![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Massive archival done by me - page can be found here :-) -- HappyCamper 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
After working on archiving the reference desks since the end of June, I have now decided to take a break. If anyone wants to take over the transcluding and archiving, then you are welcome to do so. Otherwise I suggest that you may wish to go and recruit a bot. Good luck. :) Road Wizard 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think you could wait at least 2 or 3 days before transcluding new questions? It looks like the transclusions are coming within a few hours of some of these questions.. I just responded to a question that was only about 12 hours old, and I find myself on a transclusion-- 152.163.97.184 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should warn people about the frequency of edit conflicts in the reference desks... a sole page being updated by lots of people that frequently can cause loss of data for the editor. What I do is: everytime before I edit I save my data in the Clipboard or the GNU/Linux equivalent, so that in case of edit conflict I have no problem. What do you think? GTubio 09:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Im surprised that the discussion beteween my self AAAADDDDDAAAAAMM and others was deleted from the page rather than being moved here (which is where I should, of course, have put it in the first place) Now there is no record of what transpired and its as if nothing ever happened (except for my unwarrated loss of 3 days and my extreme disappointment with these proceeddings by certain ADMIN(S) ).
I know its easier to delete things that are unpleasant rather than try to deal with them. But isnt that what the Ministry of Truth did in Orwells 1984? Is WP turning into 1984? Could I ask User:Anchoress (whom I now realise is an ADMIN -- didnt then) to magic it back and put it here please (at least in the first instance). Destruction of information is not healthy-- however easy and convenient it is to do. -- Light current 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
THat would certainly be preferable to having it deleted.!-- Light current 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
So only admins can make what amouts to personal attacks on users and get away with it, and punish the user for responding in like fashion to boot. How very convenient!
There have been what I consider many personal attacks on me floating about WP ( Im not complaining about them, but neither did you!-- Light current 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasnt referring to AAADDDAAAMMM in my last post-- Light current 09:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry you are upset Anchoress, and it certainly was not my intentition to upset you. I thought you were an Admin and had removed the posts to hide the evidence (as sometmes happens). Thats why I was miffed! But really its playing with fire to modify anyone elses posts as I have found out to my cost a few times. I know you were trying to help, and I thank you for that. I have replied to your other post on my talk page.-- Light current 08:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking (a rare, but welcome, occurance) that it would be helpful if we had a homework template. Instead of having to type the usual "do your own homework... read the instructions... wikipedia is for reference... use the search function... blah blah blah" everytime some lazy kid cuts and pastes his or her homework questions, we could just use the template. Thoughts? Rockpocke t 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In the latest archive of this talk page, it appears that the conversation about creating an archiving bot has been lost. Yesterday, I spent a fair amount of time adding dates, transcluding older posts and archiving things, but a bot is clearly needed to perform this task on a daily basis now that Crypticbot is obselete. Has any progress been made on this front? Should we post a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests?
As far as I can tell, the bot must be able to complete the following tasks for each of the six reference desks on a daily basis at approximately 00:00 UTC:
Additionally, at the start of each month, the bot would need to create a new monthly reference desk archive page with {{ Reference desk navigation}}.
Detailed Example of Bot's Function:
At 00:00 UTC on August 16, 2006, for the Miscellaneous reference desk the bot would:
<noinclude> {{subst:Reference desk navigation |previous = Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 August 13 |date1 = August 13 |next = Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 August 15 |date2 = August 15 |type = Miscellaneous }} </noinclude>
= August 14 = [[Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 August 14]] #A type of chair #Male Orgasm #World Trade Center Movie #edits #Maps from Nationalatlas.gov #Clitoral Hood Piercing #Guitar #Alexander Graham Bell #Cruise control on the 1998 ford windstar #Gangster Chronicles TV Series #Physics of a bullet #T.E.A.M. #Who would be richest? #My surname is Bencko. #Top Hats #pounds to dollars #The New York Pass
-- C. S. Joiner ( talk) 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that after Bengurion was asked to sign his posts with ~~~~, he started to type out his name instead. This made me realise that a lot of people (especially of the age group we seem to be largely dealing with) simply do not know what a tilde is. (And why should they?) And with a small screen font it is not even clear what characters ~~~~ actually represents. It would be cumbersome to try to explain what a tilde is to everyone, but at the very least, perhaps the instruction at the top of the page could be clarified somehow?-- Shantavira 08:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
For the last week or so whenever I've answered an existing question on the reference desk (even one from 15/08/2006) once I hit save it goes to the archive page & saves my change in the archive for that specific day. Is there a reason why its doing this as its quite annoying as I have to go back to the main ref desk page from the archive & try to find where I was. AllanHainey 11:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For background information, you may wish to read the earlier discussions:
Some of the advantages of transclusion are:
Whilst I admit that working with transcluded pages can be a little annoying at times, I would ask you to consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments. Road Wizard 23:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you forget about Rodney Perry, Sr., ex-pro football player for the LA Rams, and other teams? His son, Rod Jr. also is a winner! Rodney was born in Fresno, and was one of the first famous people from Fresno, CA. As well as Earl Meyers, Jr., Baratone, 3 time Carnigie Hall performer. Then you have Patsy Perry, Vocalist in Fresno, CA. Even though she was not born in Fresno, she has given much of her time & talent to the community.
