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.

Downsizing display of a jokey response

...on the Miscellaneous RD - and in this case, not my own but another User's response appearing under my good-faith one. I know we're not supposed to edit another's comments, but I waited a good half-day and got tired of seeing what I suggest is a form of abuse: of the OP, of the good-faith respondents, and of the countless lurking readers - many of whom may not have a full command of English nor the contributor's cultural matrix - who hope to glean information from the RDs. I don't consider the Miscellaneous desk a playground and think the RD rules should apply here too, one of which is to surround a purely humorous remark with a pair of "small" HTML tags. Kindly clarify this, for me as well. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No problems. Personally I would've hatted. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If you'd asked when you saw it I would've downsized it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: when I saw it (as above), I posted the matter here on the RD Talk page: the venue for clarifying participants' behavior on the Reference Desks. You're a veteran RD respondent and I had enough reason to believe that you quite deliberately left this response formatted as though it were genuine. This merits the attention of a forum of our peers, in hopes of eliciting discussion or perhaps even a consensus. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think SMW's failure to downsize his text on this occasion is mitigated by the very high likelihood that the OP was joking/trolling in the first place. (I noticed that the first respondant referred to this, and the OP failed to assert GF.) The second respondant was obviously playing along with the joke (in normal-sized text). Your own response, Deborahjay, linked to the same Facebook page that the OP had already linked in his query, so overall you seemed not to have picked up the thrust of the conversation. However, I do agree that to avoid bamboozling EFL readers and native English speakers who have problems with nuance (such as a friend I'm going to be meeting in the pub later today) we should all observe the 'smallification of humorous text convention' more strictly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right the OP is joking but the page was not provided by the OP. The signature was modified by Deborahjay here [1] I'm guessing due to an accident when composing their reply. I have returned [2] the signature to the original state [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You have indeed guessed correctly, @Nil Einne: - the intruded URL for that Facebook page was indeed a wild paste during my edit that I failed to catch, let alone realize my being responsible and taking care of the defective content. (Lately my fairly new Asus Zenbook has been unpredictably putting the insertion point wherever the I-bar appears on the screen - anyone have a remedy to suggest or is it back to Customer Service for me?) Kudos and thanks for your savvy intervention! -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, downsizing is a courtesy, not a requirement. But I'd also say that downsizing others' jokes is acceptable - strictly, it does not change the text, merely puts a wrapper around it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It is also permissible to collapse off-topic digressions, including unreferenced material and jokes. I favor the {{cot}} /{{cob}} because it does not ask for no further comments to be made. Let people joke all they want, but let's not let it interfere with providing references to our users. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A few days?

I noticed the page description includes: We'll answer here within a few days -- c'mon, "a few minutes" would be closer ... "a few hours" at the most. -- 2606:a000:4c0c:e200:c03a:9d20:31ef:82f7 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)‎

Or sometimes never, if the question is too obscure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't want to raise expectations too high. Some questioners get impatient if they don't get an answer within 24 hours. As BB says, the response time depends on the question, and to some extent on how busy the regulars are. On topics where I have little knowledge or interest, I often wait a day for someone better qualified to reply before I start doing any research. Dbfirs 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The point of the rule is that people should not expect private replies. Questions asked publicly are answered publicly. The time frame in which this is done varies widely, from almost immediately, to a day or two, to never. Saying "We'll answer here within a few days" is a promise that an answer will always be provided - but that's not a promise we can or should be making.

Maybe we could say instead, "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Maybe the "few days" bit was also meant to convey that there is a point when the question will be archived and no more answers forthcoming. That might also be explained with something like "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here, so make sure you come back to check the replies before the question gets archived within X days" (don't understand the current archiving pattern well enough to know what to put in there for 'X'. And I trust someone else could phrase this more convincingly, if people even want that info there). Anyway, I think Jack's suggestion is clearer than the current text. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the change. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection-template spacing

At the top of each ref-desk is some logic that adds the visible protection tag automatically whenever the page is protected:

{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=no}}}}

followed by a blank line with the comment "Please do not delete the following blank line, the protection template interferes with the TOC otherwise". Indeed, when protection is on and there is no blank line, the prot box overlaps the "skip to bottom" (upper right) part of the Wikipedia:Reference desk/header boxes. But when protection is off, that blank line leaves whitespace at the top of the page. I can't figure out a way to get the blank line to be part of the #ifeq block:( I assume the browser can't cope with the header using:

position:relative; top:-30px; zoom:1

to move the right part of the headers further up than expected. Not sure a cleaner solution yet. Maybe the right part of the headers should be re-designed not to have a dangling-up item? DMacks (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is the prot template not part of the Wikipedia:Reference desk/header code? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Good question! Wouldn't affect this situation, but would certainly centralize the code (and eventual changes to it). DMacks (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Did it. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Joke etiquette

Would anybody support a guideline that says the first response to a question should not be a joke? I understand many people feel the need to attempt humor here, and it is not against the rules. Can we at least agree to not have "jokes" be top priority? I feel that joking before anyone can attempt to give references makes us look unprofessional, and diminishes our credibility. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that jokes should be reserved until the question has been answered. Unless the joke is like, really amazingly funny. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have seen questions that deserve a joke answer as the first response. Also all too often questions asked violate the guidelines noted at the top of each ref desk as well as the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. The problem is what are you asking to be done to those who respond with a joke. If you want a block that is going to be a non-starter. Remember that the ref desks goals are different from those of the rest of the encyclopedia MarnetteD|Talk 00:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Might those questions not just deserve being ignored or removed instead? From my experience with SemanticMantis I doubt he is asking for sanctions against editors who respond with a joke before anyone has addressed the question. I read it more as a reminder. Something that has been raised here before. When asking in a library, I enjoy receiving a joking comment from the librarian most when it comes with the answer or service I'm looking for. I don't think the rest of the encyclopedia's goals include landing a good punch line either. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like people to stick to answering the question to begin with as well. There are lots of reminders on the ref desks. What good are they when they are so often ignored. For example, I and others have removed inappropriate questions in the past. Others have restored them. As you say the question has been raised before. In my nearly twelve years here I have yet to see things change on the ref desk. I could find at least a dozen current threads that violate at least one of the bullet points at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not and a dozen more that are not going to lead to any article improvement. My apologies for how negative you will find this. By all means discuss making things more civil and more power to you. I just don't want the frustrations for any of you to build when things don't change. MarnetteD|Talk 01:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: I propose no actions to be taken against any editor, I only seek loose consensus for including a new sentence in our guidelines. Something along the lines of "The first response to a question should not be a joke, and such responses may be removed or collapsed." In general, I'd also encourage us to start following our guidelines that suggest Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions.[4].

In case anyone missed it, the joke that prompted my inquiry was a HILARIOUS joke about CHILD ABUSE, and it's still there on the science page [5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not any more.[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That kind of joke is like shooting fish in a barrel - never mind that nothing was ever proven. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• As a point of fact, our guidelines already ask us to refrain from joking, period. I have added some words [7]. The text now reads

“ Please don't start adding jokes just for the sake of it, and don't let humor get in the way of providing a useful answer. If you must make jokes, please wait until after references have been provided. ”

And fair warning, I will now remove, without comment, any joke-as-first response that I see, as well as any joke that relates to abuse, sexism, racism, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I support that. Matt Deres (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I often remove jokes I see without comment, regardless of whether or not they are the first response or are racist or sexist. --Viennese Waltz 08:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection message twice

At the top of WP:RDH there are two boxes regarding how the page is semi-protected. I looked at the page source, but I couldn't determine why the box is showing twice. Can someone explain why it like that and how to fix it? RudolfRed (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's because this edit was made (see above} without also making this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick history link

Although I have found how to access the archives, I fail to see a quick link to the immediately-previous one (once there, they link eachother for convenience). I'm not sure if this is a bug, or intentional. I personally believe that such a link at the top would be very useful, but I understand that it probably cannot be a static link, and may need to automatically be updated by the archiving bot if there is no dynamic template for this... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)