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.

New RD front page

I don't recall seeing any discussion regarding the redesign of our landing page. It's... not attractive. While I have no issue with a redesign in general, I think it would be best to go back to the old one until this has been refined. Mingmingla (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is two threads above: "Wikipedia Library Redesign?" ---Sluzzelin talk 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The redesign does not reflect a consensus of any sort, and that is speaking as someone who backed the change, albeit with modifications that I regard as extremely important. IBE (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mingmingla. We should revert to the old design until a consensus is reached. As Mingmingla so tactfully put it, the new design is less than attractive. There is too much white space in the top part (e.g. there are two vertical inches of blank-ness in the upper right above the image) and the fonts are too big. The "Wikipedia Reference Desk" box is fine, but I have to scroll down to see all of it, which is less than optimal...it should be the focus of the landing page. Minimizing the empty white space above it would solve that problem.

Also the three headings below that box ("For information on any topic, choose a category for your question", "For help specific to the operation of Wikipedia:" and "For Wikipedia reference information:") don't "pop" enough. The size/font seems fine but perhaps they should be in a different color font or centered over the respective boxes below them.

Thirdly, the majority of the "discussion(...)two threads above" didn't even concern the redesign.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the old version while I play with suggestions at User:Ocaasi/RD. Feel free to make tweaks there. If we agree it's an improvement at some point, cool, if not the old design works just fine. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I had also meant to say thanks for the effort. It's easy to point out what's wrong but nothing would get done unless somebody actually gets bold. So, thanks!--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, good approach to put the idea under our noses then revert awaiting discussion. I agree at least with the foregrounding of the name "library", but not with anything that takes up lots of screen space. IBE (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep when approaching the desk in the library I don't expect to walk down rows of lines being shown irrelevant pretty pictures and stuff about disputes. I expect to just go up to the desk. They asked for the reference desk, they don't need to be told they're in the library or see a picture of people in a library. If somebody wants to invent a game where you simulate a library building and one has to open the doors and walk up to the desk and we have a simulation of a librarian talking back fine, but I'd prefer to just give the links and a quick description of where they lead to. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but I really like the idea of emphasising the "library" bit in some way. One way might be adding to the text where it says "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk." I would follow this with "It is part of the Wikipedia Library" and of course make that link to the library. The library stuff is at the bottom of the page at the moment, and as a result, I never even knew the library existed. It is a natural thing to draw attention to for anyone looking to answer questions, and I'm hoping to gradually make a habit of checking it out. IBE (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you do in redesigning the front page, can you please put the links to the actual desks at the very very very top of the fold, made big and clear? When we switched to icons, the whole point was that we stripped the page back and made it easy to find where to go. The page has since acquired a lot of cruft, some of it through other's editing the help header. Most people who find their way here for the first time are not looking for more endless writing about procedure and other areas of Wikipedia: they have clicked and clicked trying to find somewhere to actually ask their question. We should make it easy to see the actual light at the end of the tunnel: all that wall of text around the links is really just for us old farts who don't need it. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. When I go to the front screen, I see 3/4 of a page of yakkity-yak, and just the start of the icons. That situation could stand improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is another proposed change up there now [1]. Personally I think the words "Reference Desk" are much too big, are in an ugly font and should not be in gold. --Viennese Waltz 15:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely overkill. And the huge gold letters partially overlay the next line, at least on my PC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto to last point. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with VW, as per my own thread below. As stated, I strongly support some clear mention of the Wikipedia library bit, but this I feel should consist of links in standard blue. I'm thankful that the library has been brought to my attention, but I want the links to the ref desk pages to be as close to the top as possible. IBE (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