There are so many other folks that have helped Fresno!
I would like to bring up a topic a little bit before it becomes urgent, and it is somewhat related to the archive problems noted above. I don't think anybody sees RD getting any smaller than it is now, and I imagine some of the desks, especially Science, will become increasingly difficult to read in the near future. The main problem is that we are using a communications medium that was never intended for such high-volume discussion (something much more suitable for usenet I guess) but we have all (I presume) come to love this medium of communication because of it's excellent ability to create a smooth procession of interactive conversation flow.
I'm sure many of us would like to preseve this conversation flow, no matter how big RD gets (or rather, no matter how many people learn about the reference desk) and if not by simply dividing the individual desks into smaller and smaller pieces (another thing suitable for usenet) we must start thinking how. I personally don't believe that RD can function smoothly forever in its current, simple form. I believe the coding for the page has to be expanded somehow to allow browsing, editing, and finding questions and answers easier. Whether this should be done to the code of the page itself (by using layers, delaying downloads of full responses, etc) or possibly by a bot/script that tabulate everything into an easy to read table (along the lines of the bots used to collect votes for administrators), or maybe someone has some other suggestions? Maybe I'm being presumptuous in assuming that nobody likes to scroll through megabyte-long pages of questions. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer if the problem could be solved by breaking the "big" Ref desks up, say like this:
Science -> Physics & Astronomy Chemistry Biology Health & Medical Other Science
Humanities -> History Movies & TV Music & Art Architecture Popular Culture Other Humanities
Misc. => Food & Nutrition Sex Sports & Hobbies Sea birds Misc.
StuRat 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Help! I wanted to add some info on the bell question. There was an edit conflict and I messed everything up! Now all the text since Aug 19th is gone. I can't revert from this computer/firefox because it wont give me the full text in the edit box. Please help out, someone! I wont have a chance to revert this until 4h from now. Thanks in advance. --- Sluzzelin 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
fixed Nowimnthing 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, I decided I would put the headers up when it hits 24:00 UTC. Who is doing the archiving nowaydays if anybody? We need to get a bot to do it. — Mac Davis] ( talk)
{{subst:Reference desk navigation |previous = |date1 = |next = |date2 = |type = }}
Seems like a bot would be better suited for repetitive, tedious, template subst'ing-- 71.247.243.173 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And now August 26th is MIA, not to mention August 25th only contains questions from the 26th, and the 27th, none from the 25th, whoever has been adding these date headers has been missing.-- 71.247.243.173 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
<noinclude> {{subst:Reference desk navigation |date1 = |date2 = |type = }} </noinclude>
Even after splitting, the RD pages are toooo long to download. Is there a way to see only one day and not all all seven days? Thank you. CG 08:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so now that all of the desks are properly transcluded, someone really should start archiving the older questions, starting with the 19th. That someone isn't me, btw, since I just racked up about 300 edits over the course of 2 days catching up the transclusions-- VectorPotential71.247.243.173 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Added the header, again.. someone else reeeeally needs to learn the entire process, otherwise this whole thing falls apart when I stop doing it-- 71.247.243.173 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Could we change the header to include a request for feedback from the original questioners? We answer many questions, but rarely hear anything back. We therefore dont know if were being helpful or not. Just a suggestion.-- Light current 03:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
How about: Dont forget to give us some feed back when you feel your question has been responded to
or something.-- Light current 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does-- in very small (almost invisible) letters. How many people actually read all that small print anyway?-- Light current 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah OK I notice youve been complaining about the lack of help here. But Im new-- I dont know how to do anythin yet! Whats involved?-- Light current 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I could do that! I have no bot Im afraid-- Light current 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry it is tomorrow here! So I have to do it after 0100 BST. I just realised that. Ill move the hdg to correct place later (at 00.00 UTC )-- Light current 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw a question posted to the miscellaneous reference desk today that seemed intentionally inflammatory, a poorly-disguised troll attempting only to elicit responses. I went looking for reference desk policy regarding trolling, but I couldn't find a source. Do we have a trolling policy for the reference desk? If not, where is the appropriate place to add one? dpotter 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
?? The one about ankle weights. I can't even find it in the edit history. Anchoress 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{subst:Reference desk navigation|1|October|Science}}</noinclude>
With the date used, being the date of the archive, the template does the math-- VectorPotential71.247.243.173 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoever wants to do something, just sign your name under the header..
