Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/all}}

My best estimate is that the Reference desk/all page is almost 1,251,263 KB long, isn't that way too big for any one page? Even considering that page is built entirely out of transclusions?--VectorPotentialTalk 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would expect that most people will tend to use and watch the sub-Desks that coincide with their areas of expertise; the /all page is a luxury for those who can afford the bandwidth. I can't quite see how we can archive the Desks any more often without damaging their functionality. Did you have something in mind? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what to do with it, we could split it off into 2 pages, but that would of course defeat the purpose of having an /all page to begin with. I suppose I'm just wondering if anyone actually uses it, or if it's just a throwback to the days when we only had 4 or 5 desks--VectorPotentialTalk 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we stopped publishing that collection address six or eight months ago for that very reason. A long and tired road... ya know!~ hydnjo talk 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I totally didn't even know it existed. Now that I do, I will definitely use it. Anchoress 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no! That's the whole point of why we removed that link from everywhere. It's such a bear to load that providing a handy link we thought would be cruel. So, don't splash it about so as to draw in an unsuspecting user for the next ten minutes of his/her life! ~ hydnjo talk 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There could be something next to the link, as in: "takes about X minutes to open". A.Z. 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
...or... takes about #days to open... ~
Or, takes about 10 secs on my dsl LOL --68.154.107.171 15:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Daily Ref Desk pages

I have an idea. Could we make each day into a separate page (for /all and the individual Ref Desks) ? This would require quite a change in the infrastructure and affect archiving, but would reduce the size of each page dramatically, if we could get it to work. StuRat 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea! So, how do we warn the casual WP editor to be aware in advance:
1: This link may take a while as it covers a large bit of ground or...
2: This link is equally evil. So, what's a guy to do, ya know... ~ hydnjo talk 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what happens with /all, since I was never aware of it till now and have no intention of using it. But for the individual ref desks, having a separate page for each day, while certainly reducing page sizes, would make prowling for recent activity a nightmare, not least because it would hugely increase the number of pages that volunteers, and readers, would have to look at. JackofOz 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't care what happens with all things that you have never been aware of till now and have no intention of using? A.Z. 02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct. If I cared about things I'm unaware of, I'd either be mad, or would quickly go mad. If I cared about all the millions of things that have come into my consciousness but which I have no intention of ever being further associated with, I could not possibly function effectively on this planet. Nor, I suspect, could anyone else. I have a large, but ultimately limited, amount of energy to spend on the things that I (a) consider worth spending energy on, and (b) choose to spend energy on. I haven't even got enough energy or time to spend on everything I'm passionate about, let alone the things I'm indifferent to. JackofOz 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a harsh planet indeed. A.Z. 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it as harshness, but practical reality. Life is about making choices, and we are all equipped to make contributions in certain areas but not in others. Do you, for example, try to answer every single question that appears on all the Ref Desks? Nobody can be involved in helping to solve all the world's problems, or even remotely try to be. I try to make a difference about the things I can influence, and leave others to be involved in other matters. This is now way off topic, but I'm happy to continue this discussion privately. JackofOz 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack, I envision each Ref Desk working much like today, but with every day transcluded, even the current day. Thus, you could still do a search using the main Science Ref Desk page, for example, while those with low bandwidth could just load the individual days one at a time. Some easy way to navigate between days should also be provided which bypasses the main Science Ref Desk (or other Ref Desk) page. Since the archive pages already have this, we could just rename those to "daily pages" or some such thing. So, essentially, my idea is to archive everything immediately and then navigate the archives. StuRat 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with that is that I often have no luck searching our archives pages, the way they're currently organised. So often, the heading (which is the only part of the question that's listed) has little or no relation to the specific bit of text I'm looking for - (or vice-versa, to be more correct). I once suggested that all archived questions should be searchable using key words from their actual texts, not just from their headers. That would be a huge task to organise, I know, and I certainly don't have the time, skills or inclination to do it. JackofOz 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand, Jack, they currently are searchable that way, as long as the days are all transcluded onto one page. Just go to that page and do a Control F and enter the search term. This ability would remain under my system. We would still keep days transcluded on the main pages as long as we currently do, the only diff would be that all of the days on the main pages would be transcluded, not just some. As for how to search the archive pages once they are no longer transcluded, I believe there is a way to do that with Google. StuRat 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise (and if "/all" were deleted), I wouldn't know how many times the word "sex" currently appears on the desks. (I also know the number for the word "society"...) A.Z. 05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Jack: it is a nonsensical suggestion, one that I oppose and will oppose in every particular. Clio the Muse 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Duh, silly me. Believe it or not, this is the first time I've ever noticed that the archive pages contain not just a list of headers but also a link to the actual questions and answers. Thanks for enlightening me, StuRat. In that case, I have no objections to your idea at all.  :) JackofOz 05:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
! A.Z. 05:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a wonderful idea, and we tried it a while back, but it founders on -- and was almost instantly reverted because of -- one teensy but significant logistical flaw: it becomes much, much harder to use article history to look back for recent changes on the desks you're interested in. Currently (for example) Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=history shows you history on just about every active topic on the Science desk, going back several days. There are archived days still transcluded onto the main pages whose history doesn't show on the main page's history, but those are for topics several days old and that have generally become mostly inactive, so it's not a big problem. But having everything transcluded starting on day one is. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder if there would be a way to have the history give the concatenated histories of the last several days (from the archives). Does this sound possible ? StuRat 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at my talk page. Friday seems to have solved the problem. A.Z. 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychology reference desk

