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.

Chicken or Egg came first

What came first? – What do Scientists think, and what do Wikipedians think?

103.230.107.23 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See Chicken or the egg for a full discussion of the issue. --Jayron32 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dinos had eggs, but there where no chickens around. So the egg was first. --JMS (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point, but then, birds are dinosaurs. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Also a good point, but then again not all birds are chickens. Since chickens have not existed as long as eggs have, that solves that problem. --Jayron32 21:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

wiki server issues?

Anybody know if there've been any problems with (or changes to) the Wikimedia servers lately? The RD archiving bot has been complaining about strange errors for the past two nights, as if edited pages are coming back empty, or something. I haven't yet dug in to figure out if they're real or spurious.—Steve Summit (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#503 errors/possible Twinkle issues [1] but a simple 503 error doesn't seem fit with what you're experiencing. Also I believe the bot still doesn't use the API? Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's very strange. No, the archiving bot does not use the API. But just now, at least, although it can edit the Science and Computing desks just fine, every attempt to submit edits to Miscellaneous results in a blank page, and no edits actually submitted. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have fixed itself. (Still not sure what the actual problem was.) Normal archiving resumes. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This bot edit on the Language desk seems to have gone wrong, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The content that was deleted in that edit is now available at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 October 20. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The first edit left several posts that should have been archived, and no date headers. This edit from last night seems to have fixed things, though. Tevildo (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

a modest proposal (with a lot to be modest about)

Sometimes a reader asks a question and we fail to provide an answer; I'd like us to do better. Let me be more precise:

• a reader: often an anonymous one, and thus for all we know making their first attempt to engage with the refdesks
• asks a reasonable question: one that is fully within our remit and which a reference library certainly ought to be able to handle
• and we fail: specifically in the sense that no answer at all is forthcoming.

The example that causes me to write this is [Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#First_US_State_Dinner The first US State Dinner]. It is not the only one.

I'll head off digressions by saying at once that no answer may be better than a wrong one, unsourced speculation to fill a void is not helpful, and there is no obligation on any of us volunteers to research any query that does not pique our interest. However, doesn't the querent deserve better than nothing? Being ignored can be a very odd feeling - exacerbated electronically.

Has anyone previously proposed something along the lines of a response template that could be manually deployed after three or four days of silence? "Thank you for your question. Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but .... [something about the limitations of volunteer editors]. You may find an answer by ... [something about reference libraries, which not everyone knows about]. Please feel free to ask another question in the future, and again, our apologies for not being able to help you this time."

Thoughts? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Splendid idea. Can't be that hard. Why not? Britmax (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You are assuming that a first-time user will be able to find the response. Where I work, we cannot access Wikipedia from our office. We must use the public computer in the library. I've shown the RD to other employees here and I know they've asked questions because they've come back to me and asked how they get the answers. I show them and they find it far too difficult and likely never try again. Therefore, I feel that the benefit from the effort will be too small to justify the effort. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I like the template idea, and I'd help revise a prototype. I'd also add that questions that do not get satisfactory references may be re-asked here at a future time. I usually recommend waiting about a week before re-asking a same or similar question. Another benefit is that we'd then be able to use instances of the template to generate a list of unanswered questions, which anyone could peruse and work on in the future. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe more to the point, to ask after it has been archived, to avoid having the same question twice in the active ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Where should we draft the wording of the proposed template, and the protocol around its use? Would it be correct to create something like Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Sorry? I'd like to know if there's anything similar, in form or function, that I can look at for inspiration. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Article about reference desks

"For over 40 years, AskNYPL has been answering people's questions by looking things up in a variety of texts, recordings and other resources. And these people are expert researchers, so they know where to look for information, which is key in providing a really good, quality answer [...] — even if the question has multiple parts, and even if you're missing some key information. That's the benefit of a human over a computer algorithm. Plus, you might learn something unexpected from talking with a researcher — and if you need some recommended reading, they've got that covered too."