= August 29 =
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 29}}
So, what happens now? Do we just delete old posts?-- 205.188.116.202 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend among people who frequent the Reference Desk to engage in silly conversations with each other once they believe the question has been answered (or that the question is unanswerable). I am guilty of this myself on occasion, so I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but I think it would be more helpful if we just stick to answering questions. It would also save space if the Desk is not filled with unrelated comments, etc. Adam Bishop 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I do. People are looking for help, not to be entertained by you (and you also are not as funny as you think). The homework thing is a separate problem; Light current especially seems to think everyone is asking homework questions. How about if you think it's homework, just don't answer it? You don't have to be a smartass. Adam Bishop 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I myself have noticed that some of the medical questions which I attempt to answer have often already been answered in a whimsical way which does not seem as helpful as it could be. For most of these questions, someone knows the answer off the top of their head. If you don't and don't want to do research, it's probably best to just stay quiet. Anyway, that's just my opinion. InvictaHOG 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
While I would agree that the amount of humor needs to be kept in check (I'd limit it to about 50%, myself), I don't agree that the Ref Desks should be completely devoid of humor. That would make working the desk so dull that many who occasionally give good answers, including myself, would get bored and go elsewhere. I've also noticed that, since the amount of humor on the Ref Desk has increased, the amount of vicious attacks on questioners and other responders has reduced considerably (an interesting sociological correlation, isn't it ?). As I consider that unpleasantness to be far worse than humor, I'm glad if I've helped to foster this transition. StuRat 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I find all this a little sickening, so please allow me only one comment. The Reference Desk was formed out of Wikidust one brisk autumn January in 2001 for the purpose of answering the following question (and you can check the history on this):
Why does my dog eat his own poo?
Just, think about it, and don't even bother replying. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 11:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The RD is fine the way it is, and give light current a break geez -- Froth 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there some sort of procedure to follow when you suspect that someone is using the reference desk not for homework, or trolling, or as a soapbox, but rather as some sort of sociology experiment?-- VectorPotentialRD NEEDS A BOT (-: 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Owing to the numerous unwarranted attacks on me by editors who do not even contribute to the ref desk work in any way whatsoever, I have decided to withdraw my offer of helping in dating, archiving etc. Blame them-- Light current 22:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Could we possibly get a link (at the top) to the bottom of every page? That would be simple right? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 11:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The medical bickering has irritated me for a long time, but this time it was so bad that I decided to remove part of it (including my own initial comment). Here it is:
I am 60 years old, I just had a new Cat scan done , I had a stroke in 1973 and my last Cat scan was done in 1973 but now my doctor says my cerebellum is getting smaller, I have been having balance problems and have been falling down alot lately and I cannot understand all the words in your articles and would just like to know in simple terms what is happening to me,I have been seizure free since 1980 but now my lip and tongue are going numb about everyday like they did just before I had a seizure years ago. I am on phenobarbitol and Dilantin.