New banner

What do others think of the new look by Ocaasi? I don't agree with the new header. As stated above, I want the library bit foregrounded only. What we have now is just a big banner that takes up space. I like the owl logo on the far right, but I don't agree with the big banner. I still think we should emphasise the library bit, but this has not been done anyway. The "library" bit simply needs to be stated somewhere, and linked in several places, in ordinary blue text. We should emphasise its presence, and support it where possible, but I see no need for banners at the top. It just means extra scrolling, which for people like me who use the arrow keys, is annoying. IBE (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I reopened the discussion on this subject yesterday, seven threads above this one. It would be good if discussion could be kept to a single thread rather than having multiple threads on the same topic. --Viennese Waltz 07:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey folks, just to be clear, I have no intention to claim this page or dictate its design. If you want to update or adapt what I put down, go for it. This recent version was a modification of an older (and even less successful Wikipedia Library design), but I'm still open to suggestions, or just removal. It's your page. Perhaps we can let a few more folks weigh in and go from there. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your actions are all clearly reasonable, so there's no problem there. I'm waiting for a few more people to comment, but be aware that they often don't bother because they edit WP in their downtime, which may not allow much time for anything other than content pages. I get into these talk pages myself only when there is a lull in my outside life, as there is now. IBE (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's ugly. Get rid of it. And move the actual ref desk links up high enough that the editor doesn't have to scroll down to get to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Donning my ex-Editor's hat, I agree with Bugs that it should go. It takes up space unnecessarily, textually it repeats something already present just above, and the typeface and logo are both stylistically at odds with the graphic design of the site in general and the page in particular. It's a bit like sticking a classically designed portico on the front of a steel-and-glass office block - nothing wrong with either, but a bad combination. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The owl, or whatever it's supposed to be, is freaky-looking and should also be removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Using an iphone, the splash icons with the links to the desks are now three screens down the page. Please, can we just rip everything else out, or stick it below the splash icons? 86.146.28.105 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Disgust (Latin: bad taste), and what are we doing here?

I protest the blatant insensitivity embedded in the reply and edit summary of User:InedibleHulk to a query, WP:RD/H#Pink Dollar generated in the United States. If it's acceptable in the RD community that a WP editor makes remarks about "boobs," "udders" and "cash cows" (no scare quotes in the original) in reference to fundraising efforts for researching a cure for breast cancer, then my censure is going right there in the discourse and not (only) politely noted on this page where I suspect it wouldn't be read as widely as the remarks to which I object - not only personally but in the name of humanistic discourse in a voluntary online community to which many of us contribute and countless more read. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll plead guilty on the "udderly" crack in the edit summary. That was mainly an afterthought, since I'd seen I'd typed the words "boobs" and "cows" together. Just a margin note.

I used "cash cow" in its normal sense initially, hadn't meant to imply women (in general or Susan G. Komen herself) are cows. Just that this practice is very good for business. And for eventually curing cancer. But we were talking about money. And I was referencing the scam, not the entire cause.

Sorry for any disgust. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

My point is about the use of vulgar language on a topic many people would find sensitive. There's arguably something unacceptable with littering or urinating in public view, but both are actions people evidently take (not things that happen). Each of us is responsible for our language, a form of behavior. That's one reason what we do here is called "editing" in Wikipedia. "Humanities" includes the human, humane, and humanistic. I'm disappointed by the low level of discourse here sometimes, and there's reason to believe I'm not alone. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a shame, Deborah, that you have brought this here, rather than dealing with Hulk on his talk page. That simply invites others to comment, so I believe my comments here are appropriate. Further, I have considered them before posting. I'm sorry if you consider the matter resolved, so I hope I am not reopening something, but the post seems to invite a reply from an observer. I know you as an erudite, accomplished person, who contributes only from the overflow of her cup, not the dregs. However, I cannot see your point, and I think you have escalated beyond what is reasonable in the first instance. It may be that you read "cash cows" in an offensive way, and the other things were interpreted in this light, so you let it escalate, when it was really rather mild. That would be awkward, and would explain a lot. But I do agree with Hulk, that he can only tiptoe so carefully, and all his comments were very PG. There is also no apparent skirmishing in his contributions, nor have I seen this at any other time from him. He writes in good faith. I might have just let it go, as others seem to have done, but it seems reasonable to say something since you brought it to this page, and deliberately called it to our attention. I am sorry if it should so turn out that you have changed your mind (I have suffered the same thing, where people deal with something that is already over), but I cannot read minds, so I am responding to the comment. IBE (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems an appropriate post for here. For one, it helps OP and Hulk see how the rest of the community feels about it. Also, it allows Hulk to apologize in a way that lets everyone know, not just one person. For myself, I see Hulk as sometimes getting a bit carried away with opaque references and humor, but to my eye this does not usually cause much disruption. Deborahjay didn't call him a bad-faith troll, she asked him to be a bit more tactful in his wording. A civil chastisement and apology seems like what has happened here, and that's just fine by me. As long as we are civil here, there's no reason why an issue like this can't be discussed as a community. My belief is that as we start to think of each other as members of our community, and not strangers on the internet, we might be able to get along better. I agree with Deborahjay that we could all do with a reminder to be a little more human and humanistic in our posts. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Another thought: sometimes (as here, it seems) it's the piping of links that can sometimes go wrong when we use it as a way to make commentary or jokes. I usually link the whole ugly think, just so people know exactly where I'm sending them, e.g recently I posted Race_(human_classification)#Modern_debate. So, perhaps link transparency might help avoid misunderstandings... SemanticMantis (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the Reference Desk should remember it's supposed to be a Reference Desk, not a chat board. That would avoid this kind of unpleasantness that's been going on for a year or more. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely a habitual meanderer off the path. Not totally trying to justify it (for me or anyone), but a bit of discussion often rings bells and opens new avenues of thought, and these can help later editors link something useful they'd have otherwise forgotten or not considered finding. I won't link examples here, but only because they're abundant. Picking one or two would be WP:UNDUE. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

