Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 73
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
Current events desk?
Just a thought, take it or leave it: How about a current events desk. Humanities can still cover history, fine arts, etc. Aaronite (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The people who use desks don't add new ones for the fun of it. You'd need to come up with a convincing reason; one that is more important than, or counter-argues, the "split the desks too many times and they'll get barely any questions and die" argument that defeats the Religion desk. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to create a new reference desk. I don't recall "current events" being suggested before; there could be an interesting case made for that one. Offhand, my first concern is that references may be difficult and polemics common, but that's neither guaranteed to happen nor a single point of failure. Perhaps most relevant, though, is this excerpt from the linked page: "Describe what is wrong with the current lineup and how a new desk would fix it." — Lomn 13:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I suspect for many current events people would prefer to ask in one of the subject desks anyway. For example if you have a science question about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill why ask at current events? Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, what's the need? If it ain't broke, don't (try to) fix it. In any case, "current events" is not exactly a great organizational principle. We organize Ref Desks in part based on the skill set one would assume the answerers have (e.g. you go to the Math desks if you want people who know about math to answer your questions). Knowing about "current events" (however defined) is not a skill set. You're essentially saying, "Miscellaneous, but only in the last few months," which seems totally useless, probably counter-productive. The existing desks are quite capable of handling "current" issues just as they are capable of handling issues from three centuries back. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- As Aaronite said "take it or leave it" - leave it. hydnjo (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Penis troll
Flattened it. [1] Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch! --Ludwigs2 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well-known troll. No need to tell anyone. Just delete his idiocy on sight. -- kainaw™ 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Somehow the new "Elsie" moniker seems fitting. hydnjo (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Page Movement
This used to be the header used on the single-paged reference desk before it was forked. All relevant discussion to it as a single-paged reference desk header has been moved to Archive. --frothT C 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: The RD header was moved from Template:RD header. This talk page was copied here but I forgot that archive subpage so it has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/RD header/Archive. --frothT C 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Capitalization and ampersands in desk descriptors
Current version (without commas before "&")
| Wikipedia Reference Desk | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed version:
| Wikipedia Reference Desk | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discussion
I recently edited the header to remove first-letter capitalization from all save the first word in each desk descriptor and to replace the Serial commas, principally because I thought the repeated capitalization and use of ampersands to be aesthetically displeasing; and User:Jones2, consistent with my edit summary that anyone should feel free to rv, reverted. I wonder, then, whether anyone else might have any thoughts on the issue. For my part, whilst I recognize that our front matter here need not to comport with the MoS, and whilst I suppose the use of lower case for certain descriptors might suggest the insignifance of the categories described, I find the instant version to be, well, ugly. It has been around for some time, though, and so if no one has a particular problem with it, I'll have none either. Joe 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved you out of the box by adding |} to the end. Canderson7 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, thank you Canderson7 and thanks again. I just couldn't find it. --hydnjo talk 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm...lots of stuff changed while I was on holidays. :-) Actually, the concern I have at the moment is whether someone who is visually impaired is able to navigate through the template. --HappyCamper 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- And a very important concern indeed, it does make some important and distinguishing difference if each subject is capitalized (to a visually impaired person) and so we are in favor of the current format. I'm posting the "caps" vs "no-caps", "&" vs "and" in response to a request at RD/talk. I prefer the way it is now shown (as stated above) but in an abundance of fairness, I've shown the proposed alternative (which I do not favor). Oh, (and in an abundance of happiness) welcome back HC. :-))) --hydnjo talk 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments about the proposal to delete subsequent caps and to replace "&" with "and"
- Oppose. The current format is more easily read by folks with visual impairment and I've seen no strong argument for change at this time. --hydnjo talk 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. If keeping ampersands, I don't think there should be a comma before them. ("Foo, Bar & Biff" not "Foo, Bar, & Biff"). We're using this as a title, not shorthand for the actual word "and". DMacks 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about this (upper version, without commas) then? --hydnjo talk 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sehr gut. --HappyCamper 01:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about this (upper version, without commas) then? --hydnjo talk 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I just want to state that when I took Technical Communications in College, the teacher told me its better to keep a comma before &, because take an example: I like my chip cream and cheese and ketchup. I think something like this was the example so she said its always better to keep commas before & regardless. Anyways I don't suppose I can vote here because I was the one to make the changes, so it would be conflict of interest. --Jones2 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just do it it's a minor edit, just hope the guy doesn't notice :) --frothT C 08:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I read that. lol. --Jones2 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm seems to have worked! ;) --frothT C 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Imagemap
I changed the Click image links to Imagemap ones, as has been done on the main page. In doing so I noticed that we don't have nice full-sized svg icons for Literature or Music (Mona Lisa and Musical note icons), only the much smaller png icons. If anyone knows where to find the large icons, that'd be great. Rawling4851 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh nice I had no idea that mediawiki supports that now. Much more browser-compatible, good job --frothT 06:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Reorder table to the seven refdesks
I'd like to reorder the links here. I've added my proposal to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. – b_jonas 12:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Image request
Any chance someone could create images for the two new desks consistant with the format of the others? It looks very amateur as is. Rockpocket 07:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
IRC
I took the IRC line out of this header, IRC isn't Wikipedia and it's probably not the best pubic face or ambassador for it. The participants aren't necessarily there for their research skills or their interest in answering general reference desk questions. It's also not something the vast majority of or users even know anything about. For more discussion see [2] RxS 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
If anyone thinks this is too out of place, feel free to revert my addition of {{Wikipedia:Reference desk/color}}--VectorPotentialTalk 19:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
GFDL violation
Hi, the following images are being used in the RD header:
- Image:P computing.svg
- Image:P physics.svg
- Image:P mathematics.svg
- Image:P question.svg
- Image:P art.png
- Image:P literature.svg
- Image:P music.png
- Image:P archive.svg
They are all under a dual GFDL/by-sa license, both of which require attribution to the authors. The normal method of attribution at Wikipedia is to provide links to the image description pages. However, the images have been linked with the use of an imagemap, without any links or attribution. This is against the GFDL and the CC by-sa license, and can be considered a copyright violation.
We have some choices:
- Get the original authors to relicense the work as LGPL, then use them in image maps
- This might not be feasible, and if the SVG images are derived works of PNG images, the PNG images would need to be relicensed as well.
- Create new images that can be used without attribution
- Stop using the imagemaps, using links to image description pages
- This might not be desirable from a usability perspective
WP:SIGNPOST chose number #2; The "featured star" icon was mistakenly relicensed as GFDL, and was reverted back to LGPL; in other words, we have precedents with imagemaps and GFDL images. I hope someone acts quickly to fix the current situation. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you want a prompt reply, might I suggest WT:RD. --VectorPotentialTalk 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Banned user showing up again on Language desk?
Is it just me, or does User:Mr.Bitpart (see his RD/L post here) seem similar to User:Mihkaw napéw, who was more or less banned back in January? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows? Probably and likely. Shouldn't you be ignoring the question anyway rather than answering it if the questioneer annoys.. 'Don't cast your pearls before swine and all that.87.102.43.94 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- If this is him, then he's violated his [admittedly de facto] ban by responding to someone else's question. If he keeps editing I might request a checkuser. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Troll or dwarf at work
Beautifully ironic trolling going on, in case anyone's interested. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 14:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would have let that question stand, actually. And I also think a lifetime ban is a way over-the-top reaction. --Viennese Waltz talk 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's a case of WP:RBI—there's absolutely no need to let "nonsense" questions stand, particularly if they were posed with the intention of pissing people off. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- If it wasn't a sockpuppet of a user who is already permanently blocked, I wouldn't mind discussing it. However, this idiot is just here to see if he can be annoying. By removing all of his posts on sight and immediately blocking his accounts, most people don't even notice his failed attempts to be a troll. -- kainaw™ 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh OK, I didn't realize the guy had form. Which banned user are we talking about? --Viennese Waltz talk 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not 100% sure who it is, but I've already blocked about a dozen other accounts on the same IP with the same attitude. I think it's Swamilive. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't really matter. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:Buddy431 appears to have joined in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I felt that the question was very interesting, and piqued my curiosity such that I now want to know the answer to it. As an editor in good standing, such a question is entirely appropriate coming from me, and should not have been removed. Buddy431 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:Buddy431 appears to have joined in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh OK, I didn't realize the guy had form. Which banned user are we talking about? --Viennese Waltz talk 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Typical sock question from Elsie or one of her unreasonable facsimiles. Zap on sight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Err... just out of curiosity, is there some particular internet meaning to for the term 'dwarf' (as opposed to 'troll'), or is the thread title simply an unexpressed wish to ship this editor off to someplace where he might acceptably be 86ed? --Ludwigs2 22:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, how about this? If it's a well-defined question, then somebody who checks the Ref Desk regularly and knows something about it can post an answer. However, if nobody really knows about it, then they don't answer it, and within seven days the question is archived. It's like reverting, banning, and ignoring all without actually drawing attention to it! SamuelRiv (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you assuming people want to answer something that wasn't a genuine question and so there's a fair chance no one is actually interested in the answer? Bearing in mind even if someone knows the answer, they may spend a fair amount of time researching etc the answer. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well I like reading interesting threads that I didn't personally start, so I don't think it's fair to say that only the OP of a question is interested in the answers it gets. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Postings by banned users are removable on sight, regardless of their alleged quality or how interesting they might be. Banned is banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC) + ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Who said the OP is always the only one interested in the answers? I just said there's a fair chance no one is actually interested in the answer which there is particularly for many of the stupid questions we get from trolls (yes there may be some odd balls like this one where apparently Buddy is interested in the answer, but that's somewhat beside the point). With a genuine question we can presume someone is interested in the answer, even if there's no guarantee they will read it or be interested in any particular answer. Of course anyone contributing much recognise that there's no guarantee anyone will be interested in their particular answer, or even read it and most of us hope that far more people then the OP will be interested but I for one have far less interested in answering a question when I have no reason to think anyone may be interested. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Editing by banned users is forbidden. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I guess disagreement has (occasionally) surfaced regarding the deletion of answers made in good faith by volunteers who didn't recognize the question as being posted by a banned user and who have expended brain power and research time to give good answers. I agree with 82... that it can be a shame to delete these threads entirely. My own conclusion is, if possible, to nip questions by banned users in the bud before anyone has had the chance to answer. When someone has already answered in good faith and with good sense, I tend not to bother with removing it anymore, or, at the very least, I weigh the pros and cons before deleting and inform the people who have responded in good faith. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a reasonable question and has already been answered, then the greater good is probably served by letting it stand; and then The Cow gets away with it, that time, but it also serves as a reminder that if she hadn't messed up then she wouldn't have been banned. Nonsense questions can still be zapped, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Elsie is a master at starting off with relatively plausible questions which begin to devolve more or less quickly. IMO their objective is to maximize disruption to this talk page, as the ongoing debates spring up about whether that one was a good question, sure the next one was about Uranus, but still... Much simpler is "banned is banned" and remove it - though I'd suggest maybe notification to the good-faith responders who took the time to do the research. Franamax (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good approach. Zap it, and post a short courtesy note to anyone who answered it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Elsie is a master at starting off with relatively plausible questions which begin to devolve more or less quickly. IMO their objective is to maximize disruption to this talk page, as the ongoing debates spring up about whether that one was a good question, sure the next one was about Uranus, but still... Much simpler is "banned is banned" and remove it - though I'd suggest maybe notification to the good-faith responders who took the time to do the research. Franamax (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a reasonable question and has already been answered, then the greater good is probably served by letting it stand; and then The Cow gets away with it, that time, but it also serves as a reminder that if she hadn't messed up then she wouldn't have been banned. Nonsense questions can still be zapped, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I guess disagreement has (occasionally) surfaced regarding the deletion of answers made in good faith by volunteers who didn't recognize the question as being posted by a banned user and who have expended brain power and research time to give good answers. I agree with 82... that it can be a shame to delete these threads entirely. My own conclusion is, if possible, to nip questions by banned users in the bud before anyone has had the chance to answer. When someone has already answered in good faith and with good sense, I tend not to bother with removing it anymore, or, at the very least, I weigh the pros and cons before deleting and inform the people who have responded in good faith. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Editing by banned users is forbidden. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well I like reading interesting threads that I didn't personally start, so I don't think it's fair to say that only the OP of a question is interested in the answers it gets. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you assuming people want to answer something that wasn't a genuine question and so there's a fair chance no one is actually interested in the answer? Bearing in mind even if someone knows the answer, they may spend a fair amount of time researching etc the answer. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Vranak redux
Here, I've asked Vranak to please stop posting unreferenced answers to the Reference Desk. Here and here are two threads with very poor Vranak answers. My hope is that Vranak will just start to look up and cite references in his replies instead of just posting his offhand opinion on topics. Unfortunately, his history here leads me to believe he'll ignore this request, and that the recent 3-day block for incivility won't change his behavior. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I stand behind my comments. Vranak (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever. Easy Solution: Let him post, and just correct everything he says that is wrong. The OP will see the references we add and if the OP chooses to ignore those references, the loss is theirs, not ours. 70.79.246.134 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that 1 out of every 3 Vranak threads devolve into someone (often not the same person, or someone who has not even encountered this sort of nonsense before) saying, "that's the most wrong thing I've ever seen on here" and Vranak saying "I stand behind my comments" and some other unproductive back and forth. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do tend to agree with 70.... Let's not forget, however, that in one of the threads linked to by CT, Vranak gave his opinion on Russell's significance in 20th century philosophy, while the querent sought an answer to the (relatively) measurable question on prolificacy. These kind of opinions are only welcome when they are relevant to the question and referenced. No one is interested in Vranak's opinion per se (or mine, or anybody elses's). I don't advocate that anything be done about this except that Vranak either refrain from opining when his opinion has little to do with the question, or that he at least reference his replies when they contradict what Western academia has to say on the topic. Whether you stand behind your comments is lastly irrelevant, Vranak. The referencability of your comments is relevant though, and we ask you to give us some clue as to their provenance---Sluzzelin talk 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect he stands behind them mostly mostly because he needs protection from rotten tomatoes...
--Ludwigs2 01:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect he stands behind them mostly mostly because he needs protection from rotten tomatoes...
- On the Russell topic, I don't see what the big deal is. Vranak posted an opinion, yes -- but he was clear that it was just his opinion. It's not referenced -- but many answers aren't referenced (only one wikilink exists in that whole discussion thread). He perhaps doesn't address the question directly point-by-point as it was phrased, but I do the same thing on a regular basis -- upon reading a question, I attempt to answer it not merely as written but as I think I am most capable and as I think will be most useful, and this often means redirecting the question a bit. So I have no idea why you're crucifying Vranak over this one. Maybe the opinion is utter hogwash (I find Russell tiresome, so I don't bother to stay familiar with the depth or breadth of his work), but a hogwash answer isn't exactly uncommon here, either, unfortunately.
- Specifically breaking down the answer, what I see is, paraphrased, "Russell as 'one of the most prolific' is reasonable. Don't know if he's the most prolific. As a reminder, don't confuse 'prolific' with 'important' or 'leading', as quantity is not always quality. Oh, and stuff about media." Not the best answer I've ever seen, but not a useless one, either.
- For the other topic, I don't see it on the RD. Can you provide a permalink? Note that I've added one for the Russell discussion, as it will undoubtedly drop off the RD soon as well. — Lomn 15:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- On the Russell topic, I don't see what the big deal is. Vranak posted an opinion, yes -- but he was clear that it was just his opinion. It's not referenced -- but many answers aren't referenced (only one wikilink exists in that whole discussion thread). He perhaps doesn't address the question directly point-by-point as it was phrased, but I do the same thing on a regular basis -- upon reading a question, I attempt to answer it not merely as written but as I think I am most capable and as I think will be most useful, and this often means redirecting the question a bit. So I have no idea why you're crucifying Vranak over this one. Maybe the opinion is utter hogwash (I find Russell tiresome, so I don't bother to stay familiar with the depth or breadth of his work), but a hogwash answer isn't exactly uncommon here, either, unfortunately.
- I think the size of the deal stems from our perceptions on Vranak's specific ratio of helpful answers v casually phrased opinions that will probably provoke someone into responding. That perception is perhaps unfortunate, biased, and unfair, and the fact that we can't ignore it, as suggested by 70..., is unfortunate too, but it is the way our minds work. No surprise here. I don't believe Vranak is surprised at our reactions at this point anymore either. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Vranak has an unfavorable history, and that it'll color our perceptions, but as noted, I'd be far more impressed with 70's comment if, in the Russell thread, anyone else had bothered to reference a counterstatement. — Lomn 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think the size of the deal stems from our perceptions on Vranak's specific ratio of helpful answers v casually phrased opinions that will probably provoke someone into responding. That perception is perhaps unfortunate, biased, and unfair, and the fact that we can't ignore it, as suggested by 70..., is unfortunate too, but it is the way our minds work. No surprise here. I don't believe Vranak is surprised at our reactions at this point anymore either. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- A reference counter-statement to what? I replied twice in that thread, and provided a reference both times (though once was not wikilinked). 63.17 didn't provide a direct reference, but pointed out a specific counterexample (Sartre) for the OP to consider in one post and challenged Vranak's ignorance-steeped opinion in another. Saddhiyama pointed out the irrelevancy of Vranak's post, albeit more subtly than 63.17 and I. The three of us tried to provide help to the OP by providing facts, additional points to consider, and challenging a frankly unsupportable personal opinion. Vranak started trying to be helpful - and this is the real nub of the problem, he tries to be helpful - and then simply couldn't resist inserting his own opinion, despite the fact that i really had nothing whatever to do with the question. Saying all the replies are equally bad because none (well, two) of them are referenced is wronger than wrong. Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- A counterstatement that Vranak's comment (the "Russell was a pedant" part is what particularly seems contentious) was inaccurate. You're correct that (elsewhere in the thread) you mentioned a concrete verifiable number of pieces of correspondence -- I missed that the first time. Contrast, though, with 63.x's direct response to Vranak: "Wow. WOW. I've seen a lot of ignorant statements on these desks but this has to be the winner.... Do you know ANYTHING...?" That's not an impressive counterstatement; it's a rant. And it has no more credibility than the original statement, because both are fluff. You list off several more fields where Russell is prolific -- but as Vranak fairly notes, "prolific" is not a synonym of "important".