I think there should be a psychology reference desk because people refrain from asking questions on that matter as there is no place where they fit.[citation needed] A.Z. 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and the homework questions would be interesting, too. - AMP'd 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the Miscellaneous desk a catch-all for subjects that don't fit anywhere else? JackofOz 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? Depending on the nature of the question, there's several places such questions could be asked. Requests relating to the current clinical practice and theoretical underpinnings will mostly belong on /Science, requests related to the history of psychology and to its effect on society fits will in /Humanities, and anything that doesn't fit easily into a category goes with everything else on /Miscellaneous. What makes you say that people are refraining from asking such questions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Haven't we had this debate before? - AMP'd 01:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it is familiar, indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I often wish to ask such questions, but I feel rather intimidated. I don't want to place it on Miscellaneous and not have the answers of the Humanities people and the Science people. But, if I check the link to the Science reference desk, it says: "Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, and Technology", and that sounds not-welcoming to psychology-related questions. Although there is Medicine included, I see them as very different. If I check what is written under the link to the Humanities desk, it says: "History, Politics, Literature, Religion, Philosophy, Finance, Law, Fashion, Culture, and Society". So, I get afraid that no-one will pay attention to my question and I'll get incomplete answers, wherever I place it. A.Z. 01:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
When in doubt, ask at Misc, and if you're on the wrong Desk (or at least, not the best Desk) they ought to be able to point you in the right direction. I hope you haven't been saving your psychology questions for the last two and half months waiting for someone to create a Desk for them.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So you remember. Yes, I saved a lot of them, though I forgot some. I still support this desk. I also think that people who have expertise in psychology would feel more welcome to answer questions here if there were such a desk. A.Z. 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, A.Z., it's best not to transfer whatever your motivations might be, onto others. You have your (known) reasons, they have their (unknown) reasons. Talking about your own experience is always a good policy.  :) JackofOz 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. But, in this case, though I have no way of proving it, I believe that there are other people who would ask a lot of psychology questions and answer a lot of psychology questions if there were a Psychology Reference Desk. A.Z. 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that comma of yours -right before "onto others"- in the right place? A.Z. 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I deliberately put it in there because "whatever your motivations might be" is a long object, which makes "transfer" quite distant from "onto others". Without the comma, you might have been scratching your head about what "... might be onto others" meant. Maybe it would have been better phrased as " ... it's best not to transfer onto others whatever your motivations might be". JackofOz 06:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Or "It's better not to transfer your motivations, whatever they might be, onto others." or "It's best not to transfer onto others your motivations, whatever they might be." or... I like this game :-) Skittle 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Even better. Go to the top of the class, Skittle. :) JackofOz 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what the trend is here (and I'll see you in August about this). But what do you think about this suggestion for just a small change: "There are almost no psychology questions now. But I think that´s in part because it doesn´t say "psychology" anywhere. Maybe when you add the word "psychology" as a subset of the Science Reference Desk the amount of psychology questions will increase." A.Z. 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the little change (but not the big one...) A.Z. 03:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind seeing that added to the description under Science. In fact, we should probably expand those descriptions quite a bit. I seem to recall a geography (or was it geology ?) question asked at Misc, because the OP didn't know it was a Science question. StuRat 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychology is a social, not a natural science. I care not what appears on the Science RD, because I never go there. But I have answered questions on particular psychologists in the past, and will continue to do so if these appear on the Humanities or the Misscellaneous RDS. I will resist any attempt to remove questions-and my responses-to any other desk. Clio the Muse 05:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern psychology includes aspects of social sciences (both quantitative and qualitative studies) and of natural sciences. There's no need to limit psychology questions to one desk. Just like geography questions could be asked at the science, humanities, or miscellaneous desk, depending on the question. I don't oppose A.Z.'s addition, but please keep this in mind when someone asks a question we think might not fit a particular desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, why shouldn't we include social sciences under the Science Ref Desk ? That seems like the logical place for them to me. StuRat 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just added geology and economics respectively to the Science and the Humanities desk. A.Z. 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would put economics/accounting under Math. StuRat 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I would never do that, as Economics is a human and social science. It could be either under the Humanities or the Science desk. The guy who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 is a psychologist. His article is right here: Daniel Kahneman. A.Z. 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed the order of topics for the Science and Humanities desk, hope it's ok. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are they in any particular order? I guess the most popular topics are also the firsts? A.Z. 07:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just preferred Biology, Chemistry and Physics being the first three under Science, and some thematic grouping under Humanities, but there's no strict reason for any order, and the only explicitly indisputable one I can think of would be alphabetical. Please feel free to change it back if you don't like my suggestion. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me change it, but I don't see the need. I think that the most popular topics -though defining them may be subjective- should also be the firsts.
I just realize that the article on Alphabetical order says nothing as to who decided which order it would be. A.Z. 07:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that this was the Psychology RD, no wait, I meant Philosophy. ~ hydnjo talk 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

lol :-) A.Z. 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Medical advice being given ?