Source: [ http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/years-before-Google-existed-new-york-public-library-offered-human-google ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks! I think many of us could learn quite a bit by asking some questions at a professionally staffed ref desk. This also highlights why "google it" is almost never helpful here. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As it turns out, I visited the New York Public Library during my vacation to Manhattan - and I even visited their reference desk. The New York Public Library has a unique-in-the-world archive of paper prints of historical aeronautical charts - a personal interest! - and the maps librarians were awesome. The resources I sought were exceptionally esoteric - and I can tell you, I have searched for them, far and wide, in some of the greatest digital- and brick-and-mortar- maps libraries in our nation. The New York Public Library's maps and cartography staff had to pull out multiple layers of indirection - a paper catalog index into a microfiche archive, which pointed to another paper catalog index, which pointed to an archive shelf, ... and so on... but after over an hour of their efforts, I managed to get my hands on some very unique, real historical artifacts: actual paper aeronautical navigation charts from as far back as 1924.

I'll have to do a write-up on that experience at some point.

I would like to emphatically remind our volunteers here: we have an obligation to spend our efforts at providing excellent quality encyclopedic reference service. We are trying to construct a digital archive, and at our disposal we have the greatest repository of free, free human information ever constructed. The bar is very high. Let's do right by it.

Nimur (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ref Desk Nazi" (filter 799)

A recent IP sock for Vote (X) for Change tried to revert the Nazi while reverting his posts and was stopped by that edit log. That seems to be the opposite of what that filter should do, it may need some adjusting. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for blocking the Nazi this morning. I reverted him 15 times in the space of eight minutes. It was frustrating not to be able to block him myself, but I don't have the tools to do so. --Viennese Waltz 09:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I can't immediately recall ever facepalming after reading anything you've written (not that I'm checking), I think my usual reaction seeing your name on my watchlist is "eh, should be fine", and you've got more article creations and fewer blocks than I do, so you probably should be able to get through RfA (that or my RfA was even more bizarre than I realized). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but I don't really have a burning desire to be an admin. Happy to revert trolls on sight, although this one is a little more persistent than usual. --Viennese Waltz 09:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

[VoteX's comment deleted]

So, let me get this straight: an IP (that at least one person thinks is connected to a user that that was banned over six years ago) attempts to help out with our troll problem, but is prevented from reverting a malicious troll because of a (malfunctioning?) filter.

When IP user comments here that this seems to be problem, in agreement with OP, the IP is quickly blocked? This is hilarious, but sad. Anyone care to point me to what this filter 799 is? Also I do hope all you Vote X hunters are enjoying yourselves, because if not, Vote X is certainly winning ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we're on top of it at the moment. See WP:BMB if necessary. Tevildo (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to dance when she says so, be my guest. Like I said, I do hope you enjoy it. I just pinged you over a removal that I think was not only unnecessary but also detracting from our cause. I don't care to argue about any of it at present, but if you feel the need to remove anything with a slight sense of Vote X, please consider re-instating relevant links so as not to deprive our patrons of references as a side effect of this war with a banned user. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, see WP:BMB, WP:BANREVERT, and (especially) WP:BE, and consider which of our respective actions is better supported by policy. Can we at least try and keep the personal comments off the live desks? You could have reposted VoteX's links yourself without having to express your well-documented support for her behaviour. Tevildo (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing personal there, unless me explaining that you removed text and I was restoring a link was somehow personal? I will remove your username, but in general I assume that all of our users are comfortable with taking responsibility for their actions. For the record, I wouldn't say I support Vote X's behavior in general. I'd say rather that I've seen plenty of what looked to be good-faith and reasonable responses removed because someone says they are from Vote X, and that I think hunting of trolls is often damaging to the ref desk, especially when it takes the form of removing useful content. It's nothing personal with you, and now, excepting this I hope explanatory text, I will recuse myself from further discussion for now. Have a good weekend! SemanticMantis (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

When the going gets tough, the tough "get going". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

So speaks one of the elephants in the room.213.205.253.204 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How dare you label me a Republican. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how we know Vote X is winning whatever you mean by that. Unless you're Vote X, you obviously can't know what they're trying to achieve. No offence, but I don't think your an expert on the psychology of problematic internet users. (And frankly the last supposed expert I encountered ended up getting themselves spectacularly banned from wikipedia so I'm cautious on anyone who does claim to be an expert.)

