me, too (after seeing how it works in practice). —— Shakescene (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done APL, Steve Baker, Kurt Shaped Box and non RD regulars

Just want to congratulate the above 3 as well as the non RD regulars who helped for uncovering the unfortunate situation with the faked Insectivorous plants‎ page. For those who don't know what I'm referring to see, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 June 23#Venus Flytrap care and User talk:SteveBaker#Refdesk Cold Case :] and User talk:Drew R. Smith#I'm tired of all this. While it's clearly unfortunate that Drew felt the need to do this, I think it's to the credit of those who uncovered the hoax and to the credit of the RD and wikipedia itself that we ultimately did uncover it and didn't fall for the hoax even if we did waste a lot of time and effort in the process. Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes well done, could someone summarise the whole tale in a paragraph for the rest of us, sounds intreeging ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Steve summarizes it well here.
To be honest I'm a little bit embarrassed about the whole big ordeal that going back and looking into this again has caused, I was just looking into it because I was curious. I wasn't trying to cause trouble for the guy. APL (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like someone should make a film of it. Doesn't sound like anyone is hurt anyway.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
A briefer summary: Drew said something on the RD which was incorrect, when people challenged him on it, he claimed he read it in a book by Darwin. When people challenged him on that and demonstrated copies showing it didn't say what Drew claimed, Drew fudged details and produced a page allegedly from his version which supported his story. People looked into it more and Drew fudged more details but it died down. Later APL thought of it again and had a second look and realised it looked like a fake. After more research from APL, SB, KSB, Durova, Shoemaker's Holiday and others the evidence for it being a fake was overwhelming and to his credit, Drew eventually confessed he'd made it up. A whole lot of fuss followed including suggestions for a community ban (prior to this incident Drew had also had other issues including alleged sockpuppetry) but eventually it was decided to block him for 1 month with the understanding he'd be monitored carefully and likely banned if ever he steps over the line again.
BTW, SB's summary/recollection isn't entirely correct on one detail. In it he suggests Drew only produced the hoax page near the end of the RD thread, in fact the hoax page came fairly early on and it appears to be the hoax page that partly starts the hunt to find out more about Drew's version. Also reading that thread again, one comment is sadly ironic yet appropriate And I'm really astounded for what reason anyone should insert such a factual error in a copy of Darwin's text. --TheMaster17
Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good example to use when someone claims that Wikipedia is easily falsified by simply using fake references. In this case, the "many eyes" theory worked well. -- kainaw™ 20:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The upshot was (for those who don't care to wander around the dozen or so pages the discussion digressed into) was that after making a tiny error in answering a question on the science desk - then making up a fake quotation from Charles Darwin to cover up his error - then being called on that and faking a photograph that he claimed to be from the original book - then making up some story about how the book came from some library and was missing it's front page - THEN in response to some pretty good detective work from User:APL, denying that he'd faked it - THEN promising to deliver a photograph of himself holding said book...we finally got him to cave in and admit that he'd faked the whole thing. However, this guy has not been the best Wikipedian on the planet - he'd already been abusing a sock-puppet account and vandalising pages. We subsequently found some images of tropical fish that he claimed he'd taken himself that exhibit obvious half-toning...meaning that yes, he had taken the photo...but by photographing a page from a book. So the admins debated giving him an indefinite ban - but when several people pleaded to give the guy one more chance, it was eventually decided to block him for one month, then have an indefinite ban ready on a hair-trigger so that if he screws up one more time, the ban will be immediate and unconditional. I think that's a pretty fair outcome under the circumstances.
It just blows me away that someone would go so far in order to cover up a tiny error in a ref desk answer...when a simple "Ooops! My bad!" would have been perfectly adequate. SteveBaker (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." —The bard (Steve Summit (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC))
It is a strange to do. It reminds me of a sit-com plot. APL (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Anon here. Unbelievable. I remember seeing that bit of fuss about the "rare" Darwin copy, but never saw the rest of the saga. I've been sitting here for weeks (months?) thinking that some lucky punk had a really rare CD book! Great work, guys. Unbelievable dishonesty though... /shakes head 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Tempshill (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This is just proof that we have to be vigilant. Presence of a "cited source" is not a substitute for rigorous third-party verification. This can be difficult with non-digital sources, but it still needs to be done. Nimur (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Pants on fire, bigtime. It is far harder to deal with psychos/vandals who make counterfactual assertions which are plausible, and who fabricate evidence, than obvious vandals who merely insert obscenities. Edison (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, this all started with my simple question about caring for my new flytrap. To all those who responded, my plant is doing great! :-) cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hurray! APL (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RD Header template