OP explains: I posted here to elicit responses and appreciate all the input provided. My remarks were about wording, not content (as I'm an inclusionist), to understand what's regarded as acceptable here. As such I don't consider any topic taboo per se so long as it's Ref Desk material. It emerges that my online writing guidelines - my own and evidently what I prefer in others' - are more stringent than the degree of looseness practiced by some RD editors' contributions. Background: these past three decades (half my life), during which I've written much for the Web professionally and personally, I've been living in a multilingual, multicultural environment in one of the world's most contended and contentious countries. My spoken English is native AE, but I try to write ELF when attempting to deliver the goods. And yeah, I'm an unreconstructed feminist (B.A. English literature, UCLA 1976) so there are some buzzwords that pop my fuses. As a wannabe humanist, I shall try to adjust my antennae without erecting any filters. Thanks again to you all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If it helps keep the signal clear, I'm a bit of a misanthrope, but I take that word to include women. And every subdivision you can name. In a nutshell, every person I meet starts at a baseline 2/5 on my caring meter. Getting to 3 just takes a basic decency, and everyone here's shown that. It's a lot harder to drop to 1 than go to 4, but not as hard as getting to 5.

In light of that, I'm still likely going to be "opaque", as the appropriately named Mantis put it. So just know that if you have to think about whether I said something or not, that something isn't to do with anything under the group hate umbrella. When I do make a blanket statement about a subculture, I try to be at least rather transparent (3/5), if not right straightforward. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

In your first paragraph I read "...[everyone] here..." as being this page, contributing WP editors who patrol the RefDesks. So your second paragraph aroused my concern for the OPs (the querents), their being likely to read your response as utterly straightforward, as-is, black on white. In phrasing the content & style of your response, to what extent are you writing for the OP and lurkers? for your peers here? for yourself? -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

New OPs would be 2/5. If they ask their questions without a chip on their shoulder (almost all do), they get promoted to 3/5 level respect (that is, none, but no disrespect either). Of course, "respect" is a subjective term, and we're all going to occasionally ruffle some feathers (not implying the querents are chickens). But even an OP (or regular) who deserves rudeness is only going to get it mildly from me. Intentionally, anyway.

Whether a response is more for me, the OP or another reader depends on the particular question/reply. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Nobody deserves rudeness. Descending to a poor standard of behaviour in response to someone else's poor standard of behaviour is never justified. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Before we met, I was a plucky optimistic young man, ready to save the world. Then I came here for help, and you convinced me I was a risk-averse underachiever. Then Medeis hatted me. And here we are. It was basically this, but if I were Jack and Jack were Batman.