The reason I removed the first comment is that the guy has just been to a doctor. So what advise does he get? "Go see a dentist". No, better still "Go see a lawyer" Wow, that helps! He has obviously tried to understand more through Wikipedia, but can't understand the articles, so asked here. I felt so sorry for this guy that I did the unthinkable - I removed someone else's comment. He really doesn't need people shouting pointless advise at him. I left Light Current's post because he put it more friendly and then came with an actual answer. I thought about referring him to the simple English Wikipedia, but that doesn't seem to be extensive enough to answer any of his questions. DirkvdM 06:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should remove bad advice from the Reference desk.- gadfium 08:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC) (sig font stolen from Nunh-huh)
One problem i find with the reference desk is that the articles are *WAY* too big. This causes major problems for people on a slow internet connection. Apart from the fact that it simply takes ages for the article to load, it makes editing an article really probmatic.
1. The buttons at the top of an article (project page, discussion, edit...etc) don't usually appear until the entire article loads. Which means to add a new topic is a pain because i have to wait for the whole thing to load. (i can't use section edit to add new topics).
2. When trying to add new topics, it's a pain because it takes so long for the entire article to load in the edit box. The article is more than 400kb in size! Which means a lot of waiting before i'm able to add a topic to the end of the article.
3. Often, questions here take a fair amount of time to answer (as in it's not just a one line response as in the help desk). So quite often, by the time the edit page has loaded and i've made my edit...someone else has made an edit and i'm in an edit conflict.
Now, this is all annoying, but tolerable. The biggest problem comes when an edit conflict happens.
Even if i use section edit buttons, when an edit conflict happens (as it often does on articles of this size since so many people are editing it), you get taken to a page where the top box shows the article in its most recent form. And the bottom box shows the edit you made on the older article version.
The problem is that the top box loads the entire article, not just the section i'm editing. I use section edit buttons to avoid the problem of having to wait for the whole article to load in the edit box, but that's all useless if an edit conflict happens.
So it works like this:
1. I try to edit the reference desk article.
2. I use section edit, and type out my edit.
3. while i'm typing out my edit, someone else has made an edit. Leading to an edit conflict.
4. i wait for the entire current page (all 400+kb) to load. This takes age. Once it has, i copy and past my edit into the correct edit box.
5. I click save page
6. The time it's taken for the entire page to load onto the edit box...guess what's happened? I'm in another edit conflict! Since people on faster connections can quite obviously edit the article much faster since they don't have to wait so long for the whole article to load onto their edit box.
7. so i start waiting again for the entire article to load into the edit box on the edit conflict page...
and so on. It gets even more annoying sometimes when i forget to leave an edit summary. Since i've set my preferences to notify me when i don't leave an edit summary. Sometimes, when i forget, the edit doesn't save and i get the warning message. During that time, someone else edits and i'm back into the edit conflict.
Is there anything that can be done to make these articles smaller? Like archiving more often. Or splitting the reference desks up further - so science can become several smaller reference desks. Not only will this make it easier for people who are only interested in one or a few areas of the general topic of science...but it'd make editing the page much easier for people on slow connections. Yaksha 07:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look at it. I'd assume this is a design for the layout for the actual question pages? (i.e. not a design for the Wikipedia:Reference_desk page)
the search box at the top is defintely a good idea. I think the "ask a new question by clicking here" line should still be used. You'd be surprised at how confusing adding a new topic is to a new person. "wtf" is probably not too unusual a reaction when someone's clicking the "edit this page" button for the first few times =P
About the groups: i believe astronomy is apart of physics. The "health and medicine desk" should be named something like a "human biology" desk, or just "medicine". Because wikipedia isn't supposed to give out medical advice. So i fear "health and medicine" will give out the wrong impression. Other than that, the main page currently says the science desk is for "science, medicine, and technology". Looking at the technology questions on the science RD, it's all computer stuff. I'm thinking techn should be taken off the description for the science desk or we're just going to get lots of computer questions on the general science desk. Lastly, do we even need a "general sciences"? The only science questions that don't fall into the other four categories are technology questions and environment questions. So we could just have a "earth sciences" desk instead?