The template should read, "...physician, dentist, veterinarian, lawyer," not "...doctor, dentist, veterinarian, lawyer." The two examples after "doctor" are types of doctors. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That would work only in countries which have a clue what a physician is. I'm happy with it as it is & do not think there is any should about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Speakers of most varieties of English would recognize "doctor" as a medical professional, and primarily a synonym for "physician"; indeed as the more common term than physician for a medical doctor. There are a few speakers of a rare variety of english known as "Pedantic English" which may not, but those readers are few and far between. --Jayron32 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Let it be... hydnjo (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with (Dr.?) Rosenbach on this one - I thought everyone knew what a physician is/was. However if this isn't the case, then I follow hydnjo. (Could I be more wet?)83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
We know physician (heal thyself) in the UK, but I think we would never think of our doctors as physicians ... imo it is never used in day to day parlance over here. Although expect an Ulsterman or Scot to turn up shortly telling you that this is merely a sassenach shortcoming --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So who do you call "Mister" and who do you call "Doctor?" Seems odd. In the U.S, physicians and surgeons are both "doctors" with M.D. degrees. Edison (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
We have general practitioners (GPs) and house doctors, who are know as 'doctor', and we have consultants who are known as 'mister'. And yes, they're all doctors with medical degrees, though I'm sure there's a tougher and more expended training regime for the consultants. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So is a "House" doctor a medical genius able to diagnose obscure diseases at great cost of pain and suffering to the patient, while being obnoxious to everyone and abusing pain meds?? Please define "house" doctor. Is a surgeon a "consultant?" Where do barbers figure into this hierarchy? I would rather have a supperating appendix removed by a doctor than "Mister" barber-surgeon, thanks much. Edison (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A house doctor would be more your J.D. (Scrubs); by which analogy Christopher Turk is training to be a consultant. Barbers have been left behind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The "Mister" versus "Doctor" appelation is an idiosyncracy in the UK, possibly elsewhere in the world. Medical students study for years to obtain their MD and hence the right to be called "Doctor". If so inclined, they then spend more years progressing up the career ladder to the status of Consultant, where they earn the right to be called "Mister". A (Senior) House Officer in the UK is a level of debuting doctors. According to physician the term is less frequently used outside of North America, and the term "medical practitioner" appears to be a more standard and englobing term describing both doctors (of the medical not PhD variety) and surgeons. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Mister" is a title conferred on qualified surgeons. Medical consultants are still called "Doctor", it's not a consultant vs. non-consultant issue but medicine vs. surgery. Fribbler (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. I think the "or" here can be used inclusively ("and/or") rather than disjunctively ("either/or")
  2. If that's reasonable, then I think you raise more problems than you solve by changing "doctor" to "physician", because physicians are often distinguished from surgeons and almost always from psychologists and psychiatrists, and sometimes a surgeon, psychiatrist or psychologist is precisely the professional from whom the prospective enquirer should seek advice in preference to the Reference Desk
  3. If the second objection could be somehow worked around, I wouldn't personally be averse to some tweaking of the language to something like (very roughly) "a lawyer or a doctor of medicine, dentistry, surgery, psychology or veterinary medicine". —— Shakescene (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
But as you suggest in 2, the more specific you are, the more likely you are by oversight to rule out groups - as you do in 3. Meanwhile, who ever considered a vet to be a doctor? In short, I disagree with pretty much all aspects of the premise of the original suggestion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
In ads for over-the-counter analgesics etc, they usually add a disclaimer: "If pain persists, see your health professional", recognising that not all people choose to consult traditional "doctors" but some go to chiropractors, homeopaths, and other professionals. There are some conditions that only a medical professional is capable of treating and/or legally permitted to treat, but for the general redirection we're wanting, maybe we should consider more general wording as to who to go to. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In North America, vets and dentists have degrees with "doctor" in them and are commonly addressed as "Dr. (Surname)". Despite this, the word "doctor" is not normally taken to include them, nor does it include professors with a Ph.D. degree. I think the original wording should stand. --Anonymous, 03:44 UTC, August 30, 2009.