- On the other hand, references are provided for volume of correspondence, by both you and 63.x. But how is that relevant here? Vranak made a weak "that seems reasonable" statement with regard to that part, but surely that's not the part of Vranak's response that prompts people to say "that's the most wrong thing I've ever seen on here", is it? I see (and post, I'm sure) half-hearted "well, that seems reasonable" answers on here all the time, and they don't incite the reaction of this thread.
- So, summarizing: the cited rebuttals to Vranak are to the part that isn't relevant. The rebuttals to the relevant part aren't cited (or aren't cited convincingly; I really don't know how Russell and Einstein co-signing a paper on nuclear weapons is relevant to Russell's standing as a philosopher, nor how Einstein's opinion of a man who considered him a "dearest friend" (p9) would be sufficiently unbiased to use it as a single point even if it were relevant). — Lomn 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- A reference counter-statement to what? I replied twice in that thread, and provided a reference both times (though once was not wikilinked). 63.17 didn't provide a direct reference, but pointed out a specific counterexample (Sartre) for the OP to consider in one post and challenged Vranak's ignorance-steeped opinion in another. Saddhiyama pointed out the irrelevancy of Vranak's post, albeit more subtly than 63.17 and I. The three of us tried to provide help to the OP by providing facts, additional points to consider, and challenging a frankly unsupportable personal opinion. Vranak started trying to be helpful - and this is the real nub of the problem, he tries to be helpful - and then simply couldn't resist inserting his own opinion, despite the fact that i really had nothing whatever to do with the question. Saying all the replies are equally bad because none (well, two) of them are referenced is wronger than wrong. Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- We seem to be a bit at cross purposes. I was under the impression that the person making wild claims was the one who was supposed to bring forth the references and supporting documents. I (and the IP, if I may speak for them a moment) posted a few replies to Vranak to illustrate to the OP (remember them? hint: it wasn't Vranak!) that Vranak's opinion was just that and not a very widely held one. Russell has a goddamn Nobel prize and there are plenty of references in the article speaking to the quality of his contributions; if this was a debate, I'd say that the onus is on Vranak to support his claims. But the RefDesk isn't a debating room nor a soapbox, so instead I'd just like Vranak to either go away or post things that are on-topic. Why you're defending Vranak's attempts to hijack the thread and spout his opinions is beyond me. Matt Deres (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your bad faith is simply astounding Matt. I will be relieved when you are through whatever personal crisis you are going through and have less inclination to try to make a scapegoat out of me. It's just sad. Man up already. Vranak (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- We seem to be a bit at cross purposes. I was under the impression that the person making wild claims was the one who was supposed to bring forth the references and supporting documents. I (and the IP, if I may speak for them a moment) posted a few replies to Vranak to illustrate to the OP (remember them? hint: it wasn't Vranak!) that Vranak's opinion was just that and not a very widely held one. Russell has a goddamn Nobel prize and there are plenty of references in the article speaking to the quality of his contributions; if this was a debate, I'd say that the onus is on Vranak to support his claims. But the RefDesk isn't a debating room nor a soapbox, so instead I'd just like Vranak to either go away or post things that are on-topic. Why you're defending Vranak's attempts to hijack the thread and spout his opinions is beyond me. Matt Deres (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, linking in the other one: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_June_19#Moral_relativism.2C_nihilism.2C_and_utilitariansm. I see even less problem with this one. The OP asks "is it possible to be X, Y, and Z belief?" I'll assume the intent is "is it possible to believe in X, Y, and Z", as the statement as-is is utterly meaningless. Vranak appears to take the same approach. One could argue that the response has little to do with the question as asked, but that's because the question as asked is badly phrased. I'd have done the same. So: Vranak answers conditionally with something that amounts to "you can believe whatever you like, and no objective answer to the question exists". I agree entirely. I give this answer here all the time. Again, please explain what exactly is wrong with the post? What reference is possibly required here?
- I get that Vranak had serious issues here in the past, but right now, I don't see it at all. — Lomn 15:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- And again, no one else provides a reference, either. Just opinion! If you're going to nail somebody for posting unreferenced garbage, nail them where they're the exception, not the rule. — Lomn 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Answering a badly phrased question with a useless, smug answer like "Yes, it's possible to believe X, Y, and Z simultaneously - why not?" is useless to the querent and serves only to reduce the quality of the RD. Rallette answered the question after Vranak, with an answer that, although lacking any references, was at least a little analytical and useful. 2. "Nail them where they're the exception, not the rule" — this is also garbage; this is a Reference Desk and we're supposed to provide references when possible. Claiming it's OK because somebody else didn't is a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I dislike the lack of references, but as I mentioned above, I thought Rallette's answer was at least useful — an unreferenced "yes" or "no" or "sure" also reduces the quality of the RD and should just be removed from the desk, in my opinion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, I understand your concerns Tuttle. Really my rejoinder is on the Humanities desk though. Basically, if Russell wasn't a pedant, if he really is a major figure -- well, what were his major contributions? It's an open question and if there's some good answer, so much the better, it helps elucidate the topic for the question asker and anyone else who may be interested. Vranak (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment—in the past, someone was banned from editing the RefDesks after this sort of behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- It seems rather bad faith of you to raise the spectre of banning, Treasury. What do we call that, a chilling effect right. Let's not talk anymore about this, let's just shut up and leave well enough alone. That is the idea isn't it? Please tell me it isn't. Vranak (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Legal advice
I believe that Wikipedia:Reference_Desk/Miscellaneous#Will I get a criminal record?? constitutes legal advice. Due to the numerous responses, I have refrained from deleting it at this point. Anybody think that I should/shouldn't? Falconusp t c 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's legal advice because the querent describes his situation and what he did, and how he will be affected; and who knows what important details he's omitting, so I think it's a legal advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's far closer to the line than the one below, IMO not just because it relates to the OP's personal circumstances but because an accurate factual cited answer can't be given. Crucially, he might potentially suffer harm if he acts on uninformed guesstimates as to what the police will do next. The answer linking to NSW law was useful and objective, but only suggests what might happen, not what will happen in this specific case, the details of which we don't know. I support a response of "Sorry, you need professional advice, not the speculations of a bunch of random strangers" on this one. Karenjc 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Legal advice II
I removed the following question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Number_of_executors_for_an_English_will where the asker was requesting advice on how to proceed with will writing. I removed it. If anybody disagrees, feel free to put it back. Falconusp t c 16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that question was ok. I thought it was a request for legal advice at first, but actually if you remove the first bit where he gives the background to the question, it becomes a simple question of legal fact: "Do wills under English law need to have more than one executor?" That's a question we can answer. I won't revert you until someone else agrees with me, though. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I, too, thought this one was a question of legal fact and not a request for legal advice. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tango, I agree with you too, although I didn't feel strongly enough about it to revert Falconus when I posted my response to the question only to find that the question itself had disappeared in an edit conflict - I reverted myself instead. I do feel it would be helpful if we could achieve a better consensus on what constitues legal/medical advice on the refdesks and what constitutes fact, preferably reliably referenced fact. The underlying aim of the policy seems to be primum non nocere, which is good, but there's a kneejerk "don't-let's-risk-it" reaction that sometimes zaps any question that touches on health or the law, irrespective of whether advice has been sought or not. Of course we must on no account give subjective advice that the OP might act on and damage him/herself in the process, but I cannot see the harm in offering facts, links to places where facts can be found, or other useful information with an appropriate caveat. I hate to see good-faith questions, even misguided ones, squished and replaced with a few stern words; it can't be encouraging for the contributor. In the case of this particular question, the OP is asking how many executors the law says you must have because his online will company is asking for two but he wants to name just one. Why can't we say "the law definitely says X" (with appropriate citation) if it does? Or (as I intended to say) "my own solicitor recently explained to me why people can create problems when they name only one executor, and this is what he said. It's possible your company is erring on the side of caution to protect your interests by asking for two, so if you definitely want only one executor you need to take professional legal advice, which we cannot give". I cannot see how such an answer would expose the OP to any risk or Wikipedia to any potential comeback. But maybe I'm wrong. Karenjc 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the jump from "I found a link that says X" to "the law definitely says X [and there aren't any laws elsewhere that modify X]" is legal advice. If we just stuck to the former, that would probably be fine -- but experience has shown that, left visible, people won't respect the distinction. Thus, many such borderline questions are simply removed (or hidden, which seems to work pretty well, too). — Lomn 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do know what you're saying, and I agree - experience confirms that leaving dubious questions up does result in some unsuitable answers. It could be that the risk of providing misinformation truly does outweigh any benefit from allowing carefully worded answers, hedged about with caveats, which address at least part of the question. But I feel that at present there is confusion over the distinction between information and advice, that we sometimes remove questions unnecessarily in consequence of this, and that even justifiable removals must often seem curt and snappish to the questioner if the standard templates are used. I wonder whether collapsing them as you suggest, with a standard caption explaining that this was done because it appeared to be a request for advice, would be a better default position than removing them? Karenjc 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the jump from "I found a link that says X" to "the law definitely says X [and there aren't any laws elsewhere that modify X]" is legal advice. If we just stuck to the former, that would probably be fine -- but experience has shown that, left visible, people won't respect the distinction. Thus, many such borderline questions are simply removed (or hidden, which seems to work pretty well, too). — Lomn 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tango, I agree with you too, although I didn't feel strongly enough about it to revert Falconus when I posted my response to the question only to find that the question itself had disappeared in an edit conflict - I reverted myself instead. I do feel it would be helpful if we could achieve a better consensus on what constitues legal/medical advice on the refdesks and what constitutes fact, preferably reliably referenced fact. The underlying aim of the policy seems to be primum non nocere, which is good, but there's a kneejerk "don't-let's-risk-it" reaction that sometimes zaps any question that touches on health or the law, irrespective of whether advice has been sought or not. Of course we must on no account give subjective advice that the OP might act on and damage him/herself in the process, but I cannot see the harm in offering facts, links to places where facts can be found, or other useful information with an appropriate caveat. I hate to see good-faith questions, even misguided ones, squished and replaced with a few stern words; it can't be encouraging for the contributor. In the case of this particular question, the OP is asking how many executors the law says you must have because his online will company is asking for two but he wants to name just one. Why can't we say "the law definitely says X" (with appropriate citation) if it does? Or (as I intended to say) "my own solicitor recently explained to me why people can create problems when they name only one executor, and this is what he said. It's possible your company is erring on the side of caution to protect your interests by asking for two, so if you definitely want only one executor you need to take professional legal advice, which we cannot give". I cannot see how such an answer would expose the OP to any risk or Wikipedia to any potential comeback. But maybe I'm wrong. Karenjc 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I, too, thought this one was a question of legal fact and not a request for legal advice. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I too think the question was clearly a request for guidance on what the law says, not a request for legal advice. Such information is relatively easy to find - for example with just a couple of minutes on Google, I found this 2009 leaflet from Age Concern (a UK charity), which says "The will should name one or more executors". There is also this page from a UK solicitor's website which states "The minimum number is one Executor...".
- IMHO, Falconus was very hasty in removing the question and if the OP had not replied to the removal, I would have been bold and reinstated the question right away. My reply would have probably included the references I linked above and suggested they sought the advice of a solicitor if the online tools were insufficient for their needs. Astronaut (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I can clear up the discussion right here. I was already taking whatever action I needed to progress my online stuff - but I had got curious about the legal situation and my question was purely a request for a legal fact. HOWEVER . . . I fully accept that the form in which it was framed made it easy to read as a request for legal advice.
I thank all of you for helping a relative beginner in Wiki to better understand how you run these reference desks (and for the answer to my question). Gurumaister (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Date Messup
Why is the date for June 30 questions still June 29? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because the bot that adds the date headers apparently missed the science desk. (It happens.) I'll go add the header now. Deor (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Right. The date-header-adding portion of the bot isn't perfect, and I don't generally babysit it. If you see a date header missing or wrongly placed, just use that Edit button and fix it! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Racism
Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#How well would this work to keep Israel honest? appears to be nothing but vile anti-Semitism (not to mention a WP:CRYSTAL violation). Would anybody object if it were closed? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 21:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would term it Israel-bashing (and not only by the OP, some contentions being made in a response too) - and as it calls for speculation, does not belong on the Ref Desk at all. I'd like to see it entirely removed or occluded with a banner (? template?) stating that this is not Ref Desk material, period. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- We could just as easily ask the same question about Israel's enemies. Or, we could take the prudent road, and box it up. Go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Or I could do it myself. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I actually didn't have as much of a problem with the question as you three. As far as I know we don't have a ban here on stupid questions or Israel-bashing questions, as long as they're not just trolling or soapboxing. I think the crystal ball criticism is weak — this wasn't an unanswerable "Who will win the World Cup" question; it was a question that wouldn't be a crystal ball question if it were rephrased, like "Have other countries or entities changed their behavior in situations like X when their enemies did Y in response?" I don't think we should be dropping CRYSTALBALL on querents as much as we have been. All that said, I don't mind it having been collapsed, because it's such a weak question that it's right on the edge of plain soapboxing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've slept on it = and I think:
- (a) User:Comet Tuttle didn't get it -- this query was not good faith albeit ignorant or even deluded crystal-balling but outright soapboxing, using the RD to propose (reiterated with examples "fresh" out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion about so-called characteristic Jew behaviors) an antisemitic (not just anti-Israel) program. And
- (b) I'm not satisfied with occluding the text, accessible under a [show] button. I want it removed as trolling. I object to the RD being used by a racist troll. Don't think it's racist? Would "we" allow a similar what-if proposition thinly disguised as a query if the topic were Negroes or homosexuals or women, rather than Jews whom somewhere at any time it's always bon ton to target and demonize?
- People, this is my community for four years now, asking and answering questions honestly and respectfully (usually, and sometimes even with humor I hope isn't inappropriate). Where are this community's standards? I hope the fact that I'm a Jew by birth and an Israeli by choice doesn't relegate my genuine concern here to the margins.-- Deborahjay (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've slept on it = and I think:
- I actually didn't have as much of a problem with the question as you three. As far as I know we don't have a ban here on stupid questions or Israel-bashing questions, as long as they're not just trolling or soapboxing. I think the crystal ball criticism is weak — this wasn't an unanswerable "Who will win the World Cup" question; it was a question that wouldn't be a crystal ball question if it were rephrased, like "Have other countries or entities changed their behavior in situations like X when their enemies did Y in response?" I don't think we should be dropping CRYSTALBALL on querents as much as we have been. All that said, I don't mind it having been collapsed, because it's such a weak question that it's right on the edge of plain soapboxing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it was a stupid question that was not asked in good faith. It happens all the time as humans tend to act upon stupidity far more than intelligence. People are offensive just as they are stupid. Deleting all stupidity simply makes it a game. Add something stupid, vulgar, and offensive just to get a kick out of watching everyone race to delete it. As for your question about others, we've had plenty of questions about every race, every sexual persuasion, and gender (including cross-gendered people). I understand that you take it personal and want it deleted. Having a personal interest introduces conflict of interest and, from your previous posts, I am certain that you currently have conflict over your reaction to the question and your desire to avoid conflict of interest - which is likely why you asked about deleting the question here instead of simply deleting it. Personally, I'd chalk it up to being far more intelligent than the questioner. Yes, he's an idiot, but do you really think that anyone read his question and sided with his pathetic soapboxing? If anything, his idiocy pushes people away from his argument and, therefore, should be showcased as a sign of pure amazement that people can possess even the lowest levels of intelligence yet still be capable of asking questions on the RD. Well, how would you expect an extreme anti-social lunatic to react to a question like that? -- kainaw™ 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't really mind the RD straight-facedly answering racist, idiotic "questions" like "Why are black people stupider than white people", because I was taught that the way to counter "bad speech" is with "more speech". I'd point to a study showing that the querent's premise was incorrect, and maybe that educates him or her, or, more likely, other hypothetical readers, and so in the end it possibly, possibly does some good. And I think it's less rewarding for the troll. On the other hand, yeah, I know, "yeah right, that person's going to be educated by this, fat chance", and this is sort of a political stance and I'm not at all sure it's better for the RD itself. I'm fine with both paths (removal and straight-faced answering). One final point: I'm personally more easily trolled than an average RD answerer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- @Comet your example "question" indeed makes a racial distinction, if you subscribe to the proposition that multiple human races exist, but it is only a complex, not an idiotic, question. Answering it properly demands consideration of how relative intelligence can be measured, whether the question's Presupposition is tenable and potentially of the perennial Nature versus nurture debate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Longest serving RD contributors?
