Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 9

/Archive 1

Email

• several ppl come here, left their question together with their email and they wait from us to send them the answer in their mailbox. I would prefer if they could come back in RD after some hours or days and check for the answer by themselves. Do you think we should write something at the top of RD like "It would be better not to give ur email and come back after a few hours or days to check for answers" ? Optim 17:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• • Lots of the questions with email addresses are from very naive users. I don't think that would work for them. We should suggest it as a better thing to do, but expect to bear with the email thing. On the other hand, if you are answering someone's question who did this, it's probably best to answer on the page and add to your remark the fact that you are emailing as well. -- Jmabel 00:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zap moving pages

Since Zap's been moving things around, Reference desk has been moved to Ask Wikipedians... I don't really mind the new name all that much, but we should be all going through consensus decisions first, so you can express views on a possible move to a new name here. Dysprosia 11:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the current name just fine. I think it adds a touch of class. Plus most people arriving here with a question won't know what a "Wikipedian" is, or why we're worthy of being asked. Reference desk is good. Jwrosenzweig 18:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Old Q&A

I hadn't seen the above talk, thought that the policy was to archive removed questions & answers, and created Wikipedia:Reference Desk archive January 2004-2. But since it is felt that a deletion log is enough, I've created an entry in Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive about the last major deletion. All deletions could be similarly logged in that page instead of archiving all the questions & answers. -- Paddu 19:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMHO a message must be added to the page asking those who are removing old questions & answers to note it in the deletion log at Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive (probably it could be moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk_deletion_log, or a separate page created for the log). -- Paddu 20:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone has again archived some questions & answers at Wikipedia:Reference Desk archive March 2004. IMHO we should have a single policy to be followed while cleaning old stuff from the Reference desk. Either archive all deletions (of old stuff), or note the deletions in a Changelog, or do nothing about any such deletions. As of now each deletion has been treated differently. -- Paddu 12:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'Post a question' link

I made the 'Post a question' link more prominent at the top of the page, as it was previously easy to skip past it. I think it's slightly more usable this way, but it's easy to change back if anyone disagrees. Chopchopwhitey 03:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Appropriateness of new questions going to the bottom

Do you think it's appropriate for new questions to go to the bottom when actually they need more visibility?

-- Sundar 05:48, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it needs to be consistent is the most important thing. You can easily scroll to the bottom to find new questions, and general convention is that discussions get added to the bottom of pages. This makes sense, given that English is generally read left-to-right top-to-bottom (i.e. it feels natural for time to progress as you go down the page), and it's even enshrined in the software, in that there is a feature for appending a new section to the page. It also avoids defining where the "top" is (i.e. where the intro ends and the questions should begin), since there is nothing beyond the bottom of the page (well, there's a footer, but you can't interact with that).

So in short: yes. - IMSoP 15:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

In short, Thanks. ;) -- Sundar 12:18, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Guardian story about finding information with Google.

The Guardian has a story comparing Google's speed of retrieving information against other, more traditional, research methods. I thought it'd be fun to see how Wikipedia compared. (Please note was absent in the following)

1. List the titles of all the books written by Piers Morgan, editor of the Daily Mirror
   • This information was absent.
2. Where and when did Margaret Thatcher say: "There's no such thing as society"?
   • This information was absent, though I thought Wikiquote would be a more reasonable place to expect to find it (also absent) (I put it in the wikipedia article Mark Richards).
3. Who is the vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on back care?
   • This search came up blank. The answer is Janet Dean. Again, the information was absent.
4. What proportion of the Slovenian railway system is electrified?
   • Transportation in Slovenia
5. What did Sophie and Edward Wessex do on Tuesday?
   • Wikipedia isn't an appointments diary, so it isn't reasonable to expect to find this information.
6. What was unusual about the British gold medal victory in the 400m in the 1908 Olympics in London?
   • 1908 Summer Olympics