I pretty much agree."Doctors and dentists" is a very common phrase in the U.S. as I think it is in other Anglophone countries. "Health professional" would include homeopaths, chiropractors, osteopaths, etc., but often also nurses, physical therapists, phlebotomists, radiographers, and even pharmacists (called the "allied health professions" in my old New England community college). In a few cases, they might be the precise person to consult, but often they're not. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Whilst the role of pharmacists is up for debate in many countries, I would err towards keeping it as is. If we follow the same logic of differentiating between types of doctors (which is pretty self-explanatory having said that we do not give medical advice and titles, terms, roles and responsibililties vary between countries), by extension, "lawyer" would have to be broken up into categories which are less clear (sollicitor, barrister (whom in the UK you approach only via your sollicitor), notary, attorney to name but four). -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I've recently heard dentists (of which DRosenbach is one) object to the "Doctors and dentists" phrasing, using a variant of "We went to medical school too, so we're every bit a "doctor" as a physician" argument. From my perspective it's a little weak, as both physicians and dentists have a tendency to get sniffy when someone with a non-medical Ph.D. calls themselves "Doctor". At any rate, I don't think that *adding* "physician" to the list would hurt. "...doctor, physician, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer." reads fine to me. -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In the U.S. at least, dentists don't go to medical school. They go to dental school. --Scray (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, I just saw an ad for a TV program about Stephen Hawking describing him as a physician rather than a physicist. hydnjo (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
A proctologist, perhaps? --Sean 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Beta

The welcome page for the reference desks says (first bullet, second sub-bullet): "Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia." But I am currently using the beta software, in which the search box has moved to the top right of the screen. With that in mind, shouldn't the above line be changed to something like "entering search terms in the Wikipedia search box..." to remove any reference to the box's position pending the completion of the beta trial? --Richardrj talk email 10:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussion which went nowhere. Algebraist 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, sorry I missed that discussion. --Richardrj talk email 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazing command...

...of Wiki markup here eh? Do not feed etc.? add: Oops, I didn't notice that sig with the fancy markup was by SineBot, sorry. hydnjo (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

92.23.96.174 vs Andy Murray

Do 92.23.96.174's comments in the 'When a Briton say: "my country"' section, wherein Andy Murray "remains unforgiven for that xenophobia" and the utterer of an "anti-English and oft-repeated remark" not fall squarely outside the living-persons policy? 87.114.133.227 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno man, but the title to this thread made me piss myself with laughter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.99 (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLP does indeed apply to the whole of Wikipedia, not just articles. But these are just opinions, albeit intemperate ones, and I don't think they would be struck out of a reference desk thread for that reason. --Richardrj talk email 09:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonder?

Can I be a volunteer? --Mhera (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to ask permission, just start answering questions - with good references that come from inside and/or outside of Wikipedia. --LarryMac | Talk 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
And there's a link to the Ref Desk Guidelines at the top of this page. --LarryMac | Talk 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Or even here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guideline - Welcome aboard!83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
New helpers are always welcome, dive right in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.99 (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Daily subpages