Who are the longest serving Reference Desk contributors? You see some names come and go, while others stay the same. I've been asking and answering questions here since April 2006 or thereabouts. I'm sure there must be many who have been here for longer, but who are they? --Viennese Waltz talk 13:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I win. I was here before there was a reference desk. Or any remaining records - so you can't disprove me. :} These questions used to be dealt with on a page that came to be called the Help desk. See [3] for perhaps the earliest surviving version of that page - which history I see got incorporated into RD/M. My earliest remaining edit seems to be to the Help Desk on Oct 2003 but I can remember Larry Sanger chiding me for seriously answering a question on ghosts from a probable troll (so that would have been before March 2002). Rmhermen (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- (awesome, Rmhermen :) I am abusing this opportunity to point out Wikipedia:RD regulars which hasn't been updated for a while. Please feel free to add your name or the names of other regulars to that list. (I just added Viennese Waltz). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Rmhermen being awesome. I came across their name in an RD question about early talk pages (there weren't any) and took a look at their page. I was stunned that we still have someone here who comes from back when they edited Wikipedia using Telex machines! :) Franamax (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Telex machines? Luxury. Why back in my day we had to write our articles on sheepskin ... --LarryMac | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Scrolling quickly through the first 5000 versions of RD/M (Sep02-Aug04), I would nominate the following editors for second place: Tagishsimon, JackofOz, Finlay McWalter, Kainaw and Adam Bishop (in the order I wrote them down). Other variously active names I noted were Theresa knott/(the otter sank), DJ Clayworth, Nichalp, Jdforrester, Jmabel, Raul654. An impressive collection that! Franamax (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Aw, I was just going to mention myself :) I'm pretty sure I was here before there were specific Reference Desks, but Rmhermen certainly predates me in any case. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Rmhermen being awesome. I came across their name in an RD question about early talk pages (there weren't any) and took a look at their page. I was stunned that we still have someone here who comes from back when they edited Wikipedia using Telex machines! :) Franamax (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't forget the ip editors 82.43.90.93 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, me too, (since 2006) - there's still some active editors that were here when I started - is StuRat still here? 94.72.242.84 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 69#Anyone ever studied the average coverage of authors vs desks? from March 2010.
- —Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- What's the difference between a long-time contributor and a regular? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- A regular is someone who replies to questions at a reasonably high frequency (I think you and I would both qualify), while a long-time contributor has been here for, well, a long time. I've been here for a few years now, but I probably don't qualify as "long-time" yet - I only arrived after the desks were in their current places, for example. Matt Deres (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- About 20 additional hours per week of free time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Shirley, banned editors must be counted in this list. I know they cant contribute now, but thats no reason to rewrite the history books. Or is the Rd under control of the Ministry of truth now?
Language Reference Desk contributions by Noetica
Visitors to the Language Reference Desk may wish to refer to archived contributions posted by Noetica. There is a convenient list of them at User talk:Noetica (permanent link here). If anyone wishes to comment about the list to me, please do so here instead of there. Noetica is away from Wikipedia, and will not respond to messages left there.—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why would anyone other than Noetica want a list of their contributions to the reference desk? No slight is intended; it just seems like an odd thing to do and/or advertise. Matt Deres (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Someone who remembers a discussion to which Noetica contributed might find it more easily there than in the general archives.
- —Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Month by month analysis of how many people have viewed the talkpage?? Is there any kind of precedent for that sort of stuff? Don't get me wrong; I think it's cool that you went to all that trouble (and you obvious have their permission), it just seems like a curious step to take. The note on the talk-page reads almost like you're being held as his (her?) literary heir or something and you're now letting us know that your preliminary notes are in order and we can look forward to the authorized biography in time for the holiday season :-). And if you are, my vote for the title would be Noetica: Life and Laughs on the Language RefDesk. Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
New essay prompted by taser question
In response to Bug's problems with that taser question, above, I've just thrown together an essay, part of which explains the difference between legal advice and simple legal information. See Wikipedia:Reference desk advice. It's a bit rough and ready at the moment. Futher contributions would be welcome.--Patton123 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's too vague, and it shunts off too much to "subtle" differences, which isn't illuminating. I think the pre-existing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice does a better job, as does User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Patton your essay presently illustrates by 3 examples what you consider is common sense. The first example of "Don't ask the OP unecessary questions" is poorly conceived because good reasons for asking include 1) Clarification e.g. "When you say 'this country' which country do you mean; and 2) Suggesting a consideration that the OP may need to take on board. That includes your example of 'Which rocket fuel do you think of using (implied: because that will affect the answer)?' which I find to be a reasonable first response. I agree with Mr.98. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah - I really dislike this essay. I don't think we should discourage people from asking the OP for clarifying questions. If a question is clearly answerable without asking questions of the OP, then we should obviously strive to do so - but I don't see any harm in asking for a clarification - even if it's really not necessary. What harm does it do? What we shouldn't do is demean the OP by making them seem like an idiot for not stating some trivial detail explicit. A somewhat vague question like "How much is it safe to drink?" could require a clarification: "Do you mean water or alcohol or something else?" - but "Do you mean mercury or liquid nitrogen?" is clearly an annoying pedant trying to 'score a point' by seeming clever (trust me, that doesn't work around here!). We do have a few super-pedants who do this kind of thing - but they are usually just made to look pathetic when someone else comes along with an actual, useful answer without the need for the clarification. I don't think we need a guideline in this regard.
- But the essay's examples for medical/legal advice give PRECISELY the wrong results. All they do is to encourage the OP to 'game the system' by rephrasing their question. It's like that freaking stupid quiz show where you have to phrase your answer in the form of a question - it doesn't ANY difference to whether the advice should or shouldn't be given - why is it any safer/more-legal/whatever to provide an answer to "I have these symptoms, what's wrong with me?" versus "What would be the diagnosis from the following symptoms?" - either way we're doing the same thing - why should we allow people who know the right "magic phrasing" to get an answer when those who don't know that are barred from doing so? Kainaw's criterion is the right answer and this essay only serves to undermine that. Sorry but I don't think this essay has any value whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also don't feel this essay captures the nuances of Ref Desk guidelines, nor does it jibe with current RD consensus. As such, I've removed its link from the actual guidelines page, as I feel it's inappropriate at this point to conflate the two. — Lomn 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
What to call (and do about, if anything) a question that is a teaser to watch a video?
This question is obviously (IMHO) just a teaser to watch the video, since the point of the video is to provides a detailed explanation of the trick. Is it acceptable to collapse, or delete, what essentially represents spam? -- Scray (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it's spam, fry it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- (No I think you've misread the question). Didn't the OP give the video of one trick and then ask about another subtly different trick though.77.86.6.186 (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're quite right - re-reading it after your comment I see I overlooked the twist, hence I was wrong and this was NOT spam. Thanks - this is why I like to ask before "frying". -- Scray (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Taser
On one of the ref desks, some guy has been asking how to defend himself against a taser, and some editors are actually trying to help him out. Since when is the ref desk a tool for evading police capture upon commission of a crime? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't think there's any WP guidance that would forbid answering such a question. We have plenty of objectionable material on WP. If you don't like the question (or answers), if it doesn't violate policy then just move along. -- Scray (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Then in the spirit of "not censored", we should feel free to give out medical and legal advice also. In fact, asking about how to resist a taser is essentially asking for both medical and legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've raised this question at WP:ANI now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Then in the spirit of "not censored", we should feel free to give out medical and legal advice also. In fact, asking about how to resist a taser is essentially asking for both medical and legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What evidence is there that the OP has or is intending to commit a crime? As it stands, it's a purely hypothetical question. The OP even said "Believe it or not, I was just curious.". Discussing methods to evade tasers isn't illegal. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Medical and legal advice are special cases, as explained in our guidelines and as frequently discussed here. Thus, they are outside the WP:NOTCENSORED guidance. There is no general prohibition against the discussion of illegal activity on WP, so it doesn't really matter whether the OP intended to do anything illegal or not. I don't think your statement (on AN/I) that "the ref desk regulars tend to operate in their own little world" is supported by the evidence: we follow policies and guidelines (established by consensus), we welcome anyone to join in (providing that they abide by the policy and guidance), and discuss openly when the application of those policies and guidelines is unclear. Happy editing! -- Scray (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're overreacting, Bugs. This is not too different from asking about how to avoid being injured when being attacked by a police nightstick. It's purely defensive. As for whether one should be able to defend oneself in such situations, I see no judgment that could possibly apply in every situation. In some situations police use of force is justified. In many cases it has clearly not been, even if one keeps ones attention on nations whose police forces we generally think of as being "just" (much less if one contemplates less "just" nations). Wanting to avoid personal physical harm at the hands of police forces is not unreasonable and it is not illegal or immoral. Resisting violence is not the same thing as resisting arrest.
- The OP was not asking a legal question at all. I doubt whether self-defense information counts as "medical advice" under our guidelines. If you don't want to answer a question, then abstain from it. But I see nothing that violates any rules here, only your sensibilities. Your objection to me fits in the same category of a Catholic objecting to questions about contraceptives, because they believe that all sex should be reproductive. You're entitled to your opinions of course, but the Ref Desk should not be censored in such a way. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did you mean to write YOU'RE ENTITLED to Bugs? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cuddlyable3, why do you frequently ask people whether they meant to spell a word correctly after they've typoed it? Do you really think Mr.98 could have not meant YOU'RE ENTITLED (though without caps)? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- As editors we are expected to put things right, and as article contributors we are warned that our contributions will receive corrections. The guidelines for signed posts are different: thou shall't not alter another's post. Specifically in the case of a confused homophone one may only ask what they really meant. Yes, it looks likely that what was posted was not what was intended, a case of indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Mr.98. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for spending three paragraphs arguing over an obvious typo... after spending some time trying to write out a well-reasoned and persuasive response on a talk page, that's exactly what I'd hoped the reaction to it would be. "Gosh, I hope they nitpick any typos in it, especially when there is only one sensible interpretation of what I could have meant. That would be a great use of their time and mine. There is nothing more beneficial to a community than pointless pedantry—it really makes one feel that one's efforts are appreciated!" --Mr.98 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Mr.98 for self-correcting[4] the delinquent homophone when it became belatedly obvious to you. That was a salutory example of the high standard of your usually exemplary work. Sadly I lack the intellectual attainment that would equip me to appreciate your subtle redoubled[5][6] sarcasms but I doubt not that you excel in that valuable skill. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for spending three paragraphs arguing over an obvious typo... after spending some time trying to write out a well-reasoned and persuasive response on a talk page, that's exactly what I'd hoped the reaction to it would be. "Gosh, I hope they nitpick any typos in it, especially when there is only one sensible interpretation of what I could have meant. That would be a great use of their time and mine. There is nothing more beneficial to a community than pointless pedantry—it really makes one feel that one's efforts are appreciated!" --Mr.98 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- As editors we are expected to put things right, and as article contributors we are warned that our contributions will receive corrections. The guidelines for signed posts are different: thou shall't not alter another's post. Specifically in the case of a confused homophone one may only ask what they really meant. Yes, it looks likely that what was posted was not what was intended, a case of indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Mr.98. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cuddlyable3, why do you frequently ask people whether they meant to spell a word correctly after they've typoed it? Do you really think Mr.98 could have not meant YOU'RE ENTITLED (though without caps)? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Tasers are sold to the general public and are legal in many places. (Here, for example) If people other than law enforcement are allowed to have such weapons, it's not "evading the law" or "legal advice" to explain how to evade one. How do we know whether (for example) our OP has observed a belligerent neighbor or co-worker with a taser? While I'd personally feel uncomfortable with answering this question (and I didn't, specifically for that reason), I don't think it crosses any boundaries. How would we feel about answering: "A belligerent co-worker has just bought a taser to work. How could I defend myself against it if he decided to 'go postal' with it?" - any criminal wishing to get advice on how to evade police tasers could just as easily phrase the question that way but I think many of us would be more inclined to answer it when it's phrased that way. SteveBaker (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
What crime? Perhaps this editor is an American or Englishman traveling to Saudi Arabia or Iran and doesn't want to be beheaded for being a homosexual? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- well, I put this question in the "adolescent machismo fantasy" category, and I think it's probably a bad idea to encourage that kind of thing. no good can come of it. Wikipedia editors are not (as a rule) sufficiently well versed in the martial arts to give informed advice about highly skilled physical acts (such as catching taser prongs, evading chokeholds, breaking boards with various body parts, dodging flying arrows, and etc.), and trying to answer such questions might lead some poor besotted fool to try such things, leading to arrest, injury, and even death. There are enough people who earn Darwin awards in the world; the Wikipedia Ref Desk does not need to be in the business of assisting them. --Ludwigs2 04:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree - and the simple answer is to simply not answer the question if you don't like it. However, we have no rule or guideline to say that we don't or can't answer such questions. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to take a moment to point out that I found Bugs's comments in that thread inappropriate. Once again Bugs has taken a question asking for hypothetical scientific information and turned it into a soap-box for himself to moralize on.
- First he twice suggests that there is no valid reason to want to avoid a taser, indirectly, then directly accusing the questioner of being a criminal. Then when he's called on this he resorts to a rather insulting and bizarre strawman attack.
- I specifically came to the talk page to complain about this. APL (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Without defending Bugs specifically (he does well enough with that on his own), I will refer you both to that oh-so-true truism: Ask a stupid question; get a stupid answer. The fact that Bugs is a major purveyor of stupid answers is easily handled by discouraging stupid questions in the first place. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- But, It's not a stupid question. People are often warned that the effects of electrocution are much worse if the 'path of least resistance' passes through the heart or spine. It's perfectly natural to wonder how this applies to tasers and it's perfectly natural to ask a science question in the form of a hypothetical.
- Even if the question-asker's curiosity is more practical, I would never begrudge someone basic self-defense information. APL (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Without defending Bugs specifically (he does well enough with that on his own), I will refer you both to that oh-so-true truism: Ask a stupid question; get a stupid answer. The fact that Bugs is a major purveyor of stupid answers is easily handled by discouraging stupid questions in the first place. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a legitimate self-defence question and a question based on near-superhuman skills. If someone asked the correct way to swallow a sword (like stage performers) I would not give him the information, because doing it correctly (and yes, it is possible to do) requires years of practice. an unskilled person with the correct information about procedure would end up killing himself. If someone asks whether they will get a full shock if they grab a taser dart out of the air with their bare hands, then you need to recognize that doing that would require extensive practice and fairly significant physical skills - we're talking 'batman' or 'jackie chan movie' type actions. remember, jackie chan regularly broke bones filming his stunts, and usually required multiple takes to make it look effortless. and batman is fictional.
- Put another way, I don't want to hear about some 'Dumbass' film where the doofus kids start off by saying "we figured out this stunt by asking people at wikipedia", and then go on to break their fool necks. --Ludwigs2 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The original question was not about "near-superhuman skills". The OP asked if putting his hand out when someone fired a taser at him would reduce it's effect. People instinctively raise their hands to block when something is about to hit them. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Put another way, I don't want to hear about some 'Dumbass' film where the doofus kids start off by saying "we figured out this stunt by asking people at wikipedia", and then go on to break their fool necks. --Ludwigs2 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're reading the question too literally. To me it read more like a question about the effects of a taser on different parts of the body. (ie: Does it still incapacitate me if it doesn't hit my torso? ) But even taken literally its not entirely unbelievable that you might put your hands up and block a the shot. The attacker is probably going to be standing right there you might be able to put your hands up more or less right in front of the muzzle of the weapon.
- Anyway, if a question-asker asked about Sword Swallowing, I would direct them to the Sword Swallowers Association International, mention the extreme danger as described in our article, which I would link, and then point out that a much safer and easier course of action is to use one of the gimicked swords widely available from conjuring supply stores. APL (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree - there are perfectly good, legal reasons why an honest person could need to legitimately defend themselves against a taser - so Bug's definitely answered inappropriately when he assumed the worst of our OP because we are required by Wikipedia rules to Assume Good Faith - and Bugs simply didn't do that which is unconscionable. It would have been nice if the OP could have clarified why they need to know this because answers might have been more forthcoming if a good reason could have been given. If you suspected the worst, you could have politely asked "Why do you need to know that?". But in the end, the best answer to a bad question is to simply not answer it...I wish more people would do that. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The OP did not ask how he could defend himself against a taser attack; the OP asked whether catching a taser dart in his bare hands would reduce the shock of it. The first question might have been reasonable (though the answer is, frankly, you can't); the second question is either (a) a misplaced science desk question, or (b) stupid. let's not give the question more merits than it deserves. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- How is it stupid? People instinctively raise their hands to block when something is about to hit them. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The OP did not ask how he could defend himself against a taser attack; the OP asked whether catching a taser dart in his bare hands would reduce the shock of it. The first question might have been reasonable (though the answer is, frankly, you can't); the second question is either (a) a misplaced science desk question, or (b) stupid. let's not give the question more merits than it deserves. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Grammatical edits to question header on science desk causing offence
I re-buried this section. @SteveBaker: Do you accept my offer to take the issues below that concern you to Wikipedia:Mediation? Mediation can be non-binding, confidential and without preconditions beyond responding YES to the offer to help by a neutral mediator. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)}} NOTE: Null section added so that links to this section will work either way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Grammitical edits to question header on science desk causing offence
Copied across from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Reptile's_sense_of_time :
Some pedant has altered my title twice. 92.29.126.166 (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Correcting grammar is what editors do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
But not to other people's questions. I've altered my question title back, for the third time. There is plenty of other less than pedanticly-perfect grammar on these pages, go and interfere with them, not me please. 92.29.124.254 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article Apostrophe explains the rôle of this punctuation mark in marking of possessives, as in the cat's whiskers. Editors have corrected the title of this question to Reptiles' sense of time. The title is not the question. When necessary, editors frequently correct a missing or faulty title. This is done so that the question and its responses can be properly archived. The guidelines[7] allow additions to titles that are lacking. Trovatare correctly punctuated [8] [9] the title. @92.15.12.165 your edit[10] moves the apostrophe from plural to singular possessive but Trovatore notes in edit summary[11] that the plural possessive is called for here. I think you should note that Trovatore whom you describe as "Some pedant" is a volunteer who answered[12] your question. I agree with Trovatore and advise you to observe the WP:3RR rule. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Its a great breach of etiquette to interfere with other people's wording. In any case, I'm only referring to one reptile, although I dont have to justify myself. I've changed it for the fourth time. Stop trolling. And I refer you to the link given by 87.102.23.18 above. 92.29.124.253 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please observe that I linked to exactly the same guideline as 87.102.23.18. You are now wilfully in breach of the WP:3RR ruling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This can be avoided by following "Do not correct spelling or presumed typos" as per the reference desk guidelines, linked above. I thought we all knew not to alter other peoples questions in this manner. If you feel strongly about spelling/grammar I would suggest mentioning the correct form, not unilaterally correcting. Don't forget that changing a section heading can break links to it as well.94.72.242.84 (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think that since the questioneer asked not to have their title change, and the guidlines are clearly on their side, then Cuddyable is in the wrong here - especially in terms of continuing to edit war after a clear request not to.94.72.242.84 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- There have been loads of discussions on this, and they always end the same: don't edit other peoples comments, that includes section titles. The only time its appropriate to edit titles is if they're either too long as disrupt the page layout, or too short like "question". Theres nothing stopping you from pointing out peoples spelling errors if thats your thing. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean THERE'S, PEOPLE'S and THAT'S ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did not change anything in the question. I changed only the section heading. I would not have changed anything in your running text.