Can't say much for the other RDs since i don't look at them, but the science splits look good. Will look forward to having smaller RD pages. =) -- Yaksha 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems like every time I look at a reference desk page there's someone abusing users for not spelling words correctly, or using incorrect grammar, or for the terrible sin of "dear sir". Can something be done to stop this? Isn't this biting new users? Luigi30 ( Taλk) 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Massive archival done by me - page can be found here :-) -- HappyCamper 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
After working on archiving the reference desks since the end of June, I have now decided to take a break. If anyone wants to take over the transcluding and archiving, then you are welcome to do so. Otherwise I suggest that you may wish to go and recruit a bot. Good luck. :) Road Wizard 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think you could wait at least 2 or 3 days before transcluding new questions? It looks like the transclusions are coming within a few hours of some of these questions.. I just responded to a question that was only about 12 hours old, and I find myself on a transclusion-- 152.163.97.184 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should warn people about the frequency of edit conflicts in the reference desks... a sole page being updated by lots of people that frequently can cause loss of data for the editor. What I do is: everytime before I edit I save my data in the Clipboard or the GNU/Linux equivalent, so that in case of edit conflict I have no problem. What do you think? GTubio 09:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Im surprised that the discussion beteween my self AAAADDDDDAAAAAMM and others was deleted from the page rather than being moved here (which is where I should, of course, have put it in the first place) Now there is no record of what transpired and its as if nothing ever happened (except for my unwarrated loss of 3 days and my extreme disappointment with these proceeddings by certain ADMIN(S) ).
I know its easier to delete things that are unpleasant rather than try to deal with them. But isnt that what the Ministry of Truth did in Orwells 1984? Is WP turning into 1984? Could I ask User:Anchoress (whom I now realise is an ADMIN -- didnt then) to magic it back and put it here please (at least in the first instance). Destruction of information is not healthy-- however easy and convenient it is to do. -- Light current 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
THat would certainly be preferable to having it deleted.!-- Light current 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
So only admins can make what amouts to personal attacks on users and get away with it, and punish the user for responding in like fashion to boot. How very convenient!
There have been what I consider many personal attacks on me floating about WP ( Im not complaining about them, but neither did you!-- Light current 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasnt referring to AAADDDAAAMMM in my last post-- Light current 09:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry you are upset Anchoress, and it certainly was not my intentition to upset you. I thought you were an Admin and had removed the posts to hide the evidence (as sometmes happens). Thats why I was miffed! But really its playing with fire to modify anyone elses posts as I have found out to my cost a few times. I know you were trying to help, and I thank you for that. I have replied to your other post on my talk page.-- Light current 08:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking (a rare, but welcome, occurance) that it would be helpful if we had a homework template. Instead of having to type the usual "do your own homework... read the instructions... wikipedia is for reference... use the search function... blah blah blah" everytime some lazy kid cuts and pastes his or her homework questions, we could just use the template. Thoughts? Rockpocke t 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In the latest archive of this talk page, it appears that the conversation about creating an archiving bot has been lost. Yesterday, I spent a fair amount of time adding dates, transcluding older posts and archiving things, but a bot is clearly needed to perform this task on a daily basis now that Crypticbot is obselete. Has any progress been made on this front? Should we post a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests?
As far as I can tell, the bot must be able to complete the following tasks for each of the six reference desks on a daily basis at approximately 00:00 UTC:
Additionally, at the start of each month, the bot would need to create a new monthly reference desk archive page with {{ Reference desk navigation}}.
Detailed Example of Bot's Function:
At 00:00 UTC on August 16, 2006, for the Miscellaneous reference desk the bot would:
<noinclude> {{subst:Reference desk navigation |previous = Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 August 13 |date1 = August 13 |next = Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 August 15 |date2 = August 15 |type = Miscellaneous }} </noinclude>
= August 14 = [[Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 August 14]] #A type of chair #Male Orgasm #World Trade Center Movie #edits #Maps from Nationalatlas.gov #Clitoral Hood Piercing #Guitar #Alexander Graham Bell #Cruise control on the 1998 ford windstar #Gangster Chronicles TV Series #Physics of a bullet #T.E.A.M. #Who would be richest? #My surname is Bencko. #Top Hats #pounds to dollars #The New York Pass
-- C. S. Joiner ( talk) 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that after Bengurion was asked to sign his posts with ~~~~, he started to type out his name instead. This made me realise that a lot of people (especially of the age group we seem to be largely dealing with) simply do not know what a tilde is. (And why should they?) And with a small screen font it is not even clear what characters ~~~~ actually represents. It would be cumbersome to try to explain what a tilde is to everyone, but at the very least, perhaps the instruction at the top of the page could be clarified somehow?-- Shantavira 08:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
For the last week or so whenever I've answered an existing question on the reference desk (even one from 15/08/2006) once I hit save it goes to the archive page & saves my change in the archive for that specific day. Is there a reason why its doing this as its quite annoying as I have to go back to the main ref desk page from the archive & try to find where I was. AllanHainey 11:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For background information, you may wish to read the earlier discussions:
Some of the advantages of transclusion are:
Whilst I admit that working with transcluded pages can be a little annoying at times, I would ask you to consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments. Road Wizard 23:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you forget about Rodney Perry, Sr., ex-pro football player for the LA Rams, and other teams? His son, Rod Jr. also is a winner! Rodney was born in Fresno, and was one of the first famous people from Fresno, CA. As well as Earl Meyers, Jr., Baratone, 3 time Carnigie Hall performer. Then you have Patsy Perry, Vocalist in Fresno, CA. Even though she was not born in Fresno, she has given much of her time & talent to the community.