From a layperson's perspective, Vote X often doesn't behave like a classic troll (i.e. it's not clear that they're always just after a reaction or causing problems). Unlike with the Nazi i.e. former black people troll for example. If Vote X had simply behaved when they started showing up on the RD, maybe no one would have cared. But they couldn't resist harping on about their unorthodox views of time etc, making up nonsense about stuff that happened on the RD or elsewhere on wikipedia, bugging people who were somehow involved in their ban and in between they re-involve themselves in other areas where they are clearly unwelcome e.g. [2]. And they do sometimes show trollish behaviour, e.g. vandalising the RD [3]. And even if in this specific instance they were trying to revert the Nazi/black people troll, other times I've seen them supporting that troll (no ref, both are active enough with the RD toll hopping enough that it's hard to find but I'm sure I've seen it before). And let's not forget, Vote X's behaviour is bad enough that arbcom contacted the WMF about it. So ultimately you're never likely to win arguments on wikipedia claiming their posts should be preserved.

The truth at worst, there's a good chance no one is "winning" with either problem which is unfortunate but sometimes the best you can hope for. It's not like Vote X is the first editor to sometimes or often make useful contributions. There was WickWack who even more so than Vote X, very likely only had to commit to behaving properly i.e. in their case only using one identity. But even that they refused despite earlier being quite willing to invent multiple personas which they used to support each other. Behaviour which was particularly stupid since I think many of us already assumed they were the same person and just thought they couldn't decide how to sign and didn't notice those times where one persona claimed the other was correct until someone researched and pointed it out. (Although they were also reluctant to accept being wrong, which is what lead to their behaviour being noticed IIRC. I admit I'm probably also guilty of but I don't come up with Green Grass to come and say I'm right.) WickWack was sort of an inbetween problem editor since after being topic banned they did stick around for a long time, but also gave up on any real identity (well other than sometimes claimimg their weren't WickWack) and AFAIK never really replied to themselves pretending to be someone else anymore (well again, other IIRC persisting in claiming that we were wrong and the multiple identities weren't all them). That's probably why we weren't always so hardline in removing their contributions.

Likewise Bowei Huang was given many chances but still couldn't resist causing problems (including outside the RD which tended to be the big issue). Meanwhile, there's another newish RD regular who I assume I'm not the first person to notice appears to be a reincarnation of an indefed editor. This isn't the first time they've socked but they seem to have largely given up on their problematic behaviour so they've for now been allowed to edit unimpeded for now. Maybe it helps that the editor they were often in dispute with doesn't edit the RD much any more. We know the Avril troll came back and generally behaved reasonably and was left unimpeded until they got into a silly dispute over not signing and decided to burn bridges again. Although I'm fairly sure they came back afterwards and behaved again and so yes, were left alone. Heck it's possible they're still editing either with a different IP or they finally resolved their email account/mobile problems and have an account. I mean our tendency to simply leave problematic editors (and questions) alone, is something which nearly always comes up in wide discussion on the RD. So the idea we're especially harsh as some people seem to think is simply unsupported.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016

I'm unable to find a wrap speed animated wallpaper that starts from a normal motion to the wrap speed motion.

103.230.105.8 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Slavery

During the transatlantic slave trade, were women also shackled and chained during the middle passage? --Pike-Pilet (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Pike-Pilet (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

Can someone move the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#human to the Science ref desk? Obviously that question is in the wrong place.

47.138.165.200 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)