- Section headings are often changed; I admit I haven't checked to see what the guidelines say about this. The fact that changing a heading can break links is precisely why I changed it immediately, without waiting. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- A proper citing of the referenced guideline[13] would note that it says about questions or answers (not titles): Do not correct spelling or presumed typos, or anything that might change the meaning of the question." Titles are considered separately. I remain with Trovatore here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Come on, the title is an extension of the question and should be considered as such. The whole reason for not editing peoples questions (and indeed any comment) is that you could inadvertently change the meaning of it. Editing titles also runs the risk of changing what the OP meant. Either way, the guidelines only say it's ok to edit section titles if they're "non-descriptive" or disruptive (very long for example). Nit-picking over typos isn't a reason to edit someone elses words. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- A proper citing of the referenced guideline[13] would note that it says about questions or answers (not titles): Do not correct spelling or presumed typos, or anything that might change the meaning of the question." Titles are considered separately. I remain with Trovatore here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If a title were ambiguous, I would change it, but otherwise I don't see the point. Especially if the OP objects. It just isn't worth fighting over. Is this a candidate for WP:LAME? --Tango (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If the title is ambiguous, how could you possibly know which disambiguation to change it to? Since you can't possibly know that, you can't "fix" the title and doing so would be very wrong because it might result in the OP being given an incorrect answer rather than people asking for clarification or answering the question both ways. If the title is sufficiently unambiguous, then we can all figure out what it was supposed to say and there is no point in correcting it (unless of course you think you're smarter than the rest of us...and therein lies the problem!). Either way, it's wrong to do so. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I usually find out what a question is about by reading the question, Steve. --Tango (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I posted that without having scrolled down to see the rest of this section. I now regret posting at all... what the hell is going on, guys? --Tango (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I usually find out what a question is about by reading the question, Steve. --Tango (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- If the title is ambiguous, how could you possibly know which disambiguation to change it to? Since you can't possibly know that, you can't "fix" the title and doing so would be very wrong because it might result in the OP being given an incorrect answer rather than people asking for clarification or answering the question both ways. If the title is sufficiently unambiguous, then we can all figure out what it was supposed to say and there is no point in correcting it (unless of course you think you're smarter than the rest of us...and therein lies the problem!). Either way, it's wrong to do so. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is not worth fighting over, that is true. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with both the above. And a reminder that the above discussion should have never taken place on the main page. and that you have to make a big effort to get into WP:LAME, let's not make that effort :) 94.72.242.84 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion should be the mayor of WP:LAME. --Sean 17:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's getting there. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is not worth fighting over, that is true. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3's role as resident grammar/punctuation nazi is well established - and I do my best to ignore the continual petty jibes we get about tiny typos and irrelevant grammar "rules". The English language is in a state of continual evolution - and the "correct" use of the apostrophe is one of those things that's evolving the fastest. That's all wonderfully debatable - BUT what is certainly NOT debatable is that we have a very clear guideline about not editing other people's posts - which means that this time Cuddlyable3 has gone beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. So let's make this very clear: Our guidelines say that you do not edit other people's' post's's...OK? If you can't stand the occasional misplaced apostrophe - then bite your tongue and let it slide. If you can't do that then get the hell off of the ref desk and find someone else to annoy - it's not like we can't cope without your contributions. This behavior is not clever, it's not smart, it doesn't impress anyone, it sure as hell doesn't improve anyone's grammar - it just pisses people off and gets in the way of a smooth running operation and a friendly environment. So give it up and apologize to our OP for your unacceptable behavior. SteveBaker (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair here, I was the one who changed it the first time, and then changed it to the plural when it was changed to singular. I do regret the outcome, but I am not sure I can sincerely apologize. I find it very strange that the OP would deliberately insist on incorrect punctuation, and it is not clear at all that the guideline applies to section headings. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've apologised on our behalf to the OP User_talk:92.29.126.166. (Actually they did eventually change the heading to "reptile's" instead of "reptiles'" which shows the subtle problems inherent in this. 94.72.242.84 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the OPs issue was with the punctuation, it was with someone changing (for good or bad) what they'd written. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed...and rightly so. We have these guidelines for a reason. If the OP misplaces an apostrophe and gets the wrong answer as a result of genuine grammatical confusion, then that's their own silly fault and they have no one to blame but themselves. But if rearranging the punctuation of a question (and potentially changing its meaning) causes a question to be answered incorrectly or misleadingly - then that's a very bad thing. It's actually rather useful to note when a question is poorly written because in extreme cases, it might imply that the answer should be given in a more simplistic manner - or using simpler language because the OP may be a young child or a non-English speaker.
- "Cleaning up" the grammar provides zero benefit. After all, if Cuddlyable can divine what the mis-written text was supposed to say - so can I - so it's not like Cuddlyable is helping us all out somehow or that he has some god-given telepathic means to know what the OP really meant. If the question is truly ambiguous then Cuddlyable cannot fix it - if the question is unambiguous despite grammatical errors, then there is no value in correcting it and all it does is subtract from the information that we have about the OP.
- So the rule is that we don't change other people's posts (questions OR answers) except when it disrupts the flow of the page (like a missing </small> tag or something) - or when the questioner used a useless title like "Question?" in contravention of our request at the top of the page for a clear title. That's an excellent rule - and a cornerstone of how we make progress here. If we let people simply go and edit other people's posts, that's a recipe for chaos. It's exceedingly rare for revert wars to break out on the RD - and the reason this one did is precisely because Cuddlyable3 ignored a clearly stated guideline. The consequence was entirely predictable.
- SteveBaker (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Steve, it has yet to be demonstrated that there is a rule about changing the section heading. Please do not conflate "section heading" with "question". It's true that the heading will normally
statesummarize the question, but the question properly speaking should be the initial post, not the heading. Also I am uncomfortable with you blaming Cuddlyable for my actions. --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)- I get the impression that the consensus would be that we include the section heading in the "do not edit others posts" rule if we had to clarify that rule. As for Cuddyable's role - the above (top) segment cut from the main page shows them not being sympathetic to the OP's issues. I haven't checked the full edit history, but it looks as if they were the ones exasperating (sic) the problem. 94.72.242.84 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's no rule specifically about changing section headings, it's true: because they're part of the OP's entry, and thus should not be edited, per the general rule. There are two exceptions to the general rule that pertain to section headings:
- It's fine to "to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability", and these are particularly frequent with section headers.
- "If there is no title to a question, add one. You may also add to a non-descriptive title".
- But if neither of those exceptions apply, for goodness' sake, just leave the OP's title alone. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Steve, it has yet to be demonstrated that there is a rule about changing the section heading. Please do not conflate "section heading" with "question". It's true that the heading will normally
- SteveBaker (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Links to section headings have problems with these five characters: [ ] { | }.
- —Wavelength (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- So you wish to add Wikilawyering to the charges of grammar nazi-ism? Come on! It's 100% clear that if both questions and answers and "posts" in general should not be edited - then the title (which is probably a question - and was certainly "posted") falls into that category. Claiming otherwise is really just a pathetic effort to worm ones way out of an abundantly clear guideline. If you truly think it was deliberately intended that the guidelines intended to allow you to do whatever you like to any title - then I think you would have to concede that we'd have said so explicitly because it's such a strange exception to such an otherwise clear rule. I don't believe you truly think that - you're just looking for a loophole to get yourself out of a tight corner. I know that and you know that - so let's stop pretending, OK? Well forget it - we're not impressed by Wikilawyering. See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering - especially clause (2). SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not a lawyer thing at all! I hadn't even looked up the text of the actual guideline. I really do not think of the section headings as being on the same level as the actual discussion. This is quite normal on talk pages, which is what the refdesks are. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion is that grammar titles should only be changed if they will prevent the functionality of the archive search. Questions should not be changed; if they are unclear, ask the OP politely "What do you mean?". I have my share of people speaking... lets call it beginner English and most of the time you can understand what they are saying. If you cannot, a polite word of correction or question would be in line. For example if someone writes "Bdoy temperature of retpiles" I would correct it because it would disrupt the search and make the section hard to link to. But if it is "Body temperature of reptile's" it should still be easy to find in the archives and I wouldn't correct it. I occasionally correct broken links such as someone calling sodium hypochlorite sodium hypochloride. It helps them to see what articles they are linking to.
- For this example; I think that the header change was unnecessary, and the big deal about the change was unnecessary. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- The archive search doesn't only search the headings - it searches the body text too. If you think the title is wrong, you are perfectly at liberty to say:
- "I think the title is wrong, didn't you mean sodium hypochloride?"
- - and then the archive search will still find it - and you won't have to break the rules and piss off the OP if he really did mean 'hypochlorite' for some bizarre reason. Also, if you just silently correct the title, then nobody will come along and tell the OP why it's "ide" and not "ite". Also, the OP himself may search for the answer to his post - and he'll be unable to find it if you've 'corrected' it. So, no - you don't have a good reason to do that. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Steve, I believe you have swapped -ide/-ite in your discussion above. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah - but now you have to ask yourself: Did he do it by accident or was it done deliberately to make some kind of abstruse/ironic point? SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- (No, it was an accident) SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Steve, I believe you have swapped -ide/-ite in your discussion above. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The archive search doesn't only search the headings - it searches the body text too. If you think the title is wrong, you are perfectly at liberty to say:
- I'm not in favour of changing any headers unless the text somehow breaks the page or if it's simply "Question" or "Query", which would be of little use to anyone. As I've mentioned here before, I make frequent use of my My Contributions special page which allows me to click directly to the question - and changing the name breaks the hyperlink for me. It is also my opinion that, unlike discussions on the talk page, the headers to questions asked on the RefDesk are indeed the "property" of the OP; they asked the question, the thread is theirs barring contraventions of WP:SOAPBOX, etc. I'm also not in favour of jumping on anybody due to typos or spelling errors and I try not to even point it out unless it actually interferes with comprehension or it is otherwise germane. And speaking of hyper-correction, am I the only one puzzled by the exchange taking place here? Matt Deres (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno, world's gone crazy if you ask me. By the way did anyone else notice that the OP's corrected grammar appears more correct, and not the other editor's corrections eg [14] since the question begins Would a reptile (singular) ie if the title had begun "A reptile's .." which the following question seems to imply, and frankly I imagine the OP knows what they meant better than anyone else.............................94.72.242.84 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bare singular nouns are not ordinarily used in that way in English. Had it been "A reptile's...", then yes, but just "Reptile's" is weird. Unless of course he had a specific reptile in mind, say his pet iguana. But there was no indication of that. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is common to drop articles in headlines and similar contexts (email subjects, RD section headings, etc.) where brevity is valued. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't about whether the question heading was right or wrong - or whether the OP is or is not able to defend what (s)he wrote. It's that you aren't supposed to edit other people's post. It's rude, it's unhelpful, it's contrary to our guidelines...we do not permit it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- But if they're wrong for multiple reasons, it's best to address all of them. Defense in depth, or something. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't about whether the question heading was right or wrong - or whether the OP is or is not able to defend what (s)he wrote. It's that you aren't supposed to edit other people's post. It's rude, it's unhelpful, it's contrary to our guidelines...we do not permit it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is common to drop articles in headlines and similar contexts (email subjects, RD section headings, etc.) where brevity is valued. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bare singular nouns are not ordinarily used in that way in English. Had it been "A reptile's...", then yes, but just "Reptile's" is weird. Unless of course he had a specific reptile in mind, say his pet iguana. But there was no indication of that. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed the issue with offtopicness on that question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#What_bridge_is_this? : [15] 94.72.242.84 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno, world's gone crazy if you ask me. By the way did anyone else notice that the OP's corrected grammar appears more correct, and not the other editor's corrections eg [14] since the question begins Would a reptile (singular) ie if the title had begun "A reptile's .." which the following question seems to imply, and frankly I imagine the OP knows what they meant better than anyone else.............................94.72.242.84 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the consensus is not to edit titles to avoid problems. Can someone please close this discussion with one of those nice boxes, and we can Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks.94.72.242.84 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the stupid boxing - a discussion isn't over until it's over - and when it's over it doesn't need to be hidden. Who made you ruler of the discussion page with the right to close off discussions at will? Maybe I should just stick boxes around all of your comments so people don't read them? Argh! SteveBaker (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus, I suggested that we stop this pointless discussion. Cuddyable boxed it [16] one action of theirs with which I do agree. Maybe we should just stick a cork in your mouth too?77.86.6.186 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Steve is right. This is the talk page; there's no reason to conceal discussions here. And please remain civil. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I never asked the discussion to be hidden, just one of those nice pastel shaded boxes be put round it so we can walk away and do other things. But if the horse is still twitching it's still alive; keep hitting it with the big stick. (joke).77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Cuddyable didn't do exactly what I had in mind - I meant like this Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Example_of_a_closed_discussion.77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Closing_discussions says (amongst other things: "Observe however that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying. "...so that should not have come as a surprise. Discussions that should be formally closed are those that have a time-critical deadline - or those for which a clear consensus has been reached. Closing a discussion just because you personally have had enough is completely unacceptable. Hiding it all (especially when you are the person whom we're debating the actions of) is unacceptable. SteveBaker (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've noticed on other pages discussions are closed by an independant person, with a summary at the top, giving a basic overview of the consensus (if any) reached .. it's helpful for future reference. I would expect the person to close the discussion to be neutral and an administrator, or of impeccable credentials.77.86.6.186 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Closing_discussions says (amongst other things: "Observe however that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying. "...so that should not have come as a surprise. Discussions that should be formally closed are those that have a time-critical deadline - or those for which a clear consensus has been reached. Closing a discussion just because you personally have had enough is completely unacceptable. Hiding it all (especially when you are the person whom we're debating the actions of) is unacceptable. SteveBaker (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apology offered to SteveBaker about cork suggestion.77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Accepted. SteveBaker (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Steve is right. This is the talk page; there's no reason to conceal discussions here. And please remain civil. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus, I suggested that we stop this pointless discussion. Cuddyable boxed it [16] one action of theirs with which I do agree. Maybe we should just stick a cork in your mouth too?77.86.6.186 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- For fuck's sake, you guys—this is such a petty issue. Perhaps the header shouldn't have been edited, although the alteration was undoubtedly made in the very best of faith. The same cannot be said for the revert: I genuinely cannot think of a single acceptable reason for anybody to restore grammatical errors onto any Wikipedia page, at all. Now can we all move on? ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it was an error in the first place. However, it's best not to mess with section headers unless they're disruptive, because it breaks a type of link that apparently many editors use. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that there was no need to tinker with the title, and that the tinkering should not have taken place. However, there are grave problems with rewriting time, and since the adjustment was made, there was no good reason to revert it. I think the lesson of this story is "just cope." ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Reverting it would restore the link that was destroyed by changing it, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that there was no need to tinker with the title, and that the tinkering should not have taken place. However, there are grave problems with rewriting time, and since the adjustment was made, there was no good reason to revert it. I think the lesson of this story is "just cope." ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it was an error in the first place. However, it's best not to mess with section headers unless they're disruptive, because it breaks a type of link that apparently many editors use. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Usually would. Don't think there ever was a link to it, but yes, probably.77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since the question begins "Would A reptile..." the heading saying "Reptile's" seems acceptable. If he had headed it "A reptile's sense of time", there would be no debate. Which also goes to demonstrate why it's risky trying to "correct" an OP's heading or question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I do not care about the grammar. At all. The change should not have been made; nor should it have been reverted. End of. How anyone managed to produce an entire page of debate about this is beyond me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The grammar was fine in the original, and reverting it would fix the link that "correcting" it broke, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The grammar was fine in the original—do you really find, I do not care about the grammar. At all, difficult to comprehend? And as for the second half of your message, I genuinely don't have a clue what it means. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The grammar was fine in the original, and reverting it would fix the link that "correcting" it broke, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I do not care about the grammar. At all. The change should not have been made; nor should it have been reverted. End of. How anyone managed to produce an entire page of debate about this is beyond me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since the question begins "Would A reptile..." the heading saying "Reptile's" seems acceptable. If he had headed it "A reptile's sense of time", there would be no debate. Which also goes to demonstrate why it's risky trying to "correct" an OP's heading or question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- (respond to Bugs) Actually the original was reptiles (wrong grammar), it was then changed (in good faith by Trovatore as we all accept) to reptiles', the OP then changed it to reptile's - signifying what they had originally intended it to mean I think.. .. Then that change was reverted (not sure why), then all hell broke loose unsurprisingly. 77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- As I've been told a number of times here by other editors, any change to the section heading breaks a link. So the heading should not have been messed with, and should be reverted to its original status, even if it's "grammitically" incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know about it either until someone explained it. Look at an article's history or your contrib list. Off to the right is the edit summary. In front of it is a little arrow, which if you hover over it, tells you what the link was at the time. If the section heading is changed, that link is lost. That's the primary reason not to mess with section headings, especially on a talk page, or something like a talk page which is what the ref desks are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I just changed the title of this section, to test the theory, and they were telling me correctly. If you look at the history, the only little-arrow-link that works is for the change I just made. Since I broke the link, the other arrows only take you to the top of the page rather than to the specific section. If you think this is petty, some regulars lectured me about this awhile back. I don't use that arrow, but others do. So DON'T MESS WITH IT. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I changed it back to "grammitical", and now all the links work again except for the one change I had made. If you all think this is petty, don't gripe to me, gripe to the ones who griped to me about it some months back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added a null section just above this one, so that both links now take you to about the right place. I did likewise with the reptiles / reptiles' / reptile's thing on the science ref desk. Hopefully, this will bring home the point not to mess with headings, for practical reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I changed it back to "grammitical", and now all the links work again except for the one change I had made. If you all think this is petty, don't gripe to me, gripe to the ones who griped to me about it some months back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I just changed the title of this section, to test the theory, and they were telling me correctly. If you look at the history, the only little-arrow-link that works is for the change I just made. Since I broke the link, the other arrows only take you to the top of the page rather than to the specific section. If you think this is petty, some regulars lectured me about this awhile back. I don't use that arrow, but others do. So DON'T MESS WITH IT. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know about it either until someone explained it. Look at an article's history or your contrib list. Off to the right is the edit summary. In front of it is a little arrow, which if you hover over it, tells you what the link was at the time. If the section heading is changed, that link is lost. That's the primary reason not to mess with section headings, especially on a talk page, or something like a talk page which is what the ref desks are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- As I've been told a number of times here by other editors, any change to the section heading breaks a link. So the heading should not have been messed with, and should be reverted to its original status, even if it's "grammitically" incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- (respond to Bugs) Actually the original was reptiles (wrong grammar), it was then changed (in good faith by Trovatore as we all accept) to reptiles', the OP then changed it to reptile's - signifying what they had originally intended it to mean I think.. .. Then that change was reverted (not sure why), then all hell broke loose unsurprisingly. 77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Here [17] is where I learned about this "link" stuff a couple of months ago. I was unaware of it until then. I'm guessing some of the editors in the above section were likewise unaware of it. It doesn't exactly jump out at you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info, I had no idea the little arrow hyperlinked to a section, (in fact I'm not sure I knew it did anything) I would have expected it to include a "#section heading" in the pop-up that appears.. Put an outdent in, hope I don't get into trouble for that. 77.86.6.186 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you hover over the arrow, the article and section names appear in the bar at the bottom of the screen (or wherever). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
We've discussed this before and I'm not going to bother to read this whole long discussion but FWIW, I wouldn't edit the title of someone else's question to correct grammar/punctuation/spelling unless it is likely to cause confusion. I definitely wouldn't advise edit warring over a title if the OP objects without a very good reason (and grammar isn't one of them). However previous discussions and policy outside the RD has established that as the title isn't signed, editing it is quite different from editing a signed comment and personally I wouldn't usually mind people correcting any titles where I definitely made a mistake (but would still discourage it because few people are likely to get annoyed if you don't do it, but some will if you do). Of course a better and more important reason (then the idea that they belong to the OP) not to edit titles is because as BB mentioned editing them does break links. On the other hand I do agree it's silly for an OP to edit war to keep a title with a mistake just because they don't like someone else correcting them or the way it was done (I'm not sure if that's what happened here or the OP genuinely feels their title was not a mistake or was making a pun or whatever else) and breaking the 3RR is definitely not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Between messing with the OP's entry and breaking the link, I would go so far as to say that what was done by the "pedant" was unwitting vandalism, and hence 3RR does not apply. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- BTW in case anyone is interested the relevant parts of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say
- Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.
