Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Editnotice?

Should we have an editnotice for the reference desks (maybe a very short, large and bold admonition to not include one's email address)? I think people are more likely to read that then they are to read the giant blue box at the top of the desk. --NYKevin @858, i.e. 19:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think users will read that either: it will just be one more thing to filter out, and they'll be less likely to read any of the other info either. We don't get nearly as many email address as might be expected, and we usually edit them out pretty quickly and add an explanation. There've been whole weeks when I haven't seen anyone make this mistake. I don't think this is a major problem, and I don't think this measure would reduce it. But an interesting idea: good to see people pondering. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We could include an editnotice to inform people to read the editnotices! I actually have a colleague who is very gung ho on putting signs up by the library computer terminals. As the number and complexity of the signs increased, the few people who read them decreased in number. I suggested that my colleague put a sign by each workstattion saying "Please read the signs" and had to stop her from following through. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of notices saying not to, someone will always leave their email address. I see this on every forum. I assume many of these people only have short periods of access to the internet, perhaps at internet cafes or something, so can't follow the threads they make closely. I think one solution to this would be to make it clearer that every question asked gets archived. Currently the mention of the archives says that you can search them for past questions, but I can see people thinking that's a "best of" selection, and not realize every single question ever asked is archived. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Hi

I have many questions I would like to ask which I have saved in a text file. About 20 in total. What is the daily limit on how many questions I can ask? It is difficult for me to attain frequent computer rights so I would best like to post all questions in one go if that is allowed. I fully intend to format them correctly with section titles and on the correct desk pages. Can I do that please?

Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloneForeverTogether (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The only limit is the patience of the volunteers who give answers. I suggest you post ONE question and wait a day to see if you get responses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what patience has to do with it. It's not as if answering ref desk questions is some sort of unwanted interruption to our real lives. We're all here as volunteers, because we want to be, because we like sharing our knowledge and helping others, and because we get something back from being of service. Anyone who's here for any other reason had better have a rethink. The OP appears to be completely sincere, and it's far from unknown for the same person to ask multiple questions in one go (as separate threads, of course, and if necessary on separate desks). I'd much rather they did that than ask a series of unrelated questions in the one post, with some stupid title such as "Questions". (Note: This very thread is headed "Questions", but that's perfectly OK in this case, because the question really was about the asking of questions, as opposed to where Columbus really came from, for instance.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

But if they *are* related (i.e. all on the same topic), please do put them in the same thread, so answerers don't have to rehash the same background information for each of the separate threads. -- 174.31.218.235 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the one-entry user actually comes back here, perhaps it could post the 20 Questions (ha!) right here, for evaluation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Trolling by IP

Unsurprisingly this IP admits being a troll. Several trolling threads created by this IP has already been removed. Time for sanctions? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

After [1] I gave the IP a final warning Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Because Nil Einne was terribly vague in what he was referring to on the talk page, I've left a clarifying note and directed the IP to this discussion: User_talk:82.234.207.120#Trolling. Why do you believe that this is trolling? Many of his questions have been reasonable, and have been answered in good faith. And can you clarify which threads have been removed, other than the latest one (which I would have left up. Even if it is homework, we can direct him to the right articles)? Buddy431 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't believe asking a question with the subject "not homework" and saying at the end "This is not homework" but which is worded exactly like a homework question and (key point) you include (20 points) at the end is trolling? Sorry but that's just's a ridiculous amount of AGF particularly for an IP who has already done silly business like what Saddhiyama referred to (or for that matter their posting a removed question to the talk page). (The question of course may or may not be homework, I suspect it's not, but it's clearly set up so it sounds exactly like one with the added bonus of including the pointless '20 points' to suggest it was copied from a homework assignment or similar. And no, you're not going to convince me someone who twice insisted a question wasn't homework just so happened to copy the 20 points or otherwise didn't think that perhaps there's no point including it and that it would cast doubt as to their claim it's not homework particularly when they didn't explain it in any way despite it occuring to them to twice mention the question isn't homework).

I have only removed one thread (I also removed a repost of question to this talk page after it had been removed from the RD by someone else), but Saddhiyama removed a reply where they stated they were trolling but then this was later added back by the IP (well a different IP but they said it was them) and claimed they were just joking. I was 'vague' because IMHO the trolling was so clear cut, there was no need to tell the OP what I was referring to. Also the IP has had almost no activity outside the RD so it is unlikely they will think it is something outside the RD even if they don't know which specific post of theres I was referring to (which may be possible but only because they've trolled enough they're not sure). I would add they are clearly aware of this talk page considering they've complained about the question about real life trolls above (I guess that question was removed too since they complained about it being removed but I didn't do it) and they (as I mentioned) posted a question here after it had been removed (twice in different forms I believe) from the RD I think due to BLP concerns.