There are so many other folks that have helped Fresno!
I would like to bring up a topic a little bit before it becomes urgent, and it is somewhat related to the archive problems noted above. I don't think anybody sees RD getting any smaller than it is now, and I imagine some of the desks, especially Science, will become increasingly difficult to read in the near future. The main problem is that we are using a communications medium that was never intended for such high-volume discussion (something much more suitable for usenet I guess) but we have all (I presume) come to love this medium of communication because of it's excellent ability to create a smooth procession of interactive conversation flow.
I'm sure many of us would like to preseve this conversation flow, no matter how big RD gets (or rather, no matter how many people learn about the reference desk) and if not by simply dividing the individual desks into smaller and smaller pieces (another thing suitable for usenet) we must start thinking how. I personally don't believe that RD can function smoothly forever in its current, simple form. I believe the coding for the page has to be expanded somehow to allow browsing, editing, and finding questions and answers easier. Whether this should be done to the code of the page itself (by using layers, delaying downloads of full responses, etc) or possibly by a bot/script that tabulate everything into an easy to read table (along the lines of the bots used to collect votes for administrators), or maybe someone has some other suggestions? Maybe I'm being presumptuous in assuming that nobody likes to scroll through megabyte-long pages of questions. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer if the problem could be solved by breaking the "big" Ref desks up, say like this:
Science -> Physics & Astronomy Chemistry Biology Health & Medical Other Science
Humanities -> History Movies & TV Music & Art Architecture Popular Culture Other Humanities
Misc. => Food & Nutrition Sex Sports & Hobbies Sea birds Misc.
StuRat 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Help! I wanted to add some info on the bell question. There was an edit conflict and I messed everything up! Now all the text since Aug 19th is gone. I can't revert from this computer/firefox because it wont give me the full text in the edit box. Please help out, someone! I wont have a chance to revert this until 4h from now. Thanks in advance. --- Sluzzelin 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
fixed Nowimnthing 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, I decided I would put the headers up when it hits 24:00 UTC. Who is doing the archiving nowaydays if anybody? We need to get a bot to do it. — Mac Davis] ( talk)
{{subst:Reference desk navigation |previous = |date1 = |next = |date2 = |type = }}
Seems like a bot would be better suited for repetitive, tedious, template subst'ing-- 71.247.243.173 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And now August 26th is MIA, not to mention August 25th only contains questions from the 26th, and the 27th, none from the 25th, whoever has been adding these date headers has been missing.-- 71.247.243.173 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
<noinclude> {{subst:Reference desk navigation |date1 = |date2 = |type = }} </noinclude>
Even after splitting, the RD pages are toooo long to download. Is there a way to see only one day and not all all seven days? Thank you. CG 08:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so now that all of the desks are properly transcluded, someone really should start archiving the older questions, starting with the 19th. That someone isn't me, btw, since I just racked up about 300 edits over the course of 2 days catching up the transclusions-- VectorPotential71.247.243.173 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Added the header, again.. someone else reeeeally needs to learn the entire process, otherwise this whole thing falls apart when I stop doing it-- 71.247.243.173 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Could we change the header to include a request for feedback from the original questioners? We answer many questions, but rarely hear anything back. We therefore dont know if were being helpful or not. Just a suggestion.-- Light current 03:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
How about: Dont forget to give us some feed back when you feel your question has been responded to
or something.-- Light current 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does-- in very small (almost invisible) letters. How many people actually read all that small print anyway?-- Light current 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah OK I notice youve been complaining about the lack of help here. But Im new-- I dont know how to do anythin yet! Whats involved?-- Light current 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I could do that! I have no bot Im afraid-- Light current 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry it is tomorrow here! So I have to do it after 0100 BST. I just realised that. Ill move the hdg to correct place later (at 00.00 UTC )-- Light current 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw a question posted to the miscellaneous reference desk today that seemed intentionally inflammatory, a poorly-disguised troll attempting only to elicit responses. I went looking for reference desk policy regarding trolling, but I couldn't find a source. Do we have a trolling policy for the reference desk? If not, where is the appropriate place to add one? dpotter 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
?? The one about ankle weights. I can't even find it in the edit history. Anchoress 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{subst:Reference desk navigation|1|October|Science}}</noinclude>
With the date used, being the date of the archive, the template does the math-- VectorPotential71.247.243.173 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoever wants to do something, just sign your name under the header..