All good, though. Just reminded me. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:30, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

In a recent question a disabled OP in Bangladesh India submitted a question posed both objectively "Do Girls Do Not Like Unfit Guys" and personally "Will no good looking girl date me and marry me." Both quotations are sic erat scriptum with the OP's imperfect English and lack of punctuation such as a "?" sign evident. Responses by regulars ranged from the genuinely helpful one(s), to an admin posting solely to attack a poster in vulgar terms, and to a stunningly gross obscenity. I twice tried to put a "hat" around the infection, considering that hatting should not be done by anyone involved in a discussion and that the form of hat I chose was a calm green one with no request to stop discussion. The hats were cancelled by Dismas insisting in edit summary: "My answer was helpful, it was taking a statistical look at the question." and again by Stephan Schulz: "While not a sterling example of interaction, there is useful info in the thread". On this page, User Snow further expressed dislike of any hatting, presumably disallowing even this gentle form of containment of expletive language. I make no more comment on the particular "stunning obscenity" that occurred because the subject has been exposed on this page and because the responsible poster commendably voiced later a kind of apology for the reception the OP received, as well as finally giving the OP a genuinely useful reference to support groups for their disability. (A more intelligent response than marshalling and defending the social Darwinist world view that a eugenicist would apply to the OP's disability.)

Deborahjay's protest, like my attempted hatting, focuses on what we are doing here for each OP. Vulgarity is an issue on the Ref Desks, and inevitable for complaint on this page, when a long-term admin feels free to post language (not excluding the Foulest word) more offensive than most of us would ever find acceptable or necessary. Since there are posters convinced that Freedom of speech has been hard won just to liberate their own profanity, we have to bow to WP:F***. Deborahjay's standpoint, well explained, is that of a sensitive feminist. Her question from the outset uses a specific term "Pink" in the context of sexual politics; one needs the explanatory link she gave to Pink money because the word "pink" has changing meanings, sometimes perjorative, as you will know if you saw Audrey Hepburn in the movie Funny Face or remember Joe's little list of pinkos.

I support Deborahjay's admonishment about vulgarities posted on the Ref Desks. However she must accept the risk involved in employing a hot political term there, and it should not surprise that InedibleHulk reacts after just 30 minutes (that's knee-jerk time in encyclopedia work) with a post formulated like "Whenever I hear "pink..... I think of....(proceeds to describe a gender-related scam allegation unrelated to the question)." InedibleHulk's humor based around boobs, cows, udders, etc. is indeed cheap but I disagree with Deborahjay that it is hurtfully vulgar. When she touts "the widespread and often deadly and disfiguring diseases that are breast cancer, striking so many women and irreparably harming them and their loved ones." I hear only provocative opportunistic rhetoric. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The OP you referring to only posted once AFAIK and they never gave any location information. The only location information we have is the IP WHOIS and geolocation details which both before and now suggest the IP is from India not Bangladesh. In any case, I remain unconvinced that an unrepentant sockpuppeter who is currently indef blocked under multiple different accounts and is therefore defacto banned should be admonishing anyone or hatting stuff, particularly when said sockpuppeter still seems to be up to the nonsense that got them blocked in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The closest I can locate the OP is by their IP 117.194.249.78. This is assigned to Bangalore by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) which is India's oldest and largest communication service provider based at Kolkata. Following your note, I have

• corrected the location that I posted. Apologies for any offence that error may have caused.
• corrected this nonsense about Bangladesh telecoms. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Front page edit

Smallish edit of front page of ref desk for simplicity, diff here: [2]. Thanks, IBE (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Further diff for another edit, including one by Jack which I endorse. [3] IBE (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Seven (7) Day Archiving