Jim Regan 21:57, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, you can't have it all. Interesting conversation piece, though. -- Itai 11:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought so. That's why I posted it instead of just adding the missing information :) -- Jim Regan 19:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Ack, I hate inline replies :-P I added a note to the Margaret Thatcher article referring to the wikiquote page--the full quote (and therefore context) of the quote is given there. This quote was often taken out of context (though arguably more apropriate in that form). -- Jim Regan 19:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Seems odd that neither WP nor WikiQuote lists her St. Francis of Assisi quote on the 10 Downing Street doorstep in 1979... anyone have the full citation? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Is that the where there was hope, may we bring massive unemployment? I think it was slightly different to that, but is that the one you mean? ;o) --bodnotbod 20:12, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

You got it almost exactly right: "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope." Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The quote is "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope." [1] I've added it to Wikiquote, as well as the version attributed to St. Francis.

As for mass unemployment, well "We back the workers, not the shirkers" :) (Drat, drat and double drat! Need to find a source for that now!)

And I'm not updating this for another edit conflict! -- Jim Regan 20:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

"Add a new question by clicking here"

At the top of the Reference desk page, there's a link that says Add a new question by clicking here. Clicking that makes the entire page editable instead of inserting a new section at the bottom of the page. RickK 23:50, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

It was changed (for the worse, unfortunately) just now: [2] --Menchi 00:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This has been fixed. --Diberri | Talk 06:14, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

"Please check back?"

I'm wondering if there should be an instruction to people who post questions like "Please check back here for answers in the next couple days" or something. I just happened to notice one question where someone left an e-mail address, and I'm worried he didn't realize that he should check back here for an answer. —siroχo 15:26, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

One line non-questions

Several people have asked why we appear to get quite a few, one liner, title only, none questions on the Reference desk. My guess is that it must imply there is something less than perfect with the instructions at the head of the Reference desk, or on the question editing page. I imagine most of the questions come from users who have never editted on Wikipedia before. If you click on the 'Add a new question by clicking here' link, you go to a standard page editing box. Not only can you no longer see the instructions on the Reference desk page, the form labeling is confusing.

I don't know whether it would be feasible to change the wording just for editing the reference desk. If it were I would suggest

• Title -> 'Adding a new question'
• Subject/headline -> 'Give your question a short title here'
• Above the main text box -> 'Ask your question here. When you are finnished click the show preview button, and if you are happy with how your question looks, click the submit question button'
• Save page button -> 'Submit question'
• At the bottom -> any other instructions ... you can use wiki markup like [[link]].... etc.

-- Solipsist 17:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the labeling is completely opaque. I might skip instructions about "show preview" to make it really simple, e.g., "Ask your question here; click Submit Question when you are done." However, it looks like many of these headings are of the form that people would use when doing a site search, so it might behoove us to make it clear that this is not an automated search but rather a question for actual people to respond to. e.g., "Ask your question here. This is not a search; it is a question that actual people will read and respond to. Click Submit Question when you are done." Elf | Talk 19:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been making light of the way questions are submitted and it seems that people are assuming they can only ask the question in the title bit and they may be assuming the larger edit box is for people's answers ;o) So, it would be nice if some more guidance could be given --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 16:16, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Time for cleanup

The TOC is now one page long :(. 'd do it myself, but it's like 1 AM here...and I'm off to bed. 'll do it tomorrow if nobody has yet. like not using the word 'I' :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 06:02, 16 Aug 2004

It's better than VfD! Seriously, though, all the entries on the page are less than a month old. Turnaround time seems to be up to three weeks in some cases. What should the policy be? Should questions be removed two weeks after the last reply? --Eequor 12:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Instruction bloat

The current count is one italicised section at the top; nine bulleted guidelines for questioners; three for responders; and four more pointers to other places. There's a lot of bold text about. These guidelines, on the other hand, are not being followed - presumably because people aren't reading them. For example, there have been lots of unclear subject-only questions, some all-caps, and from the lack of followups I imagine that plenty of questioners are expecting emailed replies.

I think that the instructions need to be rewritten and shortened to make them easier for people to follow. My suggestion is to