= August 29 =
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 29}}
So, what happens now? Do we just delete old posts?-- 205.188.116.202 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend among people who frequent the Reference Desk to engage in silly conversations with each other once they believe the question has been answered (or that the question is unanswerable). I am guilty of this myself on occasion, so I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but I think it would be more helpful if we just stick to answering questions. It would also save space if the Desk is not filled with unrelated comments, etc. Adam Bishop 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I do. People are looking for help, not to be entertained by you (and you also are not as funny as you think). The homework thing is a separate problem; Light current especially seems to think everyone is asking homework questions. How about if you think it's homework, just don't answer it? You don't have to be a smartass. Adam Bishop 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I myself have noticed that some of the medical questions which I attempt to answer have often already been answered in a whimsical way which does not seem as helpful as it could be. For most of these questions, someone knows the answer off the top of their head. If you don't and don't want to do research, it's probably best to just stay quiet. Anyway, that's just my opinion. InvictaHOG 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
While I would agree that the amount of humor needs to be kept in check (I'd limit it to about 50%, myself), I don't agree that the Ref Desks should be completely devoid of humor. That would make working the desk so dull that many who occasionally give good answers, including myself, would get bored and go elsewhere. I've also noticed that, since the amount of humor on the Ref Desk has increased, the amount of vicious attacks on questioners and other responders has reduced considerably (an interesting sociological correlation, isn't it ?). As I consider that unpleasantness to be far worse than humor, I'm glad if I've helped to foster this transition. StuRat 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I find all this a little sickening, so please allow me only one comment. The Reference Desk was formed out of Wikidust one brisk autumn January in 2001 for the purpose of answering the following question (and you can check the history on this):
Why does my dog eat his own poo?
Just, think about it, and don't even bother replying. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 11:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The RD is fine the way it is, and give light current a break geez -- Froth 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there some sort of procedure to follow when you suspect that someone is using the reference desk not for homework, or trolling, or as a soapbox, but rather as some sort of sociology experiment?-- VectorPotentialRD NEEDS A BOT (-: 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Owing to the numerous unwarranted attacks on me by editors who do not even contribute to the ref desk work in any way whatsoever, I have decided to withdraw my offer of helping in dating, archiving etc. Blame them-- Light current 22:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Could we possibly get a link (at the top) to the bottom of every page? That would be simple right? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 11:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The medical bickering has irritated me for a long time, but this time it was so bad that I decided to remove part of it (including my own initial comment). Here it is:
I am 60 years old, I just had a new Cat scan done , I had a stroke in 1973 and my last Cat scan was done in 1973 but now my doctor says my cerebellum is getting smaller, I have been having balance problems and have been falling down alot lately and I cannot understand all the words in your articles and would just like to know in simple terms what is happening to me,I have been seizure free since 1980 but now my lip and tongue are going numb about everyday like they did just before I had a seizure years ago. I am on phenobarbitol and Dilantin.