- I've added some IMHO relevant emphasis Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- It would seem that whoever wrote that guideline was also unaware of that obscure arrow link thing or else didn't care about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Should add that from memory most previous discussions concerned titles in this talk page, not the RD itself. Nil Einne (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- We've got a fundamental dilemma, in that the guideline ignores the existence of those little arrow thingies. A couple of months ago they were telling me not to change headings on talk pages because it would break the links. The ref desk is essentially a set of talk pages. Obviously, you have to have flexibility in articles, and you have to be able to modify section headings if they violate policy in some way. But in general, they should be left alone. If the "corrector" understands whatever mistake was made, presumably the rest of us do also, so no "correction" is needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Wow. Even Vranak didn't get this much attention... Aaronite (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, everyone come stare at the traffic accident.77.86.6.186 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite that dramatic. More like staring at a car with mismatched hubcaps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have un-buried this section. Cuddyable3, this thread is not yours to close as you see fit; obviously, people still wish to comment. I can appreciate that you're just trying to stop this from spiralling further out of control, but that's not how things work here - closing a discussion after one day prevents people from registering their opinions. Mediation sounds like a great idea (though I think it's mostly used for content disputes), but this is not simply between you and SteveBaker; there are at least a half-dozen folks who have registered their opinions and some of those do not fall into either camp. Matt Deres (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Forgetting the nannyism of fixing someone else's spelling, the larger issue would seem to be, how important are those little link-arrows, which will be "broken" if someone messes with a section heading? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um, Bugs, I think you've mentioned the arrows 8 times so far. Someone else responded once. It was worth raising, but I think you've provided enough emphasis of that point. -- Scray (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs has identified a bug in the Wiki software that fails to track title changes. AFAIK search engines are blind to punctuation so I wonder does moving an apostrophe break links? The OP doesn't even want to keep their first title version so we can deduce that they were as unaware as most of us were of what Bugs would reveal. The issue is not directly relevant in this thread which started about an alleged offence, not a defective function. If anyone likes to discuss the links dilemma it should be in a new section. I cannot claim any active involvement in the subject since the title of the question about lizards had been changed repeatedly before I re-corrected it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I brought it up about 8 times is that subsequent posters appeared to ignore it. So the question still remains, how important are those little arrows? To me personally, they are of no importance whatsoever, since I never use them. But other users, specifically Matt Deres and TOAT, lectured me that they are important to some users. So any discussion of this matter should take that issue into consideration. It doesn't stand alone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- How many is about 8? Having WP:AGF one is assured that users read carefully what is posted and hold their peace unless they can post something constructive, since to do so otherwise is to seem foolish. Some others post to prove it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I raised the concern about the arrows, and others commented as if they had not read it. I'm still waiting for someone here to indicate whether those little arrows matter or not. To me, they matter not at all, but I got lectured by your fellow regulars on this subject, I'm merely passing it along. Don't yell at me, yell at them! If you don't agree with them, speak up! I can't read your mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the arrows matter to me. (And I wish they could magically follow a question into the archives, actually.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent. If the arrows matter to a significant number of users, then this entire thread can be archived, because the headers should not be messed with, period, end of story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The arrows are relevant to me as well. I have no idea how widespread this is, though. My suggestion is that when the headers are sufficiently unambiguous (i.e. not "question"), they should be left alone. However, edit-warring over whether or not the headers should be restored to a previous state is also LAME. Where the guidelines are more lenient towards editing headers (again, "question" and the like), the arrows are also often useless as-is, so I don't see a problem with that practice. — Lomn 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the arrows matter to me. (And I wish they could magically follow a question into the archives, actually.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I raised the concern about the arrows, and others commented as if they had not read it. I'm still waiting for someone here to indicate whether those little arrows matter or not. To me, they matter not at all, but I got lectured by your fellow regulars on this subject, I'm merely passing it along. Don't yell at me, yell at them! If you don't agree with them, speak up! I can't read your mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- How many is about 8? Having WP:AGF one is assured that users read carefully what is posted and hold their peace unless they can post something constructive, since to do so otherwise is to seem foolish. Some others post to prove it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I brought it up about 8 times is that subsequent posters appeared to ignore it. So the question still remains, how important are those little arrows? To me personally, they are of no importance whatsoever, since I never use them. But other users, specifically Matt Deres and TOAT, lectured me that they are important to some users. So any discussion of this matter should take that issue into consideration. It doesn't stand alone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs has identified a bug in the Wiki software that fails to track title changes. AFAIK search engines are blind to punctuation so I wonder does moving an apostrophe break links? The OP doesn't even want to keep their first title version so we can deduce that they were as unaware as most of us were of what Bugs would reveal. The issue is not directly relevant in this thread which started about an alleged offence, not a defective function. If anyone likes to discuss the links dilemma it should be in a new section. I cannot claim any active involvement in the subject since the title of the question about lizards had been changed repeatedly before I re-corrected it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um, Bugs, I think you've mentioned the arrows 8 times so far. Someone else responded once. It was worth raising, but I think you've provided enough emphasis of that point. -- Scray (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Humanities section
Does anyone else feel that Geography should be listed in the Humanities link? And if not, can someone explain to me why it's not there? -- Jack?! 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, here is one earlier discussion on the topic. I still feel it is one of the integrated disciplines that can fit several desks, depending on the exact question, and hence shouldn't be featured at only one desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- From our article ...modern geography is an all-encompassing discipline that foremost seeks to understand the Earth and all of its human and natural complexities—not merely where objects are, but how they have changed and come to be. So questions could come to the Science Desk or perhaps the Math Desk, like Sluzzelin said. hydnjo (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Science I could see but how would the math desk be relevant for geography? Except for where someone pedantically states that you can not know the length of a coastline because of some kind of fractal theory. Googlemeister (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- From our article ...modern geography is an all-encompassing discipline that foremost seeks to understand the Earth and all of its human and natural complexities—not merely where objects are, but how they have changed and come to be. So questions could come to the Science Desk or perhaps the Math Desk, like Sluzzelin said. hydnjo (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, some silly question related to this perhaps? hydnjo (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- You just replied to someone talking about the coastline problem to suggest the coastline problem as an example... why did you do that? --Tango (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not pedantic. It's true. Any statement of the length of a coastline is completely meaningless without giving the scale at which it was measured and the choice of scale is, in most cases, completely arbitrary. --Tango (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, some silly question related to this perhaps? hydnjo (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was just turning around "someone pedantically states" into a possible question about the subject from someone seeking information and chose the Math desk to do so, geesh. hydnjo (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are trying to say. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was just turning around "someone pedantically states" into a possible question about the subject from someone seeking information and chose the Math desk to do so, geesh. hydnjo (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Neither do I apparently. hydnjo (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hydnjo please provide a diff to help us understand! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Neither do I apparently. hydnjo (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was purely a hypothetical speculation as to how a geography question might be posted at the Math desk so, no diff. hydnjo (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Besides the coastline problem, consider questions like: How do you calculate great circle distance on a sphere from the lat/lon of the endpoints? On an ellipsoid? What is the area of a "square state" whose borders are lines of constant latitude and longitude? These area calculations I'm doing fail when the region contains a pole; how can I fix them? -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Purpose creep
This is why opinions don't really have a place on the ref desk. There are some solid responses buried under a lot of statements of personal preference and counterstatements. But can we really say that most of the banter helped answer the OP's question, or bettered Wikipedia? If anything, it makes the good responses needles in a subjective haystack: the extraneous discussion does a disservice to editors whose useful contributions have been obscured.
Would it be possible for all regular and semi-regular contributors to agree to something? A mutually-agreed short period (e.g. three days to a week) where:
- First replies must contain a link or reference to a helpful article, book or external website.
- Users whose questions cannot be answered objectively are politely directed to a relevant forum.
- Subsequent posts must either:
- 1) build uncontroversially on a previous post, or
- 2) offer further links or references to illustrate a different point of interest, in the same way that first-repliers justify their response.
The goal of this is to see whether a conscious effort to get back to basics would improve the productivity, and quality of advice, of the reference desks. Ideally everyone would give this a spin for the brief duration of the experiment (as little as 72 teensy hours). We could put a banner up at the top of the RD pages so all editors could see we are trying a different approach to answering questions.