Some of the reference desk pages are getting difficult to load because of their length, especially if you're on dial-up. Is it about time we started going to daily subpages, like those used on WP:CFD and the like? It will likely make archiving easier as well. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of it was that I had neglected to kick off the archiving bot for a couple of days... —Steve Summit (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The huge bulk of the current page seems to be taken up by the debate and some side-discussions over establishing a separate Ref. Desk for Religion. I don't think one is likely to be set up soon (although I'd tend to identify with the "give it a try" faction), so perhaps the talk so far could either be archived chronologically, or perhaps on its own topic page (my preference). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think they're referring to the RD pages not this talk page Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I am - a desk like RD/S takes forever to load, even when the archiving bot is running daily. Turning it into transcribed subppages would make loading induividual days much easier to load, and - if a similar system was used to WP:CFD - it would still be possible to view all current discussions on any of the boards in a single file. Surely it would also help with archiving, since that is best done on a daily basis. The system works fine on most of the deletion process pages, why not use it here as well? Grutness...wha? 22:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
As a point of information, though, any change from the current scheme would require more effort when it comes to archiving (at least in the short run). It wouldn't make it "easier". We have a bot that does everything, but based on the current scheme. Changing the process would require a certain amount of work. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Would this affect watchlisting the desks in any way? Would recent changes still appear for watchlisted desks, or would they only show for watchlisted daily subpages? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The current desks transclude more ancient posts, and yes it affects the watchlist - basically changes on posts approaching a week old don't appear on recent changes. I don't think that's a good idea by the way/83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
For example I just made an edit to a topic on the current science desk - it shows up here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2009_August_26&diff=311133670&oldid=311122272 in the archives, and there is no record on the desk on which the topic is still active, despite the change being active on the current desk ie: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Addition_Reaction_of_Alkynes_to_Alkenes
83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can the wiki software be made to also monitor changes on transcluded pages via the parent page?83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, 83.100. Personally, I follow the desks per "recent changes" on my watchlist, or "related changes" from a place linking all desks, using "Wikipedia" as namespace filter (like this, e.g.), or I check one of the desk's history, looking for section-editing of questions that interest me. All three methods unfortunately use the active desks. If every day is edited and stored separately, I'd have to add every day to my watchlist, check every day's history, and I don't know how I'd solve the "recent changes" method. This does look like a lot of work, possibly not worth that bother anymore (for me).
On the other hand, I don't think it's right for people to have to wait forever until the page loads. So, are there other possible ways to reduce this? Archiving more frequently? Not posting image or table files directly on the desks, but linking to them instead, ...? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that many questions are pretty much closed after 3 days - maybe the archiving feature could be shortened to apply after less than a week. (prepares for storm of protest..)
Perhaps something like if a post is over 3 days old, and does not receive edits withing 24hrs then archive, (and do not transclude) - I think the archiving bots are up to this task.
To speed up page loads the current transclusion should be abandoned I think.
This would mean that the desks would only contain 3 days of posts, plus active older discussions.
Depends on the desk - but the computer desk has answers in 1 day ~90% of the time, similarly science, the shorter entertainment desk seems to have a much lower turnover rate, humanities and language turn over in ~2days max >90% of the time - there's definately scope for chopping down.
Though I think there would have to be some mechanism for unanswered questions.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose archiving sections when they have received no edits for 48 hours. If a question is still receiving attention after 2 weeks, why shouldn't it still be on the main page after 2 weeks? --Tango (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if that was rhetorical or not, but one good reason is that threads that have gone on for more than about 48 hours have usually changed to chat lines, or at least have gone off on a tangent that the OP invariably does not take part in. It's like, the first 24 hours after a question is asked are for answering the question, the next six days are for our fun. I'm not pointing fingers, mind; I know I'm no different in that regard. Matt Deres (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. At the same time, some questions remain untouched for a couple of days until someone provides an answer. Occasionally I scan the older questions at the top of the desk and specifically go for the unanswered ones, wishing to fill those gaps. I think a 48h period for untouched questions/threads in general may result in fewer questions answered and thus be to short. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Acne/medical advice

What do people thing about Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#acne? The first response was good (we can't give medical advice) but we then got a bunch of borderline responses cumulating in advice got from a registrar who specifically told the patient not to inform the consultant of it by 92.10.162.237. If the question is not deleted, IMHO at least 92.10.162.237's response should be Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should all be collapsed so it isn't readily visible. Perhaps that will keep people from responding. Hmm... I wonder where all those people are that vehemently disagreed when I said that stating "We don't give medical advice" will not keep people from giving out medical advice? -- kainaw™ 01:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It gives a diagnosis and asks for treatment options so it violates the guideline. It would be difficult to justify keeping it when we delete similar questions about less common more serious ailments. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur that it should be either deleted or at the very least collapsed with a reminder that we don't give medical advice, whether it be for acne, cancer, Parkinson's disease. I wonder if had it been moved to the science desk that this would have been closed sooner. It's a fine line answering a general question about medical matters where we can link to an article. This seems to have stepped over the line. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this essay hits the right note and makes the line a lot less fine. --Sean 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
WHAT?! This is a clear example of medical advice - why are we debating it? I'm deleting it right now! SteveBaker (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Scsbot issues

Due to some corruption (described at User talk:Scsbot#Corruption in WP:RD.2FS) I've left a message on scsbot's talkpage, which I believe will cause it to stop working, presumably until its maintainer (who has been offline for several days) can attend to it. I guess this means it won't add the date header to the reference desks tomorrow, so until it's fixed can I ask someone to take care of the headers manually. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Medical/Legal disclaimer

At the top of each Wikipedia Reference desk, there is a disclaimer only stating that no medical/legal advice is given, and to ask the requisite professional in that field. I believe the following would be wise as an addition, because I have noticed a fair number of people who don't seem to understand the vast difference in knowledge between random people and professionals, and it is something which isn't really said, except tangentially, in the "Wikipedia does not give medical advice" link:

"Among other reasons, professionals must be asked any medical and/or legal questions becasue they have years of education and licenses in their repective fields. This qualifies them to answer questions specific to each situation, in ways that random people are not."