Can we switch to (a minium) seven-instead of five-day archiving on all desks? I know for a fact that certain users of ours can only get access weekly at cafes. Seems rather odd to archive their questions before they can se the answers. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, though not super strongly. Threads are effectively exhausted anyway after a few days, so they would only be reading, not posting. Still, that seems like a good thing in itself. IBE (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Threads used to be kept visible for up to a week through the transclusion process. Why was that approach abandoned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_105#archiving_changes_imminent. I see you may not have been around then, although you are present on what was probably the same page a couple of weeks later. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I somehow failed to notice that. The thing is, though, I'm pretty sure transclusion was done as a creative alternative to having a week's worth online. It was thought that the page would load faster and you could still get to see a week's worth. Now that the transclusion approach has been trashed, we're back to needing to go the full week online - and some are already getting worried about having too much on the page! Can't have it both ways, y'all! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to clarify that I do have in mind a specific long-time user who can only access the internet weekly at this point. I am sure that must aplly to lots of potential users. An "archived at the end of the eighth day policy would help in that case. Also, I don't think any of the current five-day archival threads are causing paper shortages at this point. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If there is a good-faith fellow-editor interested in using our assistance and eager to learn (and I think I know whom Medeis meant) to whom an eight day period would be of significant service, then I'd suggest we implement it, unless the greater sizes hamper the desks' usability for other editors, of course. That wouldn't be the case for me, and I'm not very high-tech, but I am ignorant about how it might affect other people interested in using the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile device users might have a problem, although it should not be huge. My China Mobile internet is about as sucky as it gets sometimes (slow and cranky), although I usually use a PC. The mobile is usually only for Google translate. If you used it for WP, it might get very annoying, esp if the mobile site wasn't suitable for some reason. IBE (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile devices (and people on slow connections) are my concern as well. The science desk is usually the outlier; it tends to have longer response and also is more likely to have graphics inserted into it (there are currently three); it's not app-breaking, but a 60% increase in size is probably going to create performance issues for some people. I don't doubt that we have users that can only access us once a week, but I also don't doubt that we have users with slow connections and/or metered downloads. Are there any suggestions for how we can cater to both groups? I've long been partial to total transclusion as is done at places like WP:FPC; we could keep the translcuded days small for dial-up users while less frequent visitors could always visit the transcluded subpage to get their follow-up. It's an awfully large-scale change, though. Matt Deres (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to keep the titles up on the "live" page, but not the actual answers. Then at least they can quickly click on the topics. Something would have to alert a casual user like me that I'm going to load a page from the archives if I click a topic from the "live" page, but that shouldn't be hard. It's quicker than looking up the archives for a list of questions, and it's really speed and convenience that we are talking about here. As a side note, I suggested a while back that we should do a single page that contains all the question headings for all the ref desks, so clicking the topic on this "central" page would take you to that page. In the case of an archived question (eg. 7 days old), it would just take you to the archives. This might help a lot of people as well, in terms of convenience. IBE (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The big problem for my friend, about whom Sluzzelin's presumption is most likely correct (but whom we should not even attempt identify for various valid reasons, including policy ones) is an inability to check for answers or followup questions more frequently than once a week whether with my help or alone. I somewhat understand the phone concern. But don't such users have actual computer access at home, work, or school? I have never sent a text myself, so it is hard for me to see how serious a problem mobile internet telephony really is. 02:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

10% of Americans only have broadband access on their phones. That's just Americans. The use of smartphones is taking off in other countries with lower standards of living where people don't have home PCs. I'd pull up those figures too but I'm on my iPad right now and it's not as easy to do the typing and pasting and such. (First world problem) Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally really don't know how to address or even look at this. I learned BASIC when I was 12, typeset the college newspaper with Pagemaker on a MAC, had a beeper, spent ten years directly programming people's switch-to-domicile phone service using legacy Bell systems, typeset prestigious magazines on 40 year-old powerhoses, and now in semi-retirement use wikicode fairly well, but feel entirely ignorant of the underlying issues. I am fairly certain I have clarified the position of the user whom I think we should accommodate. I hope people more experienced than I can make a rational decision. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Would going back to the transclusion process fix this problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you go back to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_105#archiving_changes_imminent and look at the tables you'll see that, no, it would not.

It's been a very long time since any of the desks kept a week's worth of history (transcluded or otherwise). At peak volume, the popular desks would be difficult to use at that size. Today, with volume dropping off, it might be workable.