Do people think that this would be a worthwhile effort? Brammers (talk/c) 10:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hey man we're all volunteers here, giving our own free time to Wikipedia for nothing in return. If the OP isn't happy with our free help, they can go and pay a professional service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.16.252 (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, it would not be possible for all regular and semi-regular contributors to agree to something. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- How about a majority of the most active contributors? It would probably still make a difference. And I accidentally made my question unclear: I meant to say "Would you try this out" rather than "Do you think we could rope everyone else into it". Brammers (talk/c) 11:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, it would not be possible for all regular and semi-regular contributors to agree to something. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think we could all agree that we would never agree. -- kainaw™ 11:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, so we're never going to get 100% participation: this was a best-case target and deliberately set high to try to get as many people as possible involved. I was hoping that some of the big guns would all agree to pull in the same direction for a spell, but I guess the weight of opinion is that this won't happen. Oh well. Brammers (talk/c) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think we could all agree that we would never agree. -- kainaw™ 11:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
UnresolvedThis cat likes Brammers' intention. But this cat doesn't want to substitute instruction creep for PURRpose creep. This cat suggests that we should mark every question within 24 hours with either one of Resolved or Unresolved. Like Mae West's explanation why she had a mirror in her bedroom ceiling, this helps us see how we are doing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- When cats start marking around here, I'm gone... -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Good luck Tom, maybe you'll catch a pretty one. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with anyone except the OP marking questions as "resolved", since only the OP knows if their question has been answered to their satisfaction. I would however agree with encouraging questioners to use the resolved tags more often themselves, perhaps this could be included into the "how to ask questions" guide at the top of each desk. Also, what the hell is going on in this thread? OP raises some valid points and almost every reply is nonconstructive or a joke about cats? 82.43.90.93 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- A large percentage of questions are posted by drive-bys who make only that one entry, or who never get back to it to acknowledge that it's resolved. I've also heard that the "resolved" tags have some technological issues, like causing the page to open more slowly or something. Maybe the tech-sperts here could speak to that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't refer to people as "drive bys", it has very negative connotations. While you are right that some people may never check back on their questions, it still doesn't seem appropriate to presume they got the answer they were looking and mark it resolved without confirmation from them, except in very, very obvious situations where it's a yes or no type question. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's the unvarnished truth, and if the unvarnished truth bothers you, that's your problem, not mine. And if someone feels insulted by themselves being called a drive-by, they are free to complain to me about it directly, as my talk page is not protected. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is NOT the truth. Calling infrequent or one time editors "drive bys" implies they came here with an intent to cause harm or disruption. "a drive-by is a form of hit-and-run tactic, a personal attack carried out by an individual or individuals from a moving or momentarily stopped vehicle." "Hit-and-run tactics is a tactical doctrine where the purpose of the combat involved is not to seize control of territory, but to inflict damage on a target and immediately exit the area to avoid the enemy's defense and/or retaliation." 82.43.90.93 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's your interpretation, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to claim the term "drive-by" doesn't have negative connotations? Have you actually even read the article drive by?? Calling people "drive-bys" clearly shows you think they're trying to cause harm or disruption, that's what the term means by it's very definition. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean ITS very definition? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, your right. Thank's for corecting that for me. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- You failed to misspell a few words in the above comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, your right. Thank's for corecting that for me. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's your interpretation, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is NOT the truth. Calling infrequent or one time editors "drive bys" implies they came here with an intent to cause harm or disruption. "a drive-by is a form of hit-and-run tactic, a personal attack carried out by an individual or individuals from a moving or momentarily stopped vehicle." "Hit-and-run tactics is a tactical doctrine where the purpose of the combat involved is not to seize control of territory, but to inflict damage on a target and immediately exit the area to avoid the enemy's defense and/or retaliation." 82.43.90.93 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's the unvarnished truth, and if the unvarnished truth bothers you, that's your problem, not mine. And if someone feels insulted by themselves being called a drive-by, they are free to complain to me about it directly, as my talk page is not protected. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot share 82's strong disagreement because no one is obliged to satisfy the OP, instead we individually volunteer what we think is helpful and is our best effort. Often the Resolved status becomes obvious and placing the tag can both save reading time and discourage excessive OT diversions. Anyone who thinks the tag was placed prematurely is free to change it to Unresolved, hopefully with an explanation why. The OP here has agreed that their proposal is dead. Let's call them visitors not drive-bys. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is there, in fact, a technical issue that would recommend not posting that "resolved" tag? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Any template forces the pre-processor to expand it, query the DB for the template page, substitute the template arguments, etc. In this case, an image is also used so that has to be retrieved/cache-checked as well. Also, when the page is saved, the what-links-here table has to be updated for the template. So yes, there is some (small) load. It's not really an issue for the reader using default settings, but for editors with non-default preferences there will be some latency while the parser renders their particular combination. The problem can get worse with a large number of templates, but I've seen the complaint more often arise with complex templates like {{convert}}. I personally just use a Unicode tick-mark: ✓ when I need to mark something resolved (which I wouldn't do on the RD's though). Franamax (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is there, in fact, a technical issue that would recommend not posting that "resolved" tag? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't refer to people as "drive bys", it has very negative connotations. While you are right that some people may never check back on their questions, it still doesn't seem appropriate to presume they got the answer they were looking and mark it resolved without confirmation from them, except in very, very obvious situations where it's a yes or no type question. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- A large percentage of questions are posted by drive-bys who make only that one entry, or who never get back to it to acknowledge that it's resolved. I've also heard that the "resolved" tags have some technological issues, like causing the page to open more slowly or something. Maybe the tech-sperts here could speak to that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with anyone except the OP marking questions as "resolved", since only the OP knows if their question has been answered to their satisfaction. I would however agree with encouraging questioners to use the resolved tags more often themselves, perhaps this could be included into the "how to ask questions" guide at the top of each desk. Also, what the hell is going on in this thread? OP raises some valid points and almost every reply is nonconstructive or a joke about cats? 82.43.90.93 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- And even that is imperfect. I don't see a check-mark (or whatever); all I see is a small box with the numbers 2713 in it. Matt Deres (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh wise-guy eh? Why I oughta...woop-woop-woop! :) Indeed, venturing beyond the absolute minimum font load of Windows and/or OS/X is fraught with peril. You are only one MS charset download away from the green tickmark - but have provided a lesson to me that I should become known as the guy who closes threads with the notation U+2713, abandon hope all ye who enter here... food for thought, that. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Que? I thought it was a SVG ie this File:Yes check.svg , or am having obscure sense of humour failure? 87.102.42.55 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is indeed an image in {{resolved}}. I was smart enough to figure out a much less system-intensive way of showing a tick-mark using just a Unicode character and some markup language - but not smart enough to realize that if you don't have international language support loaded on your system, it just shows up as a squiggly. Your humour ability is safe (for now). Franamax (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Que? I thought it was a SVG ie this File:Yes check.svg , or am having obscure sense of humour failure? 87.102.42.55 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh wise-guy eh? Why I oughta...woop-woop-woop! :) Indeed, venturing beyond the absolute minimum font load of Windows and/or OS/X is fraught with peril. You are only one MS charset download away from the green tickmark - but have provided a lesson to me that I should become known as the guy who closes threads with the notation U+2713, abandon hope all ye who enter here... food for thought, that. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- And even that is imperfect. I don't see a check-mark (or whatever); all I see is a small box with the numbers 2713 in it. Matt Deres (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- While RefDesk regulars might not have any qualms about changing an "Unresolved" to "Resolved", for someone new to the place (e.g. those who would be termed "drive bys" by Bugs), that "Resolved" tag seems pretty final. (It has a "Your question has been answered to our satisfaction. We don't want to deal with it further. We don't care what you think. Now GTFO."-ish feel to it.) If I was a new user, I doubt I would change it - I'd probably take the brusqueness as a hint and move on. Given how snippy Wikipedia users can be about procedural issues (e.g. the heading-changing thing above), I can just imagine a future exchange where there's an edit war where one user keeps re-opening the question, and another keeps re-closing it, claiming that insufficient evidence was given that the provided answer wasn't sufficient. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- In some - perhaps many - cases, there's no real telling when the question has been resolved, even by the questioner. We often correct one another, sometimes even late in the thread, "Oh, yeah, forgot about that detail..." kind of thing. If the OP prematurely marks their thread as resolved or similar, it may prevent another respondent down the road from checking the question and correcting the answer. Of course, sometimes (not often!) my opinion swings the other way and I think it would be best for OPs to archive their thread as soon as they're satisfied with their answer to reduce drawn out joke threads and such. Matt Deres (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Matt Deres. I've seen questions being marked as resolved with incomplete or even inaccurate replies (which is why the "resolved" tag doesn't stop me from posting, if I so see fit). The OP will be able to glean the signal from the noise. I do agree that long off-topic debates etc. can be confusing, even annoying, but the solution is for us to restrain ourselves when we have nothing relevant to add, not for questions to be marked as resolved. (That being said, I wouldn't remove a "resolved" tag added by the OP, but I might revert one posted by someone else). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Matt has the right idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Matt Deres. I've seen questions being marked as resolved with incomplete or even inaccurate replies (which is why the "resolved" tag doesn't stop me from posting, if I so see fit). The OP will be able to glean the signal from the noise. I do agree that long off-topic debates etc. can be confusing, even annoying, but the solution is for us to restrain ourselves when we have nothing relevant to add, not for questions to be marked as resolved. (That being said, I wouldn't remove a "resolved" tag added by the OP, but I might revert one posted by someone else). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- In some - perhaps many - cases, there's no real telling when the question has been resolved, even by the questioner. We often correct one another, sometimes even late in the thread, "Oh, yeah, forgot about that detail..." kind of thing. If the OP prematurely marks their thread as resolved or similar, it may prevent another respondent down the road from checking the question and correcting the answer. Of course, sometimes (not often!) my opinion swings the other way and I think it would be best for OPs to archive their thread as soon as they're satisfied with their answer to reduce drawn out joke threads and such. Matt Deres (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. While I don't post often, I do look all the time. I try and post when I have something relevant to add. (All to often, it's a goofy comment, but I try.) We would be best to only contribute when there is info to add or correct, as needed. Aaronite (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of Brammer's suggestion is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio on the desk. Specific dictums or mandates requiring citations are tough to enforce (just from experience, some questions don't work that way). But every contributor should think about every contribution: "am I adding signal or adding noise?" before hitting submit. Nimur (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Was looking for the up-vote button, then I realized I'm not on StackOverflow. I love that paradigm for Q&A. -- Scray (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)Thanks Nimur - you've got it in one. I was never going to suggest "compulsory" citations - firstly, as you say, they are not always appropriate and secondly there is no point restricting the freedom of contributors. A drive to see how we can maximise the signal:noise ratio through scrutinising each action we take might benefit the desks long after it's stopped.
I'm not asking everyone to agree to it on behalf of everyone else. I'm asking each user to say "Count me in." and step forward for themselves. Brammers (talk/c) 20:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)- I'm not going to intentionally reduce the quality of the service I provide by restricting myself like that. It is certainly wise to consider whether a post is adding anything to a discussion before posting it, but specific rules, even self-imposed ones, are unwise. --Tango (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it time for
Resolved? Hee hee. Aaronite (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I too totally agree with Nimur's "Signal to Noise Ratio Metric", it's an excellent personal guideline, we could do with a essay subpage such as we have with the excellent Kainaw's medical advice criterion. Obviously we can't legislate effectively for this, but +1 or whatever.87.102.42.55 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Noise"? We might find noise annoying, having to scroll down through so many layers of crud. However, the OP might find meaningful discussion, point dissection, and side points interesting and either learn from it or be more motivated about the subject, all of which seems to fit the mission of this very website. There is no noise but that which the OP indicateth. Let's give them the tools they need to guide discussion and put ourselves on the sidelines. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The guidelines for the ref desks suggest that wikiversity:Wikiversity:Help Desk is the place for debate. However, these are only guidelines and also quite dusty. Perhaps it is time to redraft them. Giving them a thorough read, it seems that this bit is similar to my proposals - maybe they just surfaced in my mind after being tucked away months ago. There are also a lot of points in the guidelines that touch on contentious subjects that are frequently discussed here. Brammers (talk/c) 18:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are certain editors here who think of themselves as the owners of the ref desks, and want to exercise pedantic control over how it's to be used. As you may have noticed, the slightest transgression (in some of their eyes) will result in page after page of discussion here - typically with no resolution. I used to find it frustrating, but more often now I just find it entertaining. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Noise"? We might find noise annoying, having to scroll down through so many layers of crud. However, the OP might find meaningful discussion, point dissection, and side points interesting and either learn from it or be more motivated about the subject, all of which seems to fit the mission of this very website. There is no noise but that which the OP indicateth. Let's give them the tools they need to guide discussion and put ourselves on the sidelines. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I love Nimur's "am I adding signal or am I adding noise" comment. I've suggested requiring references before for all answerers, because this is a Reference Desk, but Nimur's comment is simpler and probably more useful, especially when it comes to the Computing desk, where, as SteveBaker has commented, it's generally impossible to find a reference telling the querent they have to click on the thingie and then scroll down to the bottom and choose "Purge" from the Edit menu. PS: The "Resolved" template sucks. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- How could the template be improved? Brammers (talk/c) 19:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is another tangent, but since you ask: I am of those who don't think the "Resolved" template belongs on the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I, for one, would like to commend Brammers on an eminently reasonable proposal. It's too bad that (a) it hasn't seen more support and (b) 90% of the above discussion has been on silly tangents ('resolved' templates, 'drive-by' terminology) rather than the substance of the proposal.
It's especially dismaying to see several variations on the sentiment of "we're all volunteers here, so we can do anything we want; no one can tell us what to do." That's quite false, for a number of reasons. This is a structured, purposeful community, not a chat room or a free-for-all.
It's useful to remember that the purposes of the Ref Desks, in order, are to (1) improve the encyclopedia, (2) help the questioners, and (3) have fun. As I read Brammers's proposal, it's a reminder that when #3 gets in the way of the other two, it must give way. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Sooo...how about we actually discuss this proposal?
- First replies must contain a link or reference to a helpful article, book or external website. -- Very often a link doesn't help. In many cases the question requires an explanation of the material in question - or perhaps lots of arithmetic or (on the computing desk) a little computer program. On the language desks, people translate stuff from one language to another - linking that kind of answer is impossible. Links are not the only way we help...they are but one of many tools we have to help the end user. Also, why should the person who happens to arrive at the question first have to follow different rules to subsequent contributors. I understand what you're trying to say here - but sometimes the best answers don't benefit from having links embedded in them.
- Users whose questions cannot be answered objectively are politely directed to a relevant forum. -- The problem here is that we seem to have wildly different ideas of what constitutes an 'objective' answer. Some people will (for example) say that a question that asks for an opinion is entirely invalid. Others will say that providing you can provide the reasoning behind an opinion - and present both sides of an opinionated situation, then the questioner will come away more informed than otherwise.
- Subsequent posts must either:
- build uncontroversially on a previous post, or
- offer further links or references to illustrate a different point of interest, in the same way that first-repliers justify their response.
- -- This is really an over-simplification. Responses are not always either an uncontroversial expansion or a downright denial of the previous answer. We often have to temper a previous answer by indicating that, while correct, it only explains a minor part of the previous question. Quite often I don't disagree with any of the previous answers - but merely feel that the information they contain could be better presented as a coherent story and I might well want to explain things from a 'controversial' direction.
The bottom line here is that (I think) everyone is actually doing their best here. The problem is that some of us are simply not very good at it - which is unfortunate...but those are not the people who are going to follow your rules here. My conclusion is that while I agree that these ideas represent a worthy effort to improve the reference desks, they are unlikely to do so because they impose limits on some of the people who are very well able to provide great answers without the rules - and they don't do anything to prevent screwups by the careless and the people who's motives for being here are not to help the OP's.
The people who need to pay attention to these rules are not going to.
So, sadly, I won't be changing my editing style as a result of this proposal.
What I wish we could do would be (with Admin support) to make people whose answers our community finds unacceptable obey these rules - or be blocked from editing here. When folks like User:Vranak start posting junk answers - we would discuss that here and if there is consensus, I'd hope that we could ask some resident Admin to advise that person that they must obey "The Brammers Directive" for the next 30 days (or whatever) - or be blocked from editing WP:RD pages for 30 days. If, by the end of that time, they aren't producing better answers - then we perma-block them and call it a day.
That would cause these basic principles to be upheld by the bottom 5% of our editors - without adding 'rule creep' to the lives of perfectly good editors.
SteveBaker (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's far easier to identify and get agreement about what's NOT ok, than what IS ok. Some practices do need to be stamped out quick smart; but as for how we go about participating on the ref desks for a positive outcome - that's as individual as each one of us is, and there should never be only one acceptable way of operating. Trying to make unnecessary rules about this is just a needlessly bureaucratic waste of everyone's time. Live and let live - unless there's some line-crossing happening. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanking answerers
Thanking editors for their answers to my questions involves a judgement of timing. If I thank them too early, other editors might be dissuaded from adding their answers. If I wait too long, the discussion could go to the archives before I do so. If I say that I appreciate the answers (or some of them) so far, but that I would still appreciate additional answers, I might appear to be greedy. At other times, the answers (or some of them) have been unsatisfactory, and thanking editors might be equivalent to tipping for poor service. Therefore, I have only seldom thanked editors for their answers, although my appreciation for answers exceeds the quantity of my expressions about it.—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I often choose the greedy option. I guess I just enjoy thanking people. I certainly never interpret lack of feedback as a lack of appreciation. If everyone thanked the way I do, it might clutter up the desks. I'd continue doing whatever feels comfortable to you. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sometimes I'm too exuberant with my thank yous and they get reverted :( 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I wouldn't continue whatever feels comfortable to YOU (but I wouldn't have reverted you either). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure TT meant well, but he apparently failed to observe that you were also the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sometimes I'm too exuberant with my thank yous and they get reverted :( 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- What you call "greedy" I'd call gracious both to the answerer and to others who have not yet arrived/answered. I find "resolved" tags and thank-yous that sound final to be too stifling for alternative answers - no one should cut off the discussion, and the OP should be sensitive to the reality that once they've posted it, they don't own the question anymore (neither does any answerer). Go ahead and be gracious, but keep the door open. -- Scray (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It depends on the question. On the entertainment desk, someone might ask, "What's this song/movie/book" or whatever, and once the right answer is posted, that's pretty much it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even after a correct answer to a simple question has been given, someone might provide an internal or external link to a page where answers to many questions of that type can be found.—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even after a correct answer to a simple question has been given, someone might provide an internal or external link to a page where answers to many questions of that type can be found.—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's great when people thank us - it's good for morale aside from anything else. I like barnstars too - they are great when a particularly outstanding answer has been given...when someone pulls off an incredible piece of google-fu for example.
- What I like more than that is when the OP indicates whether the answer helped or not. Tell us whether there was some part that was not completely clear - did we aim the level of the answer too high? Did we actually help you in some material fashion? Feedback (good or bad) can only help us to get better.
- I do slightly worry that when an OP offers thanks - not that we'll be dissuaded from adding more answers - but that the OP may not return to read subsequent answers. That is a scarey prospect because I'd say that seemingly good early answers are quite often wrong and need to be corrected - it's all too easy for someone to be over-zealous about getting in the first answer to a seemingly easy question - and then to be incorrect an hour or so later. It's generally at least one day - sometimes two - before you can really be certain that we're all in reasonable agreement with what was posted. However, I'd hope that none of us are dissuaded from adding more information after a "Thank you!" (I'm certainly not).
- The thing that annoys me the most is when someone (either the OP or one of the respondents) sticks a silly:
Resolved- ...template onto the page. How can anyone - OP or respondent - possibly know that the answer is perfect? Either one of them could be sadly mistaken about the quality of the answers given so far. The matter can only be considered resolved (to the best of our abilities) when nobody posts any more follow-ups. But that may not happen until the question scrolls off the top of the page. SteveBaker (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- A simple suggestion is when you offering thanks, do it in a way that suggests you will continue to read the thread. I myself will probably be less likely to add answers if someone says something which suggests they may not check it out anymore although when I feel my answer is important enough I may try to notify the OP. Of course in the same vein if you aren't likely to check the answers anymore, then feel free to make this clear as well. For example in such a case if someone feels there's something missing they may try to inform you via your talk page or whatever. And unlike SB, I actually have no problems with OPs sticking resolved templates. As much as anything it indicated the OP may not check the answers anymore and in particular, I should try to inform the OP if I feel there is something majorly wrong with the existing answers. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Fixing grammar, general bitterness
This is also why we don't fix a poster's title grammar unless within a couple minutes after the fact, and if it's obviously a mistake and unironic (and even then I'd be cautious). I think there is one idea we need to consider: barring vandals and trolls, the OP is always right. They are the ones asking the question - they are the ones who seek knowledge from us who volunteer as knowledge-givers - they are the ones upon whom it befalls to successfully convey to us what knowledge they seek, and sometimes there are indeed unknown unknowns that must be revealed through discussion. Point is, unless it's obvious the OP can't communicate too well in English, don't change their grammar - these aren't articles here. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was done by Ludwig here [18] and should have been immediately reverted, if anyone had caught it, and the user should have been pointed to the megillah about it on this page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I informed Ludwig of this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I support
LuwigLudwig because this is English Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)- That's a complete non-sequitur, Cuddlyable3. Do you, in real life, go around correcting the words people speak? Well, maybe you do; but observing passively the behaviour of others without getting caught up in it is a good discipline to adopt. It's even worse if one does that here, a la Ludwig, because it doesn't just comment after the event on what an editor has written, it actually changes what they wrote in the first place, which is intellectual theft and typographical fraud. Sometimes it's appropriate, even necessary, to make some comment on the spelling or grammar of what an editor has written, but it's never OK to make them say what we think they ought to have said. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I support
- I informed Ludwig of this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cuddlyable3, who is "Luwig"? I am completely and utterly unable to understand your comment, because I don't know who Luwig is. Unlike most people, I cannot understand writing with simple mistakes, so I insist you clarify your meaning. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Before I say another word, I apologise to Ludwig for my misspelling. It is corrected. Then I thank Coneslayer for correcting me. No less is demanded by this adage: The wise one loves correction, knowing that it guides to Perfection. The fool merely defends its error-making. The following explains my support of anyone who helps another to use English correctly and Ludwig in particular. This is English Wikipedia. As a courtesy to whichever side of the Atlantic is not our home side we accommodate both American and British flavours of English. If someone is moved to start a Wikipedia in a new speech form, such as (but not limited to) Pigin, phonetics, Ebonics, rap grunting, let's-revolutionise-how-the-apostrophe-works-ese or dumbed-down semiliteracy-ese, then all Wikipedians should encourage them. Just please don't do it here. If you are a visitor whose English is not good then we will help you by answering in correct English though there are good reasons for not rewording your question. The following is controversial to some: the title (section heading) should be used to categorise the question, not to express it. It is a good act to fix a poor title properly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The comment, about the wise loving to be corrected, merely reinforces the I'm-better-than-you-are attitude that most folks see in those doing the correcting. You should correct your children's English, for sure, since that's part of your job as a parent. You should only correct other adults' grammar when they've made a critical mistake... Unless you've got a desire to make as many enemies as possible. Or enjoy hearing someone say "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since you are such a fan of correction, I will use this opportunity to correct not only your spelling of "accommodate", but more importantly your etiquette: Authorities on the topic generally agree that it is poor manners to habitually correct the grammar of others. I would advise you to devote your talents to copyediting article space, where nobody has ownership of their words, and where we should indeed strive to maintain high standards of written English. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC) PS: In your edit summary, you wrote "Muphrys law struck. Fixed." That should be "Murphy's". Maybe Oversight can fix that one.
