Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

WP:AN

This is probably in the archives somewhere, but why isn't there a link to the administrator's noticeboard on this page? It might be appropriate. Isopropyl 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Computing split

Did we ever consider splitting computing off from the science section? Isopropyl 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know but it sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Has anyone performed a count of computing vs general science questions posted? Ande B 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we did consider splitting this a while ago if I recall correctly. Somewhere in the archives. I don't know if a count was ever done. Are we sure we want to expand the reference desk any further? After all, I don't think the purpose of these pages is to facilitate answering every type of question out there. --HappyCamper 11:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We did have this discussion here, here and here, and these are just the most recent discussions. Further splitting of the Ref Desk was comprehensively voted down, see the discussions for why. Personally, I think the Ref Desk works just great at the moment, and the only reason to split it further would be if a category would get so many questions that questions would 'vanish' (ie move further away from the bottom of the page) too quickly. But, on the whole, there is no other reason for splitting the Ref Desk, Ref Desk volunteers just answer whatever questions they have an answer to, and most of them read all the ref desks anyway. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Guideline on capitalisation of first words of certain newspapers' articles?

The following exchange was originally posted on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, which is a redirect to this page, and therefore was invisible to most readers. --Russ Blau (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

I would like to know whether or not a guideline exists on the capitalisation of the first words of certain newspapers' articles. Take the following excerpt from yeserday's Times's article And the best solution for protecting pedestrians? Remove safety barriers:

THEY clutter the streets, get in the way when you want to cross the road and, according to a study, increase your chances of being run over.

In today's Sunday Times's article Town hall vote disaster looms for Blair:

TONY BLAIR risks a humiliating third place in next month’s local elections, which could put further pressure on him to stand down following the revival of tension with Gordon Brown.

I am pretty sure that the first words of articles are also capitalised in other newspapers.

Many thanks to those who will produce answers,

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure why this question is here (maybe you meant to put it on the project page?) but…

This is strictly a typographical layout convention, just like using a large initial capital. It is not conventional to reproduce it when quoting. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Science/Mathematics subcategory renaming

Why has only Mathematics been split from Science? Why is Computing still coupled with Science? Computing hasn't really got much more to do with the other sciences than Mathematics. The theoretical parts of Computing (all those Turing machines and 3-SAT problems and so on) are an exact science (perhaps not as exact as Mathematics), and the real-world parts, such as tinkering with your CPU cooling to get higher rates, are more like engineering. So I would have preferred to couple Computing with Mathematics and leave the other sciences in the Science section. JIP | Talk 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. We wouldn't even need to change the names or anything, just the descriptions. How about:

Science: To ask questions about science, medicine, and technology

Mathematics: To ask questions about mathematics and computing —Keenan Pepper 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics wasn't really split from Science - it was just "made". If it would help keep the science pages a bit shorter, let's give it a try. Computing could be interpreted as "computer science"... --HappyCamper 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the distinction between "science" and "mathematics" also exists on the main page (look at the top right). RexNL 03:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If by "mathematics and computing" you mean "mathematics and computer science", that sounds good. The desks turn over on a weekly basis, so it can't hurt to experiment. Melchoir 07:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll go ahead and do it. —Keenan Pepper 18:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the person who originally made the mathematics reference desk. I know there are good counterarguments to splitting, and I still haven't decided whether the split was a good idea, but anyway it's done. For the record, I have long thought that a separate reference desk for computer tech support and computer science help would be a good idea, but I wouldn't be the person to initiate such a split, since I still haven't made up my mind about the math split. Anyway, I don't have any problem with taking computers into math, so let's see how this works out. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it was a wonderful idea to have a math desk! I have a feeling this shift would not have too much of an impact on the distribution of questions...etc... --HappyCamper 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This topic was reintroduced on the RD. I believe my opinion is clear on the RD. Even the examples given in this discussion are, in my opinion, wrong. Turing machines are math!? The proof of a turing machine's outcome is math. The Turing machine itself is not math. Proof that a specific form of AI will or will not work is math. Creation and use of the AI is not math. Proof that it will always take a specific number of microseconds for a bit of ram to turn on or off is chemistry, engineering, and math. Picking out RAM at the store is not math. Proof that IE will never fully support proper HTML or JavaScript is, well, just Microsoft bashing. Learning to trick IE into functioning properly is not math. I have a long history of fighting with math geeks. In my current position, I specifically requested that absolutely no math geeks be included in any of the research. I work in theoretical computer science. I do not work in math. I do not need an anchor on the project holding everything up while a few geeks try to "prove" what we've already done. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

African American in a heavy metal music group

Was there ever a African American in a heavy metal group ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt714 (talk • contribs) .

Shouldn't you ask this on the actual reference desk, and not its talk page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.31.156.85 (talk • contribs) .

Good old Slash (musician) is half-African American. Sum0 15:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy one. Suffocation. --Ouro 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN pages for the RD?

I wonder...how would people feel about a BJAODN page just for stuff from the reference desk? Just a thought. --HappyCamper 02:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

meh. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

While there is a lot of BJAODN material on the RD, I don't think there is a need for a separate BJAODN page. Just stick it on the regular BJAODN page... :) — QuantumEleven 07:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I must say I have a tendency to sometimes read through the whole RefDesk [especially the misc. section] and copy some of the most interesting questions and answers to text files, which I sometimes send to friends for their amusement. --Ouro 14:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I found this. Some one made it for me, because I asked some kinda crazy questions on the RD.