The reason I removed the first comment is that the guy has just been to a doctor. So what advise does he get? "Go see a dentist". No, better still "Go see a lawyer" Wow, that helps! He has obviously tried to understand more through Wikipedia, but can't understand the articles, so asked here. I felt so sorry for this guy that I did the unthinkable - I removed someone else's comment. He really doesn't need people shouting pointless advise at him. I left Light Current's post because he put it more friendly and then came with an actual answer. I thought about referring him to the simple English Wikipedia, but that doesn't seem to be extensive enough to answer any of his questions. DirkvdM 06:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should remove bad advice from the Reference desk.- gadfium 08:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC) (sig font stolen from Nunh-huh)
One problem i find with the reference desk is that the articles are *WAY* too big. This causes major problems for people on a slow internet connection. Apart from the fact that it simply takes ages for the article to load, it makes editing an article really probmatic.
1. The buttons at the top of an article (project page, discussion, edit...etc) don't usually appear until the entire article loads. Which means to add a new topic is a pain because i have to wait for the whole thing to load. (i can't use section edit to add new topics).
2. When trying to add new topics, it's a pain because it takes so long for the entire article to load in the edit box. The article is more than 400kb in size! Which means a lot of waiting before i'm able to add a topic to the end of the article.
3. Often, questions here take a fair amount of time to answer (as in it's not just a one line response as in the help desk). So quite often, by the time the edit page has loaded and i've made my edit...someone else has made an edit and i'm in an edit conflict.
Now, this is all annoying, but tolerable. The biggest problem comes when an edit conflict happens.
Even if i use section edit buttons, when an edit conflict happens (as it often does on articles of this size since so many people are editing it), you get taken to a page where the top box shows the article in its most recent form. And the bottom box shows the edit you made on the older article version.
The problem is that the top box loads the entire article, not just the section i'm editing. I use section edit buttons to avoid the problem of having to wait for the whole article to load in the edit box, but that's all useless if an edit conflict happens.
So it works like this:
1. I try to edit the reference desk article.
2. I use section edit, and type out my edit.
3. while i'm typing out my edit, someone else has made an edit. Leading to an edit conflict.
4. i wait for the entire current page (all 400+kb) to load. This takes age. Once it has, i copy and past my edit into the correct edit box.
5. I click save page
6. The time it's taken for the entire page to load onto the edit box...guess what's happened? I'm in another edit conflict! Since people on faster connections can quite obviously edit the article much faster since they don't have to wait so long for the whole article to load onto their edit box.
7. so i start waiting again for the entire article to load into the edit box on the edit conflict page...
and so on. It gets even more annoying sometimes when i forget to leave an edit summary. Since i've set my preferences to notify me when i don't leave an edit summary. Sometimes, when i forget, the edit doesn't save and i get the warning message. During that time, someone else edits and i'm back into the edit conflict.
Is there anything that can be done to make these articles smaller? Like archiving more often. Or splitting the reference desks up further - so science can become several smaller reference desks. Not only will this make it easier for people who are only interested in one or a few areas of the general topic of science...but it'd make editing the page much easier for people on slow connections. Yaksha 07:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look at it. I'd assume this is a design for the layout for the actual question pages? (i.e. not a design for the Wikipedia:Reference_desk page)
the search box at the top is defintely a good idea. I think the "ask a new question by clicking here" line should still be used. You'd be surprised at how confusing adding a new topic is to a new person. "wtf" is probably not too unusual a reaction when someone's clicking the "edit this page" button for the first few times =P
About the groups: i believe astronomy is apart of physics. The "health and medicine desk" should be named something like a "human biology" desk, or just "medicine". Because wikipedia isn't supposed to give out medical advice. So i fear "health and medicine" will give out the wrong impression. Other than that, the main page currently says the science desk is for "science, medicine, and technology". Looking at the technology questions on the science RD, it's all computer stuff. I'm thinking techn should be taken off the description for the science desk or we're just going to get lots of computer questions on the general science desk. Lastly, do we even need a "general sciences"? The only science questions that don't fall into the other four categories are technology questions and environment questions. So we could just have a "earth sciences" desk instead?
Can't say much for the other RDs since i don't look at them, but the science splits look good. Will look forward to having smaller RD pages. =) -- Yaksha 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems like every time I look at a reference desk page there's someone abusing users for not spelling words correctly, or using incorrect grammar, or for the terrible sin of "dear sir". Can something be done to stop this? Isn't this biting new users? Luigi30 ( Taλk) 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)