- See Muphry's law, a variety of Murphy's law. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, WHAAOE for sure. I amend my correction to point out the missing apostrophe in the edit summary. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Coneslayer thank you for showing me that I was in this misguided company. I corrected "accommodate". The two "generally agree" links you give are not Authorities. They are a Hack writer cum blogger "Miss Conduct" and the sales blurb for a juvenile nonfiction book that claims the eponymous "Miss Manners" to be America's foremost authority on civilized behavior. (Google books couldn't find any reviews of the latter alleged household name.) It was helpful of Sluzzelin to point you to Muphry's law which catches one when one least expects it. It's also ironic that I can't change my edit summary. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I guess the Miss Manners link isn't working for you, despite my testing in multiple browsers, because it is intended to show Page 78 of the book, in which Judith Martin (described as an authority in our article) writes, "Yes, it is rude to correct other people's speech. You are supposed to be too interested in the content to notice the form." But I doubt it matters, because you really don't care. Grammatical perfection, always and everywhere, even if it means pissing off volunteers who are lending their expertise to this venture. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I see now that Judith Martin (71) is not to be
inderratedunderrated as a source for quote mining since "...when the Day of Judgment comes, Miss Manners will have etiquette rules to apply to that, as well.[19]". She is also known to be sarcastic. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)- "Inderrated", eh? Hmmm. What ever could you mean? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Underrated. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Inderrated", eh? Hmmm. What ever could you mean? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I see now that Judith Martin (71) is not to be
- I guess the Miss Manners link isn't working for you, despite my testing in multiple browsers, because it is intended to show Page 78 of the book, in which Judith Martin (described as an authority in our article) writes, "Yes, it is rude to correct other people's speech. You are supposed to be too interested in the content to notice the form." But I doubt it matters, because you really don't care. Grammatical perfection, always and everywhere, even if it means pissing off volunteers who are lending their expertise to this venture. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Coneslayer thank you for showing me that I was in this misguided company. I corrected "accommodate". The two "generally agree" links you give are not Authorities. They are a Hack writer cum blogger "Miss Conduct" and the sales blurb for a juvenile nonfiction book that claims the eponymous "Miss Manners" to be America's foremost authority on civilized behavior. (Google books couldn't find any reviews of the latter alleged household name.) It was helpful of Sluzzelin to point you to Muphry's law which catches one when one least expects it. It's also ironic that I can't change my edit summary. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, WHAAOE for sure. I amend my correction to point out the missing apostrophe in the edit summary. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- See Muphry's law, a variety of Murphy's law. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Before I say another word, I apologise to Ludwig for my misspelling. It is corrected. Then I thank Coneslayer for correcting me. No less is demanded by this adage: The wise one loves correction, knowing that it guides to Perfection. The fool merely defends its error-making. The following explains my support of anyone who helps another to use English correctly and Ludwig in particular. This is English Wikipedia. As a courtesy to whichever side of the Atlantic is not our home side we accommodate both American and British flavours of English. If someone is moved to start a Wikipedia in a new speech form, such as (but not limited to) Pigin, phonetics, Ebonics, rap grunting, let's-revolutionise-how-the-apostrophe-works-ese or dumbed-down semiliteracy-ese, then all Wikipedians should encourage them. Just please don't do it here. If you are a visitor whose English is not good then we will help you by answering in correct English though there are good reasons for not rewording your question. The following is controversial to some: the title (section heading) should be used to categorise the question, not to express it. It is a good act to fix a poor title properly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- As an aside, beyond the issues of etiquette amply explored above there are also good technical reasons why we try to avoid changing a section header unless it is absolutely unavoidable. If the original poster – or any other editor, for that matter – attempts to revisit a thread using the little blue 'link to section' right arrow found in their contributions log or in the page history, it will only work if the section title hasn't been altered. It will also break links to the section which have been created elsewhere on the project, though I suspect this is a relatively rare problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I pointed that out about ten times in this discussion, and mostly it's been like talking to a brick wall. Maybe they'll respect you enough to pay attention now.
- You along with Matt Deres brought this to my attention a couple months ago. The problem right now is that there is nothing about it in the guidelines about modifying section headings. That needs to be brought up there, and help avoid this left-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-right-is-doing situation in the future. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Technically, you brought it up 10 times in an earlier, yet remarkably similar, discussion... apparently we're feeling refreshed enough to start over. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's all the same topic, except it's two-pronged: Correcting headings just to pedantically correct spelling mistakes is pointless; and it also breaks links. So there are two reasons not to do it. Why some keep arguing in favor of such corrections is a mystery at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Technically, you brought it up 10 times in an earlier, yet remarkably similar, discussion... apparently we're feeling refreshed enough to start over. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- On User talk:Ludwigs2, Xeno is saying there is a template called "anchor" which can be used when headings are changed and which will preserve the links while keeping the erroneous heading invisible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) Eye doughnut C wut all duh fus iz... seriously, though, the problem here is not that some editor got his grammar corrected. The problem here is that when that 'correctee' objected, the 'corrector' insisted, and unpleasantness ensued. I personally don't see an issue with correcting grammar or spelling (and think the technical issue is inconsequential), but if someone decides to revert me on it I'm not going to fight over it. I'll just explain the problem on their talk page and drop it. And if someone's feelings get hurt because I corrected their grammar... well, all I can say to that is that anyone who has enough pride in their work to be offended about a correction ought to have enough pride in their work not to need too much correction in the first place. One cannot claim the respect due a craftsman when one has the skills of a neophyte.
- P.s. I was aiming for snooty with that last line : did I make it?
This is not a big issue unless both sides make it a big issue - I think if we all self-impose a 1-revert principle on grammar corrections we should be ok. --Ludwigs2 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The technical issues may be 'inconsequential' to you, but a lot of other editors rely on those links when they help out here. (I am one of them, and I get the impression that Bugs is another.) Please don't do things when it's been explained to you how they will inconvenience other volunteers. If you would like to offer corrections, feel free to do so in your comments. ("Did you mean blah?"; or "I suspect that's a typo; it probably should be blah".) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't fix grammar or spelling errors, ever. The querent may remember they asked a question about "chikpeas" and when they try to find their question on the page with the browser's "Find" function and they look for "chikpeas", they won't ever find their question if the spelling has been corrected. Secondly, as SteveBaker has pointed out in the past, you may be inadvertently changing the question because you don't know the jargon of the field — SteveBaker's example was that if his intentional use of "automagically" were corrected by say, Cuddlyable3, someone to "automatically", this would be a definite change in meaning, and might make SteveBaker look bad for giving a wrong answer. Thirdly, errors in the querent's grammar and spelling sometimes actually end up helping us answer — we have all seen the very badly written queries about how to write a cover letter for a resume, and if Cuddlyable3 corrects all the spelling and grammar, the querent is never going to get the answer "Your spelling and grammar are quite bad, so you must have your cover letter proofread by a friend" or the like. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comet Tuttle I object to your abusing my name in your conjectures about me allegedly altering an OP's question. I have corrected by striking and substituting a neutral "someone" in your post. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, Cuddlyable3, what the hell? Modifying my comments about you on this talk page? That's strictly not allowed. Stop altering my posts. I'm reverting back. I am utilizing your name as an example because of your history of correcting others' grammar. Sorry you don't like my example, but it's my post and you've no right to alter it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please maintain civility. Your personal opinion of another person's history is your own affair. I have objected to your abusing my name. It seems you plan to continue that regardless. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since you enjoy being corrected (or at least aspire to), I would like to point out that editing someone else's posts like you just did are unquestionably a violation of policy. (see : WP:TALK) If you had Removed CT's post you might have claimed that it was a "personal attack" and therefore an acceptable application of "Removing harmful posts", but I think that would have been hard to defend, and regardless that's not what you did. APL (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Should that not be "editing....is" not "editing...are" in your post? I do claim that making up little stories and putting my name in them as Comet Tuttle does above is a personal attack. I don't know why you are speculating pro's and con's about WP:RPA because regardless that's not what I did.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could be. It was my intent only to communicate clearly, not with with absolute grammatical precision.
- However, I may have failed even in that. I was speculating on ways that your edit of Tuttle's post might have fallen into wikipedia's guidelines on editing other people's posts on talk pages. (WP:TPO) I did this to illustrate that I had thought the matter through logically before accusing you of violating them. APL (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously a section heading might need to be changed, for example if it violates policy in some way, like if it said "Comet Tuttle is a silly pudding" or maybe something worse. In that case, as noted below, use the "anchor" template to retain the old title so that the arrow links still work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the only two paths we should consider are removal and no-change. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I will keep my own counsel about when and if to copyedit a section header, and if I do, I will use the {{anchor}} template that I have just learned about (thanks Xeno!). I don't edit people's posts (except occasionally to decap someone who's shouting), but I make exceptions for section headers because section headers with atrocious grammar bug the crap out of me. worse than leisure suits, even. Don't worry though, I don't feel the urge to do it that often. --Ludwigs2 21:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am startled by the implication that you treat people's leisure suits the same way, and change them without asking. 81.131.51.105 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that leisure suits are the logic fore-runners of track suits, making the people who wear them particularly difficult to catch. --Ludwigs2 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well excuse me, I look good in 2-piece purple with white shoes [20]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that, in the spirit of completeness, there's one more case to mention. Occasionally we get posters who use no title at all (not even the deprecated "Question" or "Query"). But the RD-archiving bot won't always archive something that doesn't have a level-2 heading to demarcate it as an archivable entry. So when this happens, I unceremoniously make up a decently-descriptive heading and add it. (And since this generally happens after the bot has completed its work for the day in question, the entry therefore doesn't end up showing up in the daily summaries on the per-month archive index. See Archives/Computing/2010 June 6 vs. Archives/Computing/June 2010 for the most recent example [21] of this.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Search boxes
The page Wikipedia:Reference_desk has two search boxes, both of which search Wikipedia. It would be more useful if the second one was a box to "Search reference desk archives", like at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives. 213.122.64.50 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought that was there already. I'll look into adding it. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- This has been suggested three times before that I'm aware of. No-one ever seems to bother. Here's hoping! 90.193.232.32 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been through the torturous code that defines these things a bit, so I'll manage to get it done (sysops willing). just give me a bit on it. --Ludwigs2 23:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nicely done! Vimescarrot (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- My pleasure.
--Ludwigs2 23:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- My pleasure.
- Hey, you did it! Though I see you left the old search box in, so the page still has two search boxes which do the same thing. (I just checked this by using them both to search for "redundant engineering".) *Shrug* I guess more options never hurt anybody. ...ooh, and you put more options on the individual desks, too. Very pleasing. 213.122.62.82 (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nicely done! Vimescarrot (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been through the torturous code that defines these things a bit, so I'll manage to get it done (sysops willing). just give me a bit on it. --Ludwigs2 23:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
i wunder bout this
If you have like two numbers,say their both 2 wots it called when yu do sumthing with them and you get 4? Ain't there something I can read about that? This is a test question. If you saw this question on the Ref. Desk how would you handle it? [22]
- Many here would suggest subtracting it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- See the articles Addition and Multiplication. Bielle (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- ... and exponentiation. More generally, see operation (mathematics). (Note: I normally wouldn't handle this question at all, and leave it to our excellent mathematical minds. I most certainly would ignore potential problems with spelling, grammar, and punctuation, as the question is intelligible to me). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- And I, good Sluzzelin, only think I can answer some mathematical questions, but end up doing just a part of the job. (There is a lesson of another sort somewhere in all this, too.) Thanks for your expansion, in the finest tradition of the Ref Desks. Bielle (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- ... and exponentiation. More generally, see operation (mathematics). (Note: I normally wouldn't handle this question at all, and leave it to our excellent mathematical minds. I most certainly would ignore potential problems with spelling, grammar, and punctuation, as the question is intelligible to me). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I would ignore it. Aaronite (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an easy question so you should know how to handle it if you ever plan to answer a real question on the Ref. Desks. Does anyone notice that this OP is clearly poor at English writing, the heading they provided is useless (or would you let it go into the archive the way it is?) and the question is a very simple mathematical one. Do you "help" the OP by sending him/her to read an article that inter alia presents "Addition in set theory and category theory"? Bielle understands that there can be two answers but will the OP understand that? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- "See addition"; my terse notes to on-the-border questions are typical. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) We often cannot know whether the OP will understand our answers or the articles we link to (and I admit that some of the scientific and mathematical articles are written for scientists and mathematicians, not for laypeople). In these cases we can only make an assumption as to the OP's understanding, and hope for them to request a simpler (or more complex) answer when we missed the mark. I usually don't base my assumptions regarding the OP's level of understanding on their level of grammar or spelling, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- You should estimate what will help the OP and, as Comet Tuttle wrote, "errors in the querent's grammar and spelling sometimes actually end up helping us answer". Giving your best-effort answer demands some flexibility and a dose of humility. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)SteveBaker wrote "squeezing every drop of meaning from that question is what it's all about". Sometimes even nazi-calling SteveBaker speaks sensibly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, and the same two qualities apply to giving your best-effort reading of the question and other people's comments. (What you wrote in small font is just, well, inflammatory) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- While I would answer as I have done, I would be thinking that this is likely a troll. The poor English is inconsistently so, and demonstrates the patterns of a native, though faked, "illiterate" speaker of English. That such a person could genuinely find their way to the Ref Desk to ask such a question is unlikely (to me) in the extreme. If I had thought the question real, I would have explained in the "2 oranges plus 2 oranges" style, and then linked to articles on WP or on Simple. Bielle (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mea culpa I did a poor job of faking illiteracy when I made up the question. I promise to try harder (joke). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would read such a question not as someone having poor English but more as someone with decent English trying? to speak in a 'cool' or to be blunt lazy fashion that is unfortunately not too uncommon on the internet. I personally have far less tolerance for such people then for people with genuinely poor English and am less likely to bother and work out what they're saying. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, are we done yet? This is now well beyond petty. I suggest we all go to a library and ask this kind of question, and then base our answering styles on how they deal with it. 24.83.104.78 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- While I understand people being bothered by long off-topic discussions on the desks themselves, I never quite understand why one would get fed up with discussions on this page. After all, that's what this page is for. The discussions are usually of little consequence, except for exchanging our views. If you don't like that, don't read it. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not the discussion itself, it's the tone of the discussion. Civility comes first, but these discussinos are jsut getting petty. No one is paid to do this, and everyone is trying their best to do it right in an unpoliced environment. 24.83.104.78 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I agree about the best efforts and am against policing too. I'm also an advocate of pluralism at the desks. Yet sometimes we need to exchange our dearly-held individual notions of the desks' purpose in order to understand certain behavioural patterns and interact more harmoniously. Not only aren't we paid, we are passionate amateurs and humans. Sometimes we need to "take it outside". This talk page is sufficiently far away from the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not the discussion itself, it's the tone of the discussion. Civility comes first, but these discussinos are jsut getting petty. No one is paid to do this, and everyone is trying their best to do it right in an unpoliced environment. 24.83.104.78 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
change to add archive search, slight restructuring
{{editprotected}}
per a request on the ref desk talk page Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Search_boxes, I'm suggesting this edit, which adds an input box to search the archives and some cosmetic changes. This affects the first two rows of the table (the first 13/14 lines, excluding the noinclude for the protected icon and the header bar): —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)
- I've moved your proposed code to the /sandbox. Can you confirm that this is what you want? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed a duplicate line in the sandbox, but essentially yes. there's more white-space than I'd like under the title, but it seems to be a bit resistant to CSS changes, and it's a minor issue. maybe removing the break after the 'shortcut:' label would fix it, though it would change the look of the shortcut box. --Ludwigs2 08:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The title and shortcut are currently in a separate row of the table, so removing the line break doesn't change anything. By the way, this only seems to be used by the main Wikipedia:Reference desk currently. Is a template even needed? I suppose there was the intention to use the same header for all the reference desks at some point. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- removing the break changes the shortcut box from a rough square to a longer, thinner rectangle, which then reduces the height of the first table row and gets rid of some of the excess whitespace under the title. it would be prettier to get the title to center itself vertically in the box, I think, but try as I might I can't quite seem to get it to render that way.