This user's life-long goal is to make it on the BJAODN page

Mayor Westfall 05:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Homework help

Is there any way that we can make it clearer to posters that we are not here to do their homework? We get an awful lot of them. Isopropyl 13:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We can just ignore those questions. If people want to answer and help them out, let them. Can be fun sometimes. --HappyCamper 17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think we should try to give them at least some useful information. Not everybody is lucky enough to have a real world person around who can help. But obviously people who write "Answer in 200 words or less. Give sources." should be reminded that this is not the best way to ask for help. David Sneek 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not here for homework? It doesn't seem like it to me... --PrifysgolCaerdydd 11:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Disappearing comments

I'm not sure, but I have a feeling some comments to posts on the Science desk have disappeared. For instance, in the Aurora Borealis question, I'm almost certain it went on for quite a bit longer when I saw it yesterday. Is this just me, or did something happen? Black Carrot 00:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also noticed this, but only because I looked at a question that I had answered and my answer had disappeared. I just copied my answer and repasted it without thinking about it. If you find more information I'd be happy to hear it. Isopropyl 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah-I've put some answers on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk, and when I came back, ALL of my stuff was deleted! Is this a common prank on wikipedia? (I use other wikis most of the time and that never happens.) --JD

There are other wikis??? :O and just to point out, why is the edit button for this section located in the section above. random, i know. --KS

Link to archives from main page

I belive there should be a link to the Wikipedia:Reference desk archive from the main Wikipedia:Reference desk, but it seems there's none.

Emphazi

I've made a template to help make asking to suitly emphazi easier, and more noticable.

Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 18:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like your derived word "emphaziation", as it doesn't give me the mood of the original "emphazi". I think it might be better to say "this question may require to be suitly emphazied". However, the word stemmer software of wp search thinks otherwise: I've searched for "emphaziation" and it's found the word "emphazis" in Mauricio Cuenca. – b_jonas 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Close enough. I wasn't sure of the spelling, either. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 01:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this almost always a case of biting the newcomers? Even if it isn't, the use of in-jokes and jargon is intimidating to newcomers, so perhaps it's time to let this joke die. Notinasnaid 13:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain the joke to me? What on earth is "emphazi" supposed to mean? If that's an in-joke, I guess I'm out of the loop. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION no sensE emphazi. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A month or so ago a anonymous user posted a question in garbled English which ended with "Please suitly emphazi." In a question shortly afterwards, someone wrote (in response to a unintelligable question) "You need to suitly emphazi your question" (or something like that), and I replied with "May I request that "suitly emphazi" become a running joke?" It did. I like to immodestly think that I helped start it all off, although I didn't actually come up with the idea. Anyway, it's fun as an occasional in-joke (in those questions where it doesn't seem as if the original poster will look for a reply anyway), but a template is going a bit far. Sum0 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I still feel it is primarily used to mock newcomers, and when used as such violates Wikipedia policies . Notinasnaid 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Be patient

Would "Be patient" be a nice idea to add to the "How to ask a question" section? It seems some people post a question, then when they don't get an answer (within a few minutes) post it again, or add something along the lines of "I really need an answer" or similar reactions ... of course they're probably the same people who don't read the rules in the first place, but can't help that.

I think something like "Be patient. Reference Desk questions are asked by whoever is looking at the page, and there won't always be someone around with the knowledge to answer your question straight away. If you don't get a response after a couple of days, consider rephrasing your request." Confusing Manifestation 13:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ref Desk Header Questions

I noticed today that we have somewhat contradictory info in the header. One the left side, it says:

• Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.

... but on the right side we say that legal questions should be referred to a lawyer. Shouldn't we remove the mention of legal questions in the "Be specific" bullet?

Also, has there been any discussion on adding a couple links such as WP:CITE to the header to attempt to curtail the almost daily questions on how to cite Wikipedia? --LarryMac 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. Legal questions like "was there ever really a bill declaring pi equal to 4?" are perfectly appropriate for the reference desk, and in some cases we need to know where the person lives to give a relevant answer. The right side just says "If requesting... legal advice, please consider...". —Keenan Pepper 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Interpostitation

It gets really annoying when people put posts in between mine and what was right before mine, since it usually makes me sound slightly insane. For instance:

But was it purple?

No, it was yellow.

It doesn't have a color, it only reflects ultraviolet. -Random Asshole

How about green? -Me

Yet, I don't see any specific rules against it at the top, and nobody complains about it when it happens. Could we make not doing this some sort of standard? Black Carrot 01:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Expect someone to come along in a second casting doubt on our ability to institutionalize this practise in a successful manner :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardy har har. —Keenan Pepper 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would be able to institutionalize this practise in a successful manner. Don't worry - the regulars know what we're all like on the RD :-) --HappyCamper 03:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a general problem discussed at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#General standards. In a perfect world, everyone would follow the rules and we would end up with a nice tree structure for every conversation. Small errors should be tolerated (for example right above me HappyCamper used two colons instead of one =P), but if someone breaks the rules enough so that it's difficult to tell who's replying to whom, you should move their text around to fix it. In your example above, I would move Random Asshole's comment below yours and remove one of the colons. —Keenan Pepper 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In general then, is it safe to say that the Ref Desks should be treated as Talk pages? I specifically ask because I've noticed a couple times recently where somebody had corrected somebody else's entry (e.g. changing "anyways" to "anyway"), and I thought it was bad form, but I didn't know for sure. Obviously that example is quite minor, but it seems like something that should not be encouraged. OTOH, moving a comment doesn't bother me as much. --LarryMac 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say they're functionally talk pages and should be treated as such. —Keenan Pepper 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no link to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines article? Since we bother to enumerate basic rules at all, why do we leave all of those out? Black Carrot 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But, I like putting posts inside people's comments. Random Asshole 02:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And I like to wikify other people's comments. Interfering Asshole 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