I hope I don't sound too insensitive, though, when I suggest that before making such a change, I'd really like to hear from the editor who actually needs it. We've got a systen that's evolved over many years to meet the complicated, often contradictory needs of thousands of people, and I'd be reluctant to make a significant change to it just because of what one person claims one other (unnamed) person would like. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all insensitive, I also assume many have guessed, but there are very good personal and policy reasons not to out this user. If anyone has any concern they can email me, and I have emailed Steve. As I have tried to emphasize, this is a matter I think we should consider, especially given he declining volume in the 5 day threads. And I realize there may be technical reasons why it would be a bitch to do. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are technical or other concerns about doing this, and if the user does have access to the internet every week, they could also check the archived questions and feel free to re-post the thread, or start a new one, linking back, for follow-ups. As long as it's clear it's no one exploiting our willingness to assume good faith (little ponies and stage fencers come to mind, but this isn't about them) I don't think anyone will mind (and our most ardent censor is already on the side of said user with limited access anyway :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason for stopping transclusion seems to be that some editors found it confusing when they thought they were editing the live page and were actually editing the archive. That confused me too - once. It's not a problem. You should go back to the old way and that should resolve the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's consider the Humanities desk. Before transclusion was abandoned in January, the Humanities desk kept 5.5 days of history, on average. Since that change, the Humanities desk keeps 5.5 days of history, on average. As I understand it, Medeis is requesting that all desks keep 7+ days of history. So how does reinstating transclusion address the issue? (Yes, it would be perfectly straightforward to increase the history period to 7 or 8 or more days, but it would be equally straightforward to do so with or without transclusion. Am I missing something?) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is claimed that too many days visible causes the screen to load too slowly on hand-helds. Is that also true if the data is transcluded? If so, that shoots my theory. How about this alternative? Provide visible links to recent archives. That should fix the page-loading problem and also make it easy to get to recent archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion does not affect the load time when viewing. (I'm sure of this for conventional browsers, and mostly sure for mobile.) Transclusion mostly affects the load time when editing. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The user does not necessarily have internet access, let's say, every Saturday. They can go to a cafe, or use, on occasion, a third party to contact me via email for free, and only email. Not internet access. If a question is relayed to me and posted on Saturday the 1st, and a request for clarification is posted in the thread on Thursday the sixth, and relayed by me to the third party email and received by and responded to (not always so quickly possible) on Saturday the 8th, we've got Sunday the 9th as the sole day for users to respond to the clarified question, assuming these questions will be archived on the end of that day. The user is looking at three options: brief free email access to me no more frequently than once a week, email access to me at almost 6 hrs wages per MB, or 1 hour of censored internet access at 9 days wages per hour. I think it is reasonable to make this user's access easier if it is not an actual huge problem for other users, something again upon which it is impossible for me to comment. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to increase the archive time to 7 days. Especially since the question volume is going down slightly.

However, I would also like to suggest that if it's costing someone two-weeks' salary to ask the Ref Desk a question, they're probably not going to get their money's worth. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Banned user

[4] is a banned user right? Geolocates to Perth, signs with a name just before the IP sig, and [5] looks very familiar. I think the procedure is to just delete the comments and leave an edit summary explaining why, but I can't remember if that is correct. I also don't remember the user's previous name to put it in the summary. Katie R (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Some people believed Floda, Keit, and Wickwack to be the same person, and needed to be banned. I personally felt that that user or users caused less problems here than many account-holding editors with long residence. The Perthians will usually provide solid references if asked, and seldom say anything that is patently false (again, unlike some others here.) So I'm inclined to ignore the ban, unless a specific response is disruptive. Search the archives on the talk page for previous discussions here if you'd like more of the background. See also the 84... IP that some people think represents a person that has been banned in the past. Again, I don't care, as long as they play nice. I personally come here to share references, to learn, and to teach. As long as respondents aren't actively interfering with my ability to do so, I don't care about what they did in the past. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I was around during all that, I just couldn't remember the details, and like you I don't care enough to delete it in most cases. The diff I linked is one of the more problematic ones because of the attitude towards Steve, and is what made me recognize the OP. That sort of attitude rather than friendly corrections gets people into defensive mode and can throw off conversations, but Steve doesn't seem like the sort of contributor to get sucked into that anyways. Katie R (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The general (possibly unofficial, these days?) policy is that if you can tell from the edits that it's a banned user, you can feel free to unsummarily undo any and all edits they make, without even identifying who they are (just say they're a banned user, in your summary: if they push back, you can identify them to an admin). But, if they're not causing any trouble, and don't explicitly identify themselves, you can also choose to let it go, and hope they quietly rehabilitate themselves. So you can absolutely remove any of their edits that you don't like, for whatever reason, no questions asked. I think we'd all support you in that. And you can also quietly leave them be, and not alert the more tendentious editors to their presence. It's entirely up to you. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)