- The title and shortcut are currently in a separate row of the table, so removing the line break doesn't change anything. By the way, this only seems to be used by the main Wikipedia:Reference desk currently. Is a template even needed? I suppose there was the intention to use the same header for all the reference desks at some point. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed a duplicate line in the sandbox, but essentially yes. there's more white-space than I'd like under the title, but it seems to be a bit resistant to CSS changes, and it's a minor issue. maybe removing the break after the 'shortcut:' label would fix it, though it would change the look of the shortcut box. --Ludwigs2 08:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The whole ref-desk header thing is over-engineered. I suspect the original thought was (a) to make it easy to add new desks at need, and (b) to put static material on separate pages so they could be locked (keeps down vandalism and silly mistakes on a set of pages with a lot of new-user/IP traffic). In this case, though, I can't see any reason not to move the entire template onto the reference desk main-page and lock that (no one ever edits that page anyway). --Ludwigs2 19:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.s. - I just remembered as well that all of the reference desk talk pages are redirected to the main reference desk talk page, so discussions like this one (about the page itself) would get mixed in with discussions about reference desk subpage issues. Not sure it that's a problem, mind you, just saying what is. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay I have now substituted this template on Wikipedia:Reference desk as you suggested. This template is not needed now so I may look into getting it deleted. I think we can just move the threads on this page onto Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. I don't think that's a problem either. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- ok, but you substituted the current version, rather than the sandboxed version? I'm guessing you forgot where the thread started (mostly because I do that all the time myself), but if you still think it needs more discussion...
--Ludwigs2 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, yeah I forgot what we were doing at the start. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- ok, but you substituted the current version, rather than the sandboxed version? I'm guessing you forgot where the thread started (mostly because I do that all the time myself), but if you still think it needs more discussion...
- Okay I have now substituted this template on Wikipedia:Reference desk as you suggested. This template is not needed now so I may look into getting it deleted. I think we can just move the threads on this page onto Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. I don't think that's a problem either. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.s. - I just remembered as well that all of the reference desk talk pages are redirected to the main reference desk talk page, so discussions like this one (about the page itself) would get mixed in with discussions about reference desk subpage issues. Not sure it that's a problem, mind you, just saying what is. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeisureSuitConvention4.jpg){kind=link}
Title2
Testing the "anchor" template. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
IT WORKS
OK, can we get agreement that IF a title needs to be changed in a ref desk page, THEN use the "anchor" template so as not to break the links? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, I can't imagine a case where it's acceptable to change a section header. Disruptive content can be removed, but other than that, no changes at all. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- So if the heading is unacceptable (i.e. it violates policy), regardless of the quality of the question, we should simply zap the section? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Tuttle, It would make sense (to me) to edit a section header that was in violation of RefDesk guidelines, but containing a question that was not otherwise disruptive. Such as "Question", or "Please Answer", or simply a question that had no header. APL (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Well done Bugs. It's a good solution. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- You should thank Xeno for putting me onto it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- We needed you to test it and you came through! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I merely followed the programmer's creed: "If it works, it's production; otherwise, it's just a test." :) But beware - I intend to follow up this success with a demand that my current salary here be doubled every day for the next 30 days. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- We needed you to test it and you came through! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a reasonably good idea, but I would hate to see it used as an excuse to suddenly start messing with other people's (intelligible, but mildly or obscurely incorrect) subject headers just for the sake of doing it. (Without first consulting with the header-creator like WP:TALK recommends, of course.) APL (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
As a point of interest, the original obsolete, but magically still functional link is here. APL (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Good find, well done bugs. I can use Template:anchor in mainspace too. Can it be added to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Don't_edit_others'_questions_or_answers as something to do if the heading must be changed. (That page seems fairly official so I'm no going to make the change myself).87.102.83.66 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- (NO! You most certainly are not! Changing a guideline requires a full debate and consensus agreement to change.)SteveBaker (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gasp what horror! We cannot have people being bold and editing things before SteveBaker has even had a chance to give a long lecture with scarcely any reference to a Wikipedia article but with gratuitous stuff such as calling me a nazi and demolishing all the world's religions at a stroke with his atheism. He does that so well, really well. Perhaps not well enough to contribute much worthwhile in mainspace but he is well informed, if not about apostrophes to judge by the mistakes on his website. @87.102.83.66 the worst that can happen to the bold is change-->revert-->discuss. If you see something that can be improved, improve it! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this is helpful at all - it merely serves as another incitement to mangling of the OP's question:
- It allows the user to find the question in a Wiki search operation - but it doesn't help if the OP is merely visually inspecting the index at the top of the page. We know that most of our OP's are congenitally unable to use search functions efficiently - so the odds are strong that they are simply scrolling down the page, looking for the title of their question. For those people, using this 'band-aid' to patch up an illicit edit is completely useless.
- It doesn't resolve my major objection to editing one single word of what the OP or any of the respondents said - which is that you may, without even realizing it, totally change the meaning of the question - or destroy some valuable clue that might help us produce a better answer. I don't want to see what YOU think the question should have been! That's of zero use to me. I want to see what the OP actually asked...right or wrong.
- It doesn't change the rules - which are that you're not allowed to edit posts except to fix formatting or to replace titles like "Question" that the OP should know are not acceptable here. Until you have a proper discussion and consensus to change the guidelines, it doesn't matter a damn what technological wizardry you've dreamed up - it's still not allowed.
Again:
- If the question is unambiguous but has some minor problem (spelling, punctuation, whatever), then you are in no better position to fix it than me or anyone else here. That being the case, I'm just as capable of figuring out what it meant to say as you are (actually, more so judging by the usual quality of your responses here). So I neither want nor need your "fix".
- If the question is ambiguous then I most certainly don't want you to "fix" the ambiguity because you are then imposing only one of the two or more possible meanings of the question. If it's genuinely ambiguous, you cannot possibly know how to fix it - so you have at best only a 50/50 chance of not screwing up. In that case, I need to see the ambiguous question in exactly it's original form so that I can either ask the OP which (s)he meant - or perhaps answer the question both ways.
- Even more than that - if you DO have some crucial observation to make about the phrasing of the question (like, maybe that it's ambiguous and none of the rest of us have noticed that) - then you can simply say so - in your own post, underneath the question.
There is no benefit to be gained whatever from you changing the original post or it's title in any way - EXCEPT to fix formatting where the actual content is unchanged and we make any disruption of the rest of the page go away - OR to replace missing titles or titles like "Question" that violate our rules.
So you see, aside from those two very particular situations, in no possible case does your "fixing" the title or any other part of the post help the reference desk in any way whatever...to the contrary - every single thing you change has the potential to fuck things up, cause confusion and result in our customers getting worse service than they do now.
The reference desk is a process for answering people's questions. Having the pages read like beautifully typeset, grammatically perfect prose is not part of our mission here - but squeezing every drop of meaning from that question is what it's all about.
So be a good chap - read and obey the guidelines and understand that they were carefully thought out and put there for an excellent reason.
SteveBaker (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- An OP's actual question should not be in the heading at all. If it is, that's a kind of formatting error. When we see that error, it is reasonable to push the question down into the place for it. Not a word from the OP is thereby changed. If you understand the question then you can give it a proper title, otherwise leave it alone and let someone else do the job. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Theoretically, yes, as the guideline says "write a few words that briefly tell the volunteers the subject of the question." That raises the question, are we here to lecture questioners about the use of the ref desk, or are we here to try to answer good-faith questions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- People's spelling, punctuation, grammar etc are all part of their online persona. By changing that you're changing the person the rest of us see. For example, I've met three Germans on Omegle, and I was able to identify them before they told me simply by the way they talked (superior English skills to everyone else, specific phrases and choice of words, etc). I appreciate that's not the best example because Germans are particularly easy to identify. But in any case, changing something someone else says destroys what it is we see of them... Vimescarrot (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Permit me Vimescarrot to make you the subject of my experiment. I have changed the indent of your whole post. You may say that I manipulated it without your permission and I have indeed caused a movement of every character. But not a word of what you said have I distorted and all is exactly as you typed it. I hope you don't find any reason to take offence at what I did but it would be interesting to hear about it if you do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't responding to your post directly (just the subject of the discussion in general), so I don't believe that level of indentation is appropriate...plus, I don't think we're talking about formatting here. We're talking about SPG. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The rules allow reformatting of indentions and such, provided it does not distort things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I take Vimescarrot's point and have restored the intended indentation. SPG means Spelling Punctuation and Grammar which have not been changed. Thank you Vimescarrot and Baseball Bugs for being here in an exercise in what can be done without shame, offence or bitterness on anyone's part. I shall offer a second experiment below. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the reason Vimescarrot mentioned SPG is because these are the kind of changes we have been discussing and, no matter how justified they may seem from a language prescriptivist point of view, these are the changes which are met with resistance by a significant part of the people posting here. On the other hand, no one seems to be opposed to changes of format or indentation (as long as these changes make sense and are warranted, of course). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's right. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the reason Vimescarrot mentioned SPG is because these are the kind of changes we have been discussing and, no matter how justified they may seem from a language prescriptivist point of view, these are the changes which are met with resistance by a significant part of the people posting here. On the other hand, no one seems to be opposed to changes of format or indentation (as long as these changes make sense and are warranted, of course). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I take Vimescarrot's point and have restored the intended indentation. SPG means Spelling Punctuation and Grammar which have not been changed. Thank you Vimescarrot and Baseball Bugs for being here in an exercise in what can be done without shame, offence or bitterness on anyone's part. I shall offer a second experiment below. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The rules allow reformatting of indentions and such, provided it does not distort things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't responding to your post directly (just the subject of the discussion in general), so I don't believe that level of indentation is appropriate...plus, I don't think we're talking about formatting here. We're talking about SPG. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Permit me Vimescarrot to make you the subject of my experiment. I have changed the indent of your whole post. You may say that I manipulated it without your permission and I have indeed caused a movement of every character. But not a word of what you said have I distorted and all is exactly as you typed it. I hope you don't find any reason to take offence at what I did but it would be interesting to hear about it if you do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Look, this isn't the thread for it (see Fixing grammar, general bitterness above) but I do believe we've got consensus on this. In general, on Talk or Talk-like pages (such as the Reference Desks), do not edit the postings of others. In particular, do not edit their posts for spelling, punctuation, or grammar. In particular, this includes their Subject/Title lines as well as the rest of their text. I know we don't have unanimous agreement on these points, but as I say, I do believe we have consensus. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been lurking, but this seems a good time to say that I support Steve Summit's statement. -- Scray (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I, too, support Steve Summit's statement. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with Steve Summit's statement. Obviously. OP's own their questions but not their title lines. A title line such as 'i wunder bout this' in the example below is useless. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, that title ("i wunder bout this", your example) would be (i) familiar to the OP who wrote it, (ii) familiar to others once read by them, (iii) a link to the question from the page history, etc. Clearly, "useless" is factually incorrect; perhaps not as useful as it could be, but that's subjective, argumentative, and not possible to optimize fully. -- Scray (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not "useless" although such bad English might invite a few snickers. But there's no reason to alter it, because if the one altering understands it, there's a good chance everyone else reading it understands it also - hence changing it is not procedurally necessary, it's just copping an attitude with the OP - which is something we are constantly told not to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- But 'i wunder bout this' might just be the latest internet meme that's shorthand for some complicated back-story that adds immensely to the question. You may not personally realize that "I can haz cheezburger?" has something to do with cats - or that "Orly?" refers to owls or "All your base are belong to us!" refers to old Japanese computer games. You might then go on to "correct" them to "Might I please have a Cheeseburger?", "Oh really?" and "All of your bases belong to us" and thereby utterly destroy those connections. If the remainder of the question is about cute pictures of cats but doesn't explicitly say so, then you just destroyed the one chance we might have had to pull a great answer out of a confusing mess. So, no, you must not change one single character of the title (except to fix formatting issues). I can't comprehend why this is such a hard concept for some people! SteveBaker (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not "useless" although such bad English might invite a few snickers. But there's no reason to alter it, because if the one altering understands it, there's a good chance everyone else reading it understands it also - hence changing it is not procedurally necessary, it's just copping an attitude with the OP - which is something we are constantly told not to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, that title ("i wunder bout this", your example) would be (i) familiar to the OP who wrote it, (ii) familiar to others once read by them, (iii) a link to the question from the page history, etc. Clearly, "useless" is factually incorrect; perhaps not as useful as it could be, but that's subjective, argumentative, and not possible to optimize fully. -- Scray (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it's consensus time, I'll weigh in then. The RD guidelines are local and generally work well. The overarching guidance derives from the guidelines that say though - no-one owns a section title, anywhere. But no-one has the right to change a title either, without consensus. To me the fairly obvious solution is to always hesitate to change someone else's text (basic respect for your fellow editor) and if you ever do, always always place a user talk note to explain your change (basic respect, IP user or not) and either invite or forbid the editor to make another change or revert. Your TP note will link the new section name in the diff (no fancy templates!). If they change it back, so be it, unless it violates something big. Every guideline page has that little bit at the top: "use common sense"... Franamax (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with Franamax Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been lurking, but this seems a good time to say that I support Steve Summit's statement. -- Scray (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Look, this isn't the thread for it (see Fixing grammar, general bitterness above) but I do believe we've got consensus on this. In general, on Talk or Talk-like pages (such as the Reference Desks), do not edit the postings of others. In particular, do not edit their posts for spelling, punctuation, or grammar. In particular, this includes their Subject/Title lines as well as the rest of their text. I know we don't have unanimous agreement on these points, but as I say, I do believe we have consensus. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's time to end this entire discussion - so I'm going to add my personal summary and call it a day.
- Personal summary about the guidelines: What we have works. We just need editors to obey our stated guidelines. C3's assertion that the title isn't a part of the question and may therefore be edited in any way he sees fit is clearly incorrect. Our guidelines say that quite clearly: "If there is no title to a question, add one. You may also add to a non-descriptive title (such as "question"), but it is best to keep the original title as a portion of the new one, as it may be used by the questioner to find the question." - nowhere in there does it say that you can correct spelling or grammar or anything like that. There are excellent reasons why we don't want editors to do that. Any change you make from what the OP wrote can only possibly subtract information that respondents may need to know. The guideline doesn't grant permission to change a single character that the OP typed (although we do make exception for fixing 'disruptive formatting'). It explicitly states that even in those cases where a non-descriptive title needs improvement, you may only "add to" the title. "ADD TO" does not mean "CHANGE" or "SUBTRACT". In the case of descriptive titles (even if misspelled, grammatically incorrect, ambiguous or just plain wrong) - you aren't allowed to change a thing. The adverse consequences of changing a title have been amply demonstrated (below) and the benefits of "improving" a title have neither been explained nor demonstrated - and are (IMHO) nebulous. That said, the guidelines do not prevent people from adding a post to the thread to say that the question/title is flawed...although we are required not to insult or demean the poster for poorly written posts and that's a fine line to tread.
- Personal philsophy about fixing grammar: For me, personally, there is a deeper reason to refuse to allow people to edit other peoples contributions (questions, answers or titles). When we 'speak' online, nobody knows anything about us beyond what we write. Our personalities, our reputations, stand or fall on this thin stream of ASCII text. Changing what someone writes is a distortion of that. Sure, I make grammar, punctuation, spelling and typing mistakes (actually, we all do - but at widely varying frequencies) - but that's who I am. I don't want even well-meaning people "fixing" my speech.
- Now - having said that - this DOES NOT APPLY to formal writing in article space. When I write an article for Wikipedia, I take a lot of extra care - and I encourage people to come in behind me and fix my little 'oopsies'. In such cases, my signature does not appear on the text - my reputation isn't particularly involved, it is the reputation of Wikipedia that is at stake - and we should all be vigilant about that. But when I sign my writing - I am certifying "This is what Steve Baker wrote - right or wrong" - and if someone alters that, they are misrepresenting me. Sometimes I mis-write things for a reason - humor, self-deprecation, because I want British-English spelling or US-English spelling. It's not the business of other editors to "fix" that. If they really feel the need to add commentary about my post in a post of their own, I suppose that's OK - they should be aware that it's not going to change anything though. In the specific case of the RD, continually nagging people about spelling and grammar in such posts is disruptive, annoying and wildly off-topic...UNLESS it serves to highlight a potential and important ambiguity. Generally, it is just more polite to bite your tongue and let the crappy spelling say what it does about the poster - feel free to feel smug about how much better you are than me. You're probably right.
- There is some history here: A few years ago, before we had the "no editing other people's posts" guideline, some contributor decided it would be funny to change the wording of some of my posts such a way as to mangle the meaning into something they considered humorous. I went ballistic and demanded a change to the guidelines - when there was no consensus for that, I decided that I could not tolerate contributing to a forum where my signed words could be legitimately mangled. So I stopped contributing to the reference desk for nearly a year - and was only persuaded to return when it was pointed out that the present guidelines were firmly in place and that maintaining them was now the consensus view.
- This is an important matter of moral principle. It goes far beyond issues of where the apostrophe goes.