I should add it wasn't my intention to discuss the OP in any way. I simply mentioned I'd given them a warning and pointed out their recent behaviour in case anyone considers blocking them (or asking for a block) in the future. (For example, if I give a warning to someone for continually BLP vios, and mention that at BLP/N there's no need to mention to the OP that there is discussion of them at BLP/N because there's not. The warning stands on its on. The mention at BLP/N is for the benefit of other editors who may encounter any future problems, and is not intended to facilitate discussion about the behaviour.)

Note that I'm not suggesting that all their questions and comments are trolling, I ultimately have no idea and it doesn't matter anyway.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for leaving me that note on my talk page directing me to this discussion!! Who knew I achieved notoriety, all of my troll juices are flowing. I especially like that you just researched my posting history in depth and celebrated me with a 600-word essay that probably took you a good half hour of research and writing. Basically, for the work I put in, I couldn't have asked for a better return :) You have been trolled, have a nice day. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

this page is being deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities_reference_desk "The purpose of this redirect is currently being discussed by the Wikipedia community. The outcome of the discussion may result in a change of this page, and possibly its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this redirect's entry on the Redirects for discussion page. Click on the link below to go to the current destination page. Please do not subst this template, as it is needed for tracking purposes; please also notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect using == "[[:]]" listed at Redirects for discussion == The redirect [2] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/{{subst: § time:Y F j|-0 days}}#]] until a consensus is reached. ." Does anyone know about this?174.88.169.182 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are actually two similar pages:

• Humanities reference desk
• Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities.
  

The former has become redundant and it has been suggested that it should be deleted. The latter is in regular use and will not be deleted. Dolphin (t) 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

For clarity the discussion is about one particular redirect. And a redirect in article space to non-article space which tends to be discouraged. There is only one humanities reference desk. There are other redirects to the humanities desk e.g. Wikipedia:RD/H which aren't likely to be deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm thanks I am glad the page will still be around. Ilike to read it. But I will need a new way to find it, apparently? Theone I had bookmarked is the one that has disappeared. Also, this one (thatis being deleted) is still top result when I google humanities reference. Also, whaty is article and non-article space? Just curious. 174.88.169.182 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Namespace 82.44.55.25 (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

When I google "humanities reference"[3] the second hit is to the redirect that is up for deletion, and the first hit is to the humanities desk proper. So I don't think we're going to lose searchability. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You should either take that one redirect away, or create some others for the other ref desk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The other desks already have similar redirects, some of which are also up for deletion: Computing reference desk, Science reference desk, Entertainment reference desk, Language reference desk, Humanities reference desk, Miscellaneous Reference Desk, Mathematics reference desk. Why the Miscellaneous redirect capitalizes "Reference Desk" and the others don't is beyond me. Did I miss any? Buddy431 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. If you type "wp:ref d" in the search box, you get 2 results: The reference desk itself, and humanities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparent advert removed

Here, I removed an apparent advert. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I pulled similar from their talk page. A second new editor is trying to help, so it seems. Standard, thanks. Franamax (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't apparent to me - it was OBVIOUS! :P Whose Your Guy (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Non question removed

Haniad66‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-question removed here. It was simply a request for participants in a survey.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good thing it was removed. I doubt that any honest responses will outweigh a quick little script that someone may have written to flood the survey with outlandish responses. -- kainaw™ 15:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that really a minor edit? I think it's a bit misleading to say that removing someone's entire post is minor. I usually reserve the m for punctuation fixes, and such. I've also gone ahead and notified the poster of this discussion. Buddy431 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a minor edit to my way of thinking, although if I recall correctly, rollbacks are automatically tagged as "minor". This was not a rollback, though, it was a manual edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Notifying users when we talk about them