??? I can understand carefully reformatting an unreadable post, if that's what Messr Interfering means. I do that myself, and leave a comment saying so in case anyone wants to take a look at the original. However, to Random, I must repeat, What The Fuck? Black Carrot 02:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contributions to WP:main thru RD

Sometimes we may find that a question irrupts, whose answers help building a larger question. This finally gives life to ... a new article in WP.

The process is interesting in itself. Is the community able to take it into account ? The implicit rules for RDskers are :

• Enlarge the question
• Search WP in case the final answer is there
• If not : create (be bold).

Your advice about this topic is appreciated. DLL. --193.56.241.75 14:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Finances

Would it be possible/advisable to list "finance" as one of the things covered in either the humanities or misc. sections? I'm not proposing adding it as a separate section. Currently I don't know which section it would be covered in. Mrplastic 02:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think many financial questions would fall under mathematics. It depends what the specific question is. —Keenan Pepper 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose then that it would depend on the substance of the question. ex. "How would I calculate my..." would go under math and "what does this term mean" might go under something else. Is that right? Is it worth clarifying somewhere or is there not enough of these types of questions to worry about it? Mrplastic 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to adding finance/economics to the math description. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that really seem necessary? Black Carrot 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say then that there should be a separate section for handling finance, banking and economics questions. --Ouro 14:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That sounds like a swell idea, and would be helpful to a lot of people Mayor Westfall 05:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(restarting indents) I absolutely disagree. Firstly, there as so few finance questions that they really do not merit their own desk. Secondly, the ref desk works just fine as it is, if it aint broke don't fix it. Thirdly, the only reason (IMO) that we should split the ref desk further would be if one of the desks becomes so overloaded with questions that they 'disappear' from the bottom third too quickly. We are far from that at the moment. There was a long debate about further splits not too long ago (see here), and the way I see it, that consensus still stands.

To answer the original poster: it's really not that big a deal - post to whichever desk you think is most appropriate (or just post to misc if you really can't decide!). Most of the ref desk volunteers read more than one desk, and no-one will not answer your question because they think you posted to the wrong desk - at worst, they'll just move it to the 'right' desk. No harm done. If you want to add finance to the math desk description, go ahead, but for heaven's sake don't split the ref desk further. — QuantumEleven 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete title

I that it would look a lot better if we removed the title like on the Main Page as the title is already in the main box and having two simply pushes it down. LC@RSDATA 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ablative of "opus"

In Classical Latin, could anyone please tell me if the word "pro" takes the ablative; I am thinking, in particular, of Newman's Apologia pro vita sua. If so, what would the ablative be for the word opus!

Thank you in advance!

This is a question for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. I've reposted it there. JackofOz 11:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam

The Spam-filters won't let me answer a question because apparently my page edit contained a blacklisted URL. It also said that if I hadn't added it, it might already be on the page. I searched the text and code thoroughly but didn't find this URL, obviously I hadn't added it. And how could it already be on the page (which it wasn't) if the spam-filters stop any edit containing it? On another note, my 'Skittle/Talk/Preferences/etc' bar flicks over to the left everytime I mouse over it, so if other people aren't experiencing this it could be my problem. Skittle 12:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tinyurl banning

I was adding my own question recently and found that editing was disabled on the page because someone used a TinyURL link. It's now fixed. Please could people not use that in the future? It actually took me some time to recitify. ----★Ukdragon37★^talk 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. What's wrong with TinyURL links? How do they disable editing to a page? --Fastfission 18:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the SPAMbot picks them up and won't let you save, and nothing I could do could find the URL to remove it. Skittle 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with TinyURL links is that you can't tell by looking at it where it's going to. We've had a problem with people linking to shock sites using these links. While a vandal could host such a site at an innocuous URL, it's much more work for them, that URL will quickly be recognised by the people fighting vandalism, and a complaint to the host may have it removed. Accordingly, all links through TinyURL and similar redirector services are banned.

If a page had such links before the ban went into effect, then an unrelated edit to the page will be unable to be saved until the link is removed. That's collateral damage, but I've seen far fewer complaints about this than I might have expected. Maybe I don't watch the pages on which people are complaining. Maybe someone wrote a bot to replace all existing tinyURL links.-gadfium 19:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any need for TinyURL links anyway. Their main use is for use with email, where you can't necessarily trust long URLs not to get broken up by the line-wrapping. Links to long URLs from here will work perfectly well. Arbitrary username 21:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Might it be possible/helpful to code in a recognition of emailaddress-shaped objects (xxx@xxxx.xxx) and refuse-to-accept/give-a-warning for them, for on public forum pages like this? Just a suggestion. juggling too many thoughts, had to write before i forgot. maybe someone else could add to appropriate place on bugzilla feature requests? Thanks :) -Quiddity 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Two reasons why this isn't a good idea. a) it's fairly rare and it would probably be more annoying than useful b) the only thing seriously at risk when users give out their emails is the spamification of their own mail box. There's no reason for Wikipedia to take responsibility for that, and the users should be able to figure that out by themselves.

Just a suggestion...wouldn't it be better if the reference desk was upside-down, I mean, having the dates in descending order, rather than scrolling all the way down for the latest.

Thanks.Raven.x16 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. It's standard talk page style on WikiMedia to put the most recent additions at the end, and there are many reasons that it is already in place, one being that most pages have a header, but no footer, so it is safest to add messages at the bottom.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  07:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion procedure

What is the correct deletion procedure once requests have been answered- are they archived somewhere I can't see? I've answered a few now, just thought I'd ask for future reference.

EvocativeIntrigue 16:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Found the archives now...in that least obvious of places, top of the page!

EvocativeIntrigue 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of users have commented that the archives are not placed in an obvious place...any suggestions for improvement? --HappyCamper 02:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure of automated archiving

I noticed that the Science Desk's entries from 21st to 31st May haven't been archived, so I tried to perform a manual archive. Unfortunately, as soon as I tried to add the 21st May section I received the error message:

ERROR: The text you have submitted is 1,035 kilobytes long, which is longer than the maximum of 1024 kilobytes. It cannot be saved.

Is there a standard way to handle this situation? I assume we will need to create a second archive page for May, but is there a preferred way of doing so? Thanks. Road Wizard 02:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's why the automated archive failed in the first place. I'm sure you could easily cut 11 kilos off of that; dumb questions and such. Though I doubt there's any "standard", if you really want to be a stiffard about archiving things, it would also make sense to split it into 2 archives, listed on the archive page as May 1 2.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  07:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If the science desk is getting so full that we can't archive a month at a time, maybe it's time to contemplate a split? -lethe ^{talk +} 07:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• One problem with a wholesale change of procedure is that Cryptic the Crypticbot's owner has not been active since March. Is it possible to change a bot's programming without the involvement of the owner? Road Wizard 07:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would just point out that cutting 11kB off won't solve the problem, as there would still be 10 more days of archive to add. Road Wizard 07:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thought you were doing it all at once. I wonder as well about a split... but how can you split the science desk?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As this currently appears to be an isolated case, it might be worth carrying out a short term fix of placing the missing archives in Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/May 2006 part 2 and linking that page from the main archive. If the problem recurs this month or in subsequent months, we could then consider a more long term solution. Alternatively, if we were in a position to alter Crypticbot's programming, someone with bot experience may be able to teach it to recognise an archive failure caused by file size and get it to create additional archive pages. Any comments on this? Road Wizard 07:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We can use whatever approach that seems reasonable and easy to do. That has been a tradition on the RD for a long time, and seems to work wonders. :-) --HappyCamper 02:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now created part 2 of the May archive of the Science page, but looking at the June archive, the problem is going to occur again this month. Currently, we have only archived up to June 8, but the archive is already at 536 kilobytes of a maximum 1024 kilobytes. I think it would be worthwhile to start discussing the long term corrective actions available to us. From the comments above, the options currently proposed are:

1. Split the science desk (possibly by removing the remaining computer queries to a new reference desk)
2. Reprogram Crypticbot to recognise failed archives due to file size and automatically create secondary archive pages.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks. Road Wizard 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Further to my post above, I have now discovered that the February, March and April archives have also had size related failures. Road Wizard 23:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the history of failures, something is needed. I don't think spliting the Science RD is too viable since hacking Computers off would at best buy only a bit of time, and the rest can't really be split up easily. Besides, archiving should not drive the presentation to users.

The automated method needs to be modified. If Crypticbot can be changed, great, but if not, another alternative is to have some other bot Move the Archive periodically, say once a week for now to a subname. The daily archives can still be done by Crypticbot, since it shouldn't be affected by the emptying of the archive it uses. -R. S. Shaw 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting ref desk items

Occassional user User:Raven.x16 has deleted some stuff from the Science ref desk which he considers to be irrelevant or in poor taste (e.g. [1], [2]). Although the ref desk instructions do not address the deletion of other user's contributions, I always assumed this was poor Wikiquette. Views ? Gandalf61 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say this was poor Wikiquette, although I confess to deleting a section yesterday. I deleted it because it wasn't a question, it was only a statement designed to provoke discussion/argument in a soapboxy manner, and it was succeeding. The difference with the examples given here is that in the first, it was just a single (not especially relevant, but still) comment and the second is an entire question which may or may not have been trolling. It is possible that it genuinely was someone asking for help, and I do not think the subject matter alone is a reason for deleting it. Skittle 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Have you raised your concerns with Raven.x16? The user might be receptive to your views, and agree to stop taking similar action in the future. If your question is whether clearer guidelines are needed for the future, you may wish to rephrase your question. Currently it reads as if your main problem is with the individual and not the issue. Road Wizard 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to see if there was a consensus or general concern before talking to Raven.x16. Although I had been assuming that deleting sections from a ref. desk was, in normal circumstances, poor Wikiquette, I realised that I couldn't find anywhere where this was written down. Given the lack of response above, I can see that no-one else is particularly worried about this issue, so neither am I. Gandalf61 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about him deleting non-constructive responese, but blanking entire questions is just vandalism isn't it? i.e. blaniking question = blanking section of any other article. Philc _T^E_C^I 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not unconcerned. My question in the "interpostitation" section above was my first attempt to understand what written or unwritten policies exist regarding the Ref Desk pages. Since the time I posted that query, there have been several additional, less benign (IMHO) instances of editors changing others words, which, if left unchecked, is just going to cause additional problems. (cf Patchouli's strikeouts). My gut feeling is that Raven.x16's edits were "wrong," but in the absences of any specific policies, I'm not sure how that would be presented. I would disagree with Philc about deleting the "non-constructive" response; although most of the Ref Desk editors do try to stick with meaningful, factual responses, the header does state that it's OK to have a bit of fun. --LarryMac 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The lack of response above is not a reflection of the level of concern. It is more a reflection that this is a relatively isolated forum. I may be mistaken, but I think the majority of editors with this page on their watchlist are those that edited the Wikipedia:Reference desk and those that have posted on this talk page since its creation in April 06 (when the previous page was archived). Given that there are so few people watching this page, I am quite surprised that 4 different editors have responded to you within 48 hours. Getting to the point at hand though, I think that at least some rough guidance may be necessary, and further discussion would be of benefit. However, I would ask that we don't mention specific examples, unless the editor involved knows we are discussing their actions. Otherwise it is not really fair and is probably itself a breach of etiquette. Road Wizard 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference desk has been around for ages. The reason why there is a lack of direction on how the reference desk, is that there is sort of an implicit assumption that people who use is are smart and sensible people. In some sense, the RD is an example of what the "true" spirit of a Wiki is. We don't need to write all the rules down - they should be self-evident. In fact, the reference desk is perhaps one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia - it has the least amount of vandalism as a proportion of total edits, and generally, the posts are robust against trolling, wikipolitics, or whatnot. It has always been this way - it seems to remain this way even with such a high volume of users. Well, we could introduce extra rules, or whatnot - but that would take the fun and spirit away from how the RD works. The RD is fun to participate in, because we don't need to police each other's edits. Those that seem "out of line" can simply be ignored, or for that matter, shown how to post to be more homogenous with the status quo or best practices. --HappyCamper 02:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, since two people have linked to this Raven guy, did any of you go in and read his talk page? I've already brought it up with him, and he's quite agreeable. Says he won't do it again, if that's our policy. I think it should be - I don't like the idea of people fiddling with what I've been involved in writing. Black Carrot 13:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did check the talk page, but your comment wasn't there when I left my first post above. I did notice it when I left my second response, though at the time you had yet to receive a reply.

If the user has accepted your views and is willing to stop editing others comments in future, then I think this case is closed. In most cases drawing the problem to the attention of the individual will result in them accepting the "status quo" as HappyCamper put it above. It should only really escalate to involve others if the user isn't willing to play ball.

On reflection, I think that we should generally avoid altering other users comments except for those few exceptions that clearly breach other policies and guidelines. Those exceptions being along the lines of personal attacks, blatant vandalism and excessive soapboxing (though a small degree of soapboxing may be necessary in responding to questions). However, if you do choose to alter someone else's comments, you had better have a solid argument as to why you did so, otherwise you may be the one facing criticism. Therefore, if you find someone else's comments objectionable, you should consider whether it is worth asking the user politely to remove or edit the comments themselves. Road Wizard 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear Black Carrot 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Search option for archives

Searching through the archives is a nightmare if you can't remember the date. Why don't you add a quick search option? Bogdanoud 10:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How would the quick search option work? It's just that we don't know how to implement it at the moment I think. --HappyCamper 02:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You could try the Google site search. Black Carrot 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't archivers create a separate website which would be closely connected to Wikipedia and use the same format as the Main Wikipedia Page along with a search option specific to that website? Bogdanoud 10:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Searching#External_search_engines Black Carrot 18:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

genome?

What is the name of the company that is trying to name every genome is human body? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.5.46.98 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

I have moved this question to the Science reference desk. Please check there for your answer. Road Wizard 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Browse all questions...

I'm thinking of removing the Browse all questions... link from the RD header. It is a relic from long ago when the RD was first split into categories (remember that!?) and was argued in as a "security blanket". It is a HUGE page that seems to serve no purpose any longer except to confuse the newcomers. Thoughts? --hydnjo talk 19:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is huge. And of course it's not "all" questions, just the ones that haven't been archived. I can't imagine anybody actually using that, you've got my vote. --LarryMac 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that removing the all link would be an improvement. -R. S. Shaw 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support removal of link. I assume you are planning to get the all page deleted at the same time? Road Wizard 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The RD header links to the /all page as do the direct calls Wikipedia:Reference desk/all and shortcuts WP:RD/ALL and WP:RD/A. I'm not anxious to delete those calls to the composite page, only the link in the header. If some future need comes up then the composite would still be available. --hydnjo talk 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support removal InvictaHOG 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks to all (oops!) for your comments.  :-) --hydnjo talk 23:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can live without the link, but I'd request we don't delete the "/all" page, this is quite handy if you want to text search across different categories (for example, crypto questions pop up in several). — Matt Crypto 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Daily transclusion?

Just wondering if there's any support for daily transclusion a la WP:CFD? Some of these RD pages are pretty long these days... Grutness...wha? 04:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would probably be a good idea. It appears this might be most of a solution to the #Failure of automated archiving problem above. The transclusion within the archive pages would not run into the size limit causing that problem. (Ideally, IMO, the main archive page would list the TOCs of the daily pages, but I don't think there's a way of doing that, so just a set of links to the daily pages would be next best. There would probably need to be a fully-transcluding version of the archive page too so desperate people could find within a week or month via a single browser window.) -R. S. Shaw 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we move this idea forward please? Crypticbot is getting flakier every day, and Cryptic doesn't appear to be around anymore to fix it. For the last couple of days it has been failing to do its archiving properly, which means I am having to do it manually. If we can improve the situation as quickly as possible, I would be extremely grateful. Thanks. Road Wizard 21:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science - all but the current day's sections are now transcluded separate pages. (I did not move one of the day headings to its subpage as an experiment, e.g. how Crypticbot might handle. BTW, Crypticbot sobered up and seemed to do the 29/30 archiving ok.)

But until we have bot support lined up, it's not clear to me how to proceed. As it is, a day's entries can accumulate at the bottom of WP:RD/S and then someone could move the group to a new subpage at the start of the next day. But that's not so good in that the history is split between WP:RD/S (1st day) and the subpage (all later days). There are of course "ask a new question by clicking here" links and such to consider. Seems like a smarter bot might be in order. The procedure to add a question shouldn't be as complicated as WP:CFD since novices use these RD pages. -R. S. Shaw 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is terrible, why would you possibly do something like this to a system that already works?--71.247.107.238 16:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been working, as described above. Why do you think this change is terrible? -R. S. Shaw 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it, the day headers are enough to divide the pages. A lot more questions would go unanswered. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you against? The experience of reading and editing the reference desk doesn't seem to have changed. Notinasnaid 23:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blatantly misunderstood this. Are we proposing that we cut down the desk to a single day, or that we simply move off week old questions, daily.Philc _T^E_C^I 01:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is that we store day old questions in a transcluded page, but the transcluded page will still be visible at the Science desk for a week. Once the week is over the transcluded page is linked to from the archive. To the casual observer the desk will look and work exactly as it did before. Questions will still be visible and answerable for a week. I hope this clarifies the position. Road Wizard 11:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• someone really should <noinclude> the reference desk header into each section, otherwise people won't have any way to get back to the main reference desk after they answer the question--205.188.116.202 01:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, I've done just that--205.188.116.202 02:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not only that, having the header up there alerts them to the fact that they're no longer on the main reference desk page, so it's win win. You may want to incorporate this into your bot--205.188.116.202 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem with that idea is that the current header template includes the "ask a new question by clicking here." link, which adds a new section to the current page - not something we really want on the archived or transcluded pages, as new questions posted there will not usually be answered. A solution though would be to create a new navigation template with links to each of the reference desks. My hands are a little full at the moment performing manual archives, so if someone else could set up the new template I would be grateful. Thanks. Road Wizard 00:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why is the header useful on the daily pages? It's already on the RD/Science page and on the monthly archive page, which seem to be the main ways of accessing the material of the daily pages. Although you can get to an individual daily page, it doesn't seem like normal usage would get you there. -R. S. Shaw 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• When you edit one of the daily pages, the page you are returned to is the daily page, not the main page, or the archive, without the header the only way to get back to the reference desk is to type it into the search bar, or look through your own edit history.--71.249.9.254 20:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

After working on the archiving and transcluding today, I can confirm that normal desk usage does appear to take you to the transcluded page. I have created a modified template to be used at the top of the pages in order to remove the "ask new questions link". The template can be found at {{Reference desk navigation}} (though please remember to wrap it in noinclude tags when on a transcluded page). Road Wizard 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Crypticbot blocked

Crypticbot (talk · contribs) has now been blocked as an "unlicensed bot" due to its owner having left the project. We are therefore in need of a new archiving bot. There is some talk at User talk:Cryptic of someone else taking the bot over, but whether this will be successful and how long it will take is unclear. Could anyone suggest where we would recruit a new bot, or should we wait and see if Crypticbot is resurrected under a new name? I am currently performing the bots duties at the Reference desk manually. Your comments would be most welcome. Road Wizard 00:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Bot requests, although it kinda looks like the majority of stuff there just gets ignored and archived. The top of that page suggests looking over the bots listed on Wikipedia:Bots for a suitable vehicle. Contacting the operator of a bot might be an effective approach. Most RD users probably aren't going to be concerned about this issue as long as RD archiving (or at least date rotation) is taken care of somehow (e.g. by your manual actions). -R. S. Shaw 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the information, I will see about trying to recruit a bot as soon as I have some free time. If anyone else wants to try recruiting one themselves, please go ahead and do so. Thanks. Road Wizard 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned.

Has the reference desk been abandoned, it is no longer transcluded, date ehaders are infrequently placed, and placed wrongly often (qs from 28th june under 8th july header). Whats happened. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's discussed in items above: #Crypticbot blocked and #Failure of automated archiving. -R. S. Shaw 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As we no longer have an archiving bot, all those tasks now have to be done manually. If you wish to help with the archiving, transcluding, adding date headers or recruiting a new bot, it would be greatly appreciated. Road Wizard 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New IT/computing section

I notice that computer related questions tend to be spread out among the maths, science and misc reference desks. As there are quite a lot of questions that fit into this category do you think we should have a special computer reference desk? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It says "computer science" right there in the description of the math desk, but most people seem to ignore it. It would probably be a good idea to have a separate computing desk. I kinda like the number five though... maybe we should merge the math desk and the science desk back together? Just a thought. —Keenan Pepper 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of computer related topics are not computer sicence, which can confuse some people. User:AlMac|^(talk) 02:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep in fact I rarely see computer science quesions posted. I agree that the maths desks is the appropriate place for those quesions. But questions like "how do I upgrade my memory?" or "How do I get Java to run on Linux" are not computer science and it is these type of questions that would be better off on a dedicated computing reference desk. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd favour an IT/computing ref desk. I answer some of these questions, but I'm no mathematician, so I need to have the math reference desk on my watchlist at the moment yet most of the questions are way over my head there.-gadfium 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can merge the math and science desks back together. The science desk is already a really busy desk. Six isn't such a big number is it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Six is, in fact, a perfect number. I would be in favor of a separate desk for computer-related questions. --LarryMac 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no sutable icon so I created this one. No one has really objected so unless I get any objections in the next few days I think I'm just going to go ahead and give it a try. We can always undo it if necessary. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, pretty icon! —Keenan Pepper 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to move that icon to the left of the "Miscellaneous" one - it's logical that the Misc section should be after all the more specific ones. Loganberry (Talk) 14:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. — QuantumEleven 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should include technology in there too? Like things about ipods and digital cameras? --Yanwen 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am completely for including technology in this section - Mostly electronic devices and such. It fits here more than in Science. In fact, perhaps renaming the section to "Technology" is also desirable. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of page

This is a minor issue, but I don't think the new page should be called "Reference desk/Computer". All the other desks have names that are uncountable, abstract nouns, so you can say "ask a question about humanities" or "ask a question about science". You can't say "ask a question about computer". It should be "computers" or "computing" or something like that. —Keenan Pepper 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with one questioner

I'm having problems with one anon - 60.241.116.24. So far, he's asked varieties of exactly the same question on Pantheism 14 times. Each time, I try to give him a complete, logical answer, s/he waits a day, then posts the same question again, either on the same or a different desk. Short of banning them, which seems overly harsh, I've no idea what to do with them. The fact that their questions seem to be deliberately aiming to find a crack in my answers are somehwat annoying too... a lot of them seem to go along the form (grossly simplified by analogy) of:

Q: what's 2+2?
A: four
Q: but what is it really?

Any advice, suggestions, etc? Grutness...wha? 09:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not stop answering? Or just refer them to an answer already given. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been referring to the answers previously given the last five or six times. Doesn't seem to do any good. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried placing a message on their talk page asking them to stop repeating the same question (or minor variants thereof)? If they continue bombarding us despite your request, it might be worth considering if there is a formal warning we can give them as a Reference desk troll. Road Wizard 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New Pop Culture header?

In the last little while there seems to have been an explosion in the number of questions about movies, TV, music etc (like 'how do I get the theme music to X TV show', 'What types of music are 'black etc), and I wonder if a category for these types of questions might be appropriate?--Anchoress 03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think those questions fit right in with the humanities. After all, who's to say what's "pop culture" and what's "high culture"? —Keenan Pepper 03:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to be spread between Misc and Hum. But as to what 'pop culture' is, pop short for popular makes it pretty clear I think.--Anchoress 04:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you define a subject as "popular"? The definition will vary from individual to individual. Road Wizard 06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want to give the impression I'm dead set on this category or anything; it was just a suggestion I floated. But I don't think it's actually such a big deal. For one thing, nobody's going to get their butts kicked for putting something in the wrong category - the pop culture questions are scattered all over the place already; also, we don't even need to call it 'pop culture', we could call it 'Entertainment and Media' or something else. And finally, I actually think most people have a pretty good idea of what pop culture is, it's stuff like top 40 music, current TV and movies, etc. I think maybe rather than nit-picking over this non-issue, it would be more fruitful to discuss whether or not an entertainment-specific forum is necessary. Also, aren't there currently descriptions of each forum? Why couldn't we define 'pop culture' there?--Anchoress 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't nit-picking, just pointing out a valid question, and I personally wouldn't have defined pop culture the way you have. Entertainment though is a much better description. Perhaps the solution would be if we include the words "film" and "television" in the Humanities desk's already broad description? I don't think there is enough evidence at the moment to justify a new desk, but if the Humanities desk gets swamped, we can reconsider the position later. Road Wizard 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a general observation, IMO, I don't think the Ref Desk should be split any further unless one of the desks is being swamped with questions. The reason is because most volunteers read several (if not all) ref desks, so it's not a huge deal if such questions get asked under Misc or Humanities. If the system aint broke, don't fix it. We don't need another category, so I think things should be kept as they are now, as it seems to work. — QuantumEleven 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... --hydnjo talk 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice attempt, but you forgot the troll desk.  :-) --LarryMac 19:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me chime in and say "yes, I think the RD should be kept manageably small!" Having said that, when the time comes, I think we can add whatever category seems to be most needed to syphon off questions, and if Pop Culture is one of them, we'll go with it for sure. --HappyCamper 03:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanx for all the replies, guys. I guess it isn't gonna fly now, NP. Cheers!--Anchoress 09:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New Misc icon

Is there a version of the misc. ref. desk in a format that supports transparency? The white background looks a little odd on its own! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or has the background colour on the RD templates changed? I am 99% certain that {{RD header}} had a dual grey/white background, which masked the misc icon's white background. I noticed the same with {{Reference desk navigation}} and Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer. There doesn't appeear to have been a change of code on the pages, as it is affecting the historic versions as well. Is this caused by a software change in the wiki, or am I the only one not seeing white? Road Wizard 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a white background, but maybe I'm not sure what we are talking about... --HappyCamper 03:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, as of a few days ago, the white background on some templates now appears transparent on some computers. For example the {{RD header}} used to have a dual white/grey background, but now the background appears as entirely grey on 6 of the 7 computers I have checked. This causes the stylistic problem of the header looking somewhat dull and makes the miscellaneous icon stand out because it is the only one with a white background. I have created a potential replacement in my sandbox, but I would like comments from others on how it looks on their computers before implementation. Thanks. Road Wizard 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My IE and FF browsers see your sandbox the same: white background for the subblocks separated by gray bars. The current template, though is inconsistent: on FF all background is gray except the square around the Misc icon. It's the same on IE, except all the icons have white background squares. The oddest thing is that initially on IE the curr template background was white, but that was when I had "load images" off for IE; when I turned on images and reloaded, the white background became the gray described. -R. S. Shaw 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have now added the white background sections to the RD header template. Road Wizard 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Archivals

I'm wondering...how are questions being archived these days? Manually, or still by a bot? Also, in a week or so, can we archive some of this page too? It is getting long as well. --HappyCamper 03:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Until mid-January '06 I and others were adding each day's date header and you (I think) were archiving periodically at which time a bot started doing daily date headers and daily archiving leaving seven days of each category's posts. Someone else can pick it up from there (when did the bot quit etc). --hydnjo talk 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It goes about like this I think: the bot Crypticbot was archiving for months, but there were cases where the archiving failed (mainly Science RD) because the archive page got over 1 MB, and a few other days when the bot just didn't show up for work. In late June Crypticbot was banned "for being unattended" and since then there has been no automatic archiving or date headers. -R. S. Shaw 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Be specific

For the computer ref desk it would make more sense if the 'be specific' bit also mentioned mentioning the OS. That is more important there than the country. DirkvdM 06:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Ref Desk header is common to all ref desks, so making changes would affect all. I think that, for the moment, it's not a sufficiently large problem to merit making the header even longer, plus, I doubt most people read it :) — QuantumEleven 08:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL

This could just as easliy be its own website. And a good one, too. 69.81.50.252 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. This is BY FAR the best page here on Wikipedia. It's a lot more easy going that most of the main namespace. Not to mention fun. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • I'm a hot toe picker)} 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The new computing section

Shouldn't the new computing section also include 'Technology'? A "Computing and Technology" section would be good, in my opinion instead of just calling it "Computing/IT". I realize that in the description of the Science reference desk it includes 'technology', but shouldn't that be with 'computing'? It is neat that this section exists, for a few days ago I had an idea that there should be a 'computing & technology' section in the reference desk, and now there is.--epf 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested it earlier in here, but it doesn't seem like anyone did anything about it though. --Yanwen 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that Technology fits in better with the Science desk than with the computer desk. On the computer desk, the questions are more of "how do I get my PC to do X?", while on the Science desk questions are more "how does X work?" of "why is X the way it is?". I say keep 'em as they are now. In the past, shifting topic areas from one desk to another without a clear reasoning (eg shifting computing questions to the math desk a while back, before the computer desk was created) only creates confusion. — QuantumEleven 09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with QuantumEleven.--Anchoress 22:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Extend transclusion to other desks?

We have now been transcluding the Science desk for over a month and I was wondering whether we should now roll it out to the other desks?

So far, the only problems identified have been navigation between the pages and the splitting of the page history. For the first of those, the navigation problem has since been fixed with the introduction of the {{Reference desk navigation}} template. For the second, I don't think that the splitting of the page history is much of an issue as any edits not in the transcluded page's history can be found easily in the main page's history just before transclusion took place.

Also, in response to an issue raised by NeonMerlin about the size of archive pages, [3] I have taken the liberty of reorganising the Science archive for July into an index of questions, with the answers being provided in the linked pages. This then removes the burden on computers with slow connections, while still listing a month's worth of questions in one place.

Does anyone have any objections to me rolling out these changes to the remaining desks? Or do you have any other suggestions for improvement? Thaks. Road Wizard 18:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The new monthly index of questions is excellent, as it gives a quick guide to the contents as well as solving the page size problems NeonMerlin brought up. This fixes the loss of archiving due to size as well. I'd recommend putting it on all the Ref Desks unless someone brings up a significant issue. I've commented on wording at Template talk:Reference desk navigation. Now all we need is a friendly bot... -R. S. Shaw 06:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as no one has come forward with any objections, I will begin transcluding the remaining desks tomorrow. Road Wizard 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's wonderful. :) However, I noticed the Mathematics desk is not made of transcluded pages at the moment. Is there any way people can help getting it done? --Kjoonlee 11:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Road Wizard has jumped in and converted it as of 13:35, so they've all been done now. -R. S. Shaw 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Archival

This page is getting long...I suggest that we nominate a Wikipedian to be bold and archive this page :-) --HappyCamper 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

consider yourself nominated ;-) Xcomradex 12:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)