Does Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Blood_Type_Possibility consitute seeking medical advice. A neutral question would be to seek clarification of ABO system, but the asking of explaining an inconsistancy in the questioner's own family seems to come under Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice. The hinted other possibility of course is that the not every one is who teh questioner thinsk they are and this needs exceptionally tactful approach to untangle from just people not knowing their true correct blood group. This really should be something for the questioner to discuss and clarify within their family or with their own doctor.... David Ruben Talk 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all questions that mention biochemistry are automatically medical questions. This is a pretty borderline question, and it's not as if they're asking for a diagnosis.--VectorPotentialTalk 01:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see why it might be hazy, but IMO this question is not a problem. Friday (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

A while back I plagued the humanities desk with questions about Tangier - specifically, and oddly, what I wanted was a list of blue-coloured objects one might find there - it was research for a story I was writing at the time, which has recently been purchased by a Harper Collins antho called You're Dreaming - not sure when it's coming out, but I promised I'd let people know when and where I sold it, esp. Clio the Muse - so thanks again everyone!

Adambrowne666 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's fantastic!! Big fat congrats. Anchoress 04:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Superb, Adam: I shall keep checking Amazon! May this be the first of many. Clio the Muse 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Anchoress and Clio - actually, self-aggrandisingly, I have had quite a few stories published - but I am chuffed, because this is a big international anthology, money, fame, action figures of me (in which case they'd be inaction figures) - anyway, thanks again...

Oooooooooh, an Adambrowne666 ACTION FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!! IwantitIwantitIwantitIwantit!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!! Anchoress 06:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I like you, Anchoress. I can't believe Adambrowne666 ACTION FIGURE is a redlink.

Smoochies. But don't get too attached to me. You might not like me when I cut all the hair off your ABAF and force it to marry my Vancouver Canucks Orca Mascot Action Figure. Anchoress 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I shall look out for this also. It will, of course, have to have one of the two qualities I absolutely demand of a man: intelligent conversation or complete silence! Clio the Muse 09:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Vancouver Canucks Orca Mascot Action Figure, the Shaved Adambrowne666 Inaction Figure is already promised to another nonspecifically gendered vinyl figure - one of Jim Woodring's, I think - not sure which one - maybe Pupshaw... And apologies to you, too, Clio - I think I've just broken both your rules...

Nonsense! I always recognise true intelligence when it comes across my path! This has to be a doll that talks with authority. Clio the Muse 10:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
So will this Shaved Adambrowne666 Inaction Figure come with accessories? SteveBaker 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it might - what I do know is that it's battery operated, has an ON button on its belly and an OFF button on its nose. Hit the ON button, the figure whirs, its arm stirs, swings up - and hits itself smackdab in the OFF button. Adambrowne666 11:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I should thank WP in general - I also recently wrote a story based on Salimbene's language deprivation experiments - would never have known about it were it not for the daily Did You Knows...Adambrowne666

Ref desk article improvement/creation invitation template(s)

Where are they? Anchoress 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration#Templates. Rockpocket 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know how I missed it; I have that page watchlisted. Anchoress 08:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome (while hoping its not going to be used to encourage the creation of Adambrowne666 ACTION FIGURE Rockpocket 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
File:Adambrowne666 ACTION FIGURE.jpg) vandalism added by: hydnjo talk 05:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Is this Ned Kelly? Clio the Muse 05:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
'tis Slash [1]. ~ hydnjo talk 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Tee hee. Well you'll be able to tell when the link turns blue. Anchoress 11:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

...tis blue. ~ hydnjo talk 05:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! - though he doesn't look shaved... Adambrowne666 06:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaved where exactly? ~ hydnjo talk 06:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
At the barbershop, most likely. Adambrowne666 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder..

If your password is something really obvious/simple/easy to guess..
..change it! For those who haven't heard, there's been a rash of account hijackings--VectorPotentialTalk 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

</public service announcement>

So, "password" is a bad "password"? ~ hydnjo talk 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost as bad as me having "V-Man" for my password. V-Man - T/C 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops! we're startin' to reconsider the wisdom of having "hydnjo" for our password just onacounta it's so damn easy to remember!  :-( ~ hydnjo talk 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On font color and the application thereof

I wonder why "<font color="puce">" turned my font color to that greenish hue? V-Man - T/C 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
<font color="puce"> produces surprisingly, a somewhat orangy text. Watch your syntax now, y'hear? ~ hydnjo talk 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Woah, I swear it was green before! Like this... V-Man - T/C 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm, I'm confused as usual, are we talking about color or about (sh... passwords?) ~ hydnjo talk 01:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There, I've added a heading for this section of our discussion. ^_^ V-Man - T/C 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_31&oldid=1053375320"