Can I make a request? Can we please notify users on their talk pages when we're talking about them here? Just now, I've notified three people that we were talking about them: User talk:Wwdmc01, User talk:Haniad66, and User_talk:82.234.207.120#Trolling. In the latter two cases, Commet Tuttle and Bugs told the editor to knock it off, but neither offered even a cursory explanation of what they were referring to, or why the behavior might not be acceptable (and in the case of 82, I'm not even sure he's doing anything wrong, but that's for another thread). At WP:ANI, it's required that you notify an editor when you start a thread about them. I'm not saying we need a big orange box telling us to do so, but could we show some minimal amount of decency, and not talk about others behind their backs? Tell editors when we remove their content? Explain what they're doing wrong when we remove something? Thank you. Buddy431 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, though it depends on the situation. Notifying an obvious troll (which this one wasn't) does nothing but feed the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit silly to me that there should really be any concern that someone who's only 2 contributions are the same spam [4] [5] may not be aware we are indeed referring to those 2 spam posts, not other posts they did not make when someone tells them to stop spamming. Similarly one has to wonder whether it's really there's really any reason to make a big deal about informing someone who's only two posts are spamming first to their talk page [6] [7] (which was removed along with some other spam message posted by another account [8] to their talk page which funnily enough contained a link to the site they posted to the RD, with explanations why and links offered to inform them of policy); and then to the RD, that we're discussing their spam (although the 'discussion' primarily seems to be 'I removed this spam', 'good job'). I removed some more. Nil Einne (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you follow the thread, Franamax was seemingly referring to the spam on their talk page which he/she removed when they spoke to Haniad66, not the RD spam removal which no one really informed Haniad66 about specifically. Nil Einne (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. One final comment before I'm off for the day. I'm not saying there isn't some merit to greater notification. There may be, but at least 2 of the examples Buddy used are IMO clearly bad ones and this does matter since we need to consider how much of a problem this 'non-notification' actually is and it also doesn't help the discussion. As with BB I don't believe notification is always necessary. We aren't ANI. ANI handles complex cases where there is need for discussion (and a lot of stuff that doesn't really belong at ANI). As should be clear IMO in the Wwdmc01 and Haniad66 there isn't really any need. In fact it's the sort of thing IMO would be fine just removing without comment here. I don't know why comment was made here, it may be because the people involved feared there may be repeats so wanted to let others know. It may be due to fear of complaints even for clear cut removals (partially a legacy of the medical/legal advice removals IMO). Now if people are going to make a fuss about even such non controversial removals when the removals were even notified here simply because of non-notification then perhaps even greater notification or even nearly always notification is called for if only to prevent unnecessary and pointless debate simply because of no notification. I would note when giving most warnings like for vandalism, there is AFAIK no need to inform the poster spefically of what page is being referred to, there is an option to the template but it can go unused particularly when the warnings are given manually and unless there's some evidence the OP may not be aware of what they were warned for this doesn't AFAIK affect whether the warning is considered sufficient. And in that same line, there is no need AFAIK to notify someone you've reported them to AIV because slightly similar to IMO what we're referring to here, the warnings are sufficient, the AIV is simply to get the attention of others to help deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some good points, Nil, but also some that appear to be in contradiction of WP:Reference desk/Guidelines#When moving a posting and specifically WP:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting: "In general, you should leave a note on the Reference desk page explaining your edit and the reason behind it." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)

Agree with general sentiment expressed by Buddy431. It's only polite, clarity is always a good thing, and it will help prevent the same sort of problems that are presumably being prevented by the requirement for notification of AN discussions. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And it helps minimize civilian casualties, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to notify a user that I've removed their advert or troll or nonsense posting on the Reference Desk. They know they're doing wrong and it's a waste of my time. Mentioning the removal here on the RD talk page is sufficient. In the case of a nonsense posting, of course, we shouldn't even bother to do that. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference or Discussion Desk

Based on the question "2010 v. 1939" [9] I must point out the situation that exists: if the OP had asked something as equally unanswerable as "what if Mark Twain was still alive today, could he use a Personal computer ? , or if Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born ten years ago, would he have a hit record today? , it would have been dropped as ridiculous, but quickly bait some veteran Reference Desk contributors with an fun premise involving World War II and it turns quickly into a discussion forum. Forgive me, I have been a Reference Desk contributer for some time now, and I get enough of the opinions, lack of real references, and the catering to obvious discussion type questions as this. 10draftsdeep (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The OP on that question should maybe watch The Philadelphia Experiment I & II for a somewhat similar hypothesis. In fact, trying to compare something simple, like Mark Twain and whether he would use a PC, is a lot different from trying to speculate on what would have happened if the USA had 2010 technology in 1939. Americans had superior technology in Vietnam, and a lot of good it did for us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

While they might be unanswerable, I disagree that the questions you mention are "ridiculous". It's true that we can't give a definitive answer (as they don't even *have* a definitive answer), we can assist the questioner with background information which would inform them about the topic. For example, there were many new inventions during the time Mark Twain lived - what was his attitude toward them? Was he an early adopter, or did he stick to the traditional way? Likewise, is there any evidence on what drove Mozart? Was it fame and popularity, or was it a particular style of music? Was his child-prodigy-ness confined to specific types of music, or was he an all-rounder? Looking at the "2010 v. 1939" question, answerers have provided good information about various factors one would need to consider: production costs, maintenance requirements, differences in tactics, etc. You bemoan the lack of references, but a number of posters provided references/links for their statements. They also provided references to books and films which looked at similar questions, as well as related topics. Sure, there are some people who gave unsubstantiated assertions, but no more than we see in some other non-counter-factual questions. - And it's certainly not the *questioner's* fault if an answerer posts an unreferenced response, so I don't see why we should punish them by deleting the question.