I believe this is sufficiently neutral (it doesn't say whether a specific professional is any good), doesn't take up much more space (if people won't read that, they might not be reading anything before posting), and yet adds to the general quality of Wikipedia by actually explaining what, for some odd reason, seem arbitrary to some people.

Of course, maybe I'm just too rational in my thinking, and it won't cut down at all on problems.

I also thought of replacing "answer questions" with "know how to resolve every situation in a specific way,' fumbled around with wording, then decided that "answer questions" should be enough to explain it to 99% of most readers. However, I can understand where the current statemtn atop to pages might be confusing to some who can't understand that distinction between licensed professionals and random people, even random smart RD people.

If not, that's fine, but I did see a way where it could be improved, and wanted to suggest it. An alternative is to include the above wording in the disclaimer link.4.68.248.130 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it'll help, because:
  • people don't read the disclaimer already, and many actively try to elicit the advice even when the daftness of asking their question here is pointed out
  • the reason we avoid giving these types of advice isn't really "it takes a long time to learn be a doctor", but that the consequences of the advice being wrong are so disproportionately great (e.g. it's very easy to put a sore head down to being a plain old headache, and miss a stroke or meningitis). If people asked us "fix my structural engineering issue" or "what kind of safety system should I have on my new nuclear reactor" then we'd demur from answering these too, for the same reason. Luckily they don't, but people don't seem to have the same compunction about asking strangers (whose only qualifications are often slightly better Google skills) legal and medical questions.
--Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"Cyberadvice: The ethical implications of giving professional advice over the Internet", posted here over two years ago by TenOfAllTrades, might be of interest. And so would This thread, where I found the link and where one of our few Medical Doctors (sadly retired from editing WP, it seems) comments as well (I remembered the quote ""IAAD," (I Am A Doctor) "but advice here may be worth no more than you paid for it." ---Sluzzelin talk 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Finlay here. The disclaimer already tells people not to ask the questions. If someone isn;t reading the disclaimer that is already here, they aren't going to read a longer version of it. There's no need to add this to it. --Jayron32 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with your re-wording is that some of the people who would answer medical questions might well be 100% qualified to do so. We're not saying it's wrong for unqualified people to answer these questions - it's wrong for ALL people - even the 100% well-qualified ones to answer them. Why? Because we have no way to verify that those people are who they claim to be. A bad answer from someone pretending to be a doctor could easily kill someone who relies upon it. There are also legal concerns - offering the general public medical advice & suggesting treatment without a medical license is illegal in many jurisdictions.
But in the end - it's clear that most people don't read the rules - adding more verbiage to them will make them even less likely to read them. They mostly exist for our own benefit...when something goes wrong, we can point to them and say "This Was Wrong" and dive in and swiftly fix it by deleting the offending material. SteveBaker (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicotine and chest congestion

I wanted to point out to this OP that nicotine probably is not directly causing his/her chest issues and it usually leaves the body fairly quickly (a few hours iirc). Here is the question:

Tried all the possible ways to quit smoking but not beyond a week as i realise the level of nicotine rising in my checst causing congestion, is there any home or other remedy to decreasing the level of nicotine from the body,i know for sure to quit is the best but how to reduce the level?anyone

The OP is experiencing congestion. If we want to be consistent, we shouldn't touch this right? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We have lots of "gray area" or "spectrum" when it comes to medical advice, but this one seems to be a clear-cut request. This question, like many others, should be flagged with one of our medical-advice templates. Nimur (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The questioner self-diagnosed him/herself as having high nicotine and is asking for treatment. We do not offer treatment. In my opinion, it doesn't matter how absurd the request is. For example, if I say: "I keep getting headaches because my underpants are too tight. How can I stop my headaches?" ... We don't accept the self-diagnosis and do not offer treatment. -- kainaw™ 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, and we can't make exceptions for any medical questions we happen to think we know the answer to. I flagged this one with a template; hopefully other editors will catch on. Nimur (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_62&oldid=1072197541"