In fact, the only disrupting thing I see about the conversation are the people whinging about how counter-factual questions "can't be answered" and "aren't appropriate". Instead of deleting counter-factual questions, I think a better solution is to realize that not all questions have cut-and-dry answers, and that informing without answering is perfectly allowable under those situations. - If you don't think it's worth your time to deal with such questions, you can just ignore them. Or if you do decide to answer, provide references as to why it's impossible to answer the question, rather than non-specific gripes ;). -- 174.24.216.113 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the "What would happen if...?" part, which is impossible to answer with certainty in historical matters. But such a question can contain the seeds of plausibility, such as facts about the various weapons' capabilities. None of that could prove that the USA would bring the war to a quick end (although the A-bomb certainly did), but at least it would give an indication of what the enemy would have been up against. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that historical "what if"-questions are speculation and not ref desk material. However there are certain borderline areas where it could be acceptable to answer them, for example in the "1939 vs 2010" question I guess it would be somewhat possible to answer the fact oriented question about "How many 1939 fighters or bombers would a 2010 airplane be equivalent to?". At least in terms of bare numbers a comparison could be made, comparing speed, firepower etc of one type of plane with another. But speculating on historical events with changed variables is just that: speculation, and in my opinion not suited for the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My point was that we don't have to answer them with certainty. I think it's entirely appropriate and acceptable to point to facts and information that have a bearing on musing about the subject, and omit any attempt at a definitive, conclusive answer. -- 174.24.216.113 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's of note that while counterfactuals are generally treated as silly by most mainstream historians, most also would agree that they can be useful for highlighting underlying assumptions. Just because you can't answer something like this with authority doesn't mean it isn't a good question or one that one cannot contemplate it without regard to solid facts. In the case of the one given, I think it's a bit too far to be useful. (If it was, "what if the French hadn't built the Maginot line?" or "what if the US hadn't used atomic bombs on Japan?", it would be more in line with the kind of questions that scholars occasionally ask.) I only offer this up as an insight into what might be considered legitimate terrain in more formal areas of inquiry, not as a suggestion for a hard line rule. I do think that things that are in the realm of purely science fiction are generally not good Reference Desk material. But I don't see any reason for whining about them or deleting them on site. I consider such threads far less disruptive to our mission and our conduct than the many people who seem to answer without the slightest consideration to whether their answers are based in anything other than the first thing that pops into their heads. Bad questions can still provoke good answers, but there is no excuse for posting bad answers to any kind of question. Ref Desker, regulate thyself. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with that. The issue with the question (as I see it) is that it isn't counterfactual history (which is tricky enough), it's completely impossible. Advanced ICBMs and modern tanks didn't just get whipped up in someone's garage, they are intricately woven into the background state of science and technology. Even more oddly, our current state of technology regarding rockets and missiles was greatly boosted by the cold war grab for rocket scientists from the defeated German state; in other words, the US couldn't have developed 2010 technology back then - at least not without the rest of the world doing the same. Matt Deres (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But saying all of the above can be a useful answer. I would personally see the question as an invitation to point out the "embeddedness" of technologies in their era, and that considering technology as just a "tool" that gets used at one time or another and can be considered interchangeably from its context. If you had ICBMs and modern tanks, you wouldn't have had World War II. And so on. The point is, there are probably no truly bad questions, even of this sort. There are better and worse answers. I suggest we concentrate more on regulating answers than questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Although the RD's stated mission involves answering factual questions, in fact we answer plenty of questions that have no single factual answer, like an aspiring fiction writer who asks something like "What are some creative ways that the killer in my story could commit a murder with ice?" Counterfactual history questions fit into this category of (permitted) questions, IMO. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading the responses here I see some really good points from all of you. I suppose there is a place for these types of questions in certain circumstances when handled properly. I would just hate to see the desk get littered with unanswerable questions that spin into long speculations and unreferenced answers. Regardless, thanks for the responses and great points. 10draftsdeep (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Counterfactual questions are sometimes legitimate topics. For example, academics have considered the questions, "Would the Holocaust have happened without Hitler?" and "Would the Great Powers have recognized the Confederacy had it won the Battle of Antietam?" (The first question was discussed on the RD.) It may be possible to answer such a question definitively -- for example, if someone discovered a document in the papers of Lord Palmerston that said, "We were planning on recognizing the Confederacy until they lost at Antietam." More likely, it's possible to make a persuasive argument one way or the other. A good RD answer to a question like that would be to give an overview of the current debate on the question and provide the arguments in favor of each side. It's worth considering that many historical questions that aren't counterfactual don't yet have a definitive answer either. For example, while there certainly is a correct answer to the question, "Did King Arthur exist?", no one really (yet) knows what it is. The best we can do is explain what most scholars on the subject believe and provide the evidence for and against. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Where's the archive bot? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. The talk page is archived by MiszaBot II, which archived two threads shortly after you posted your question. It's currently set to archive threads that have had no comments for ten days. Matt Deres (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the OP means User:Scsbot 82.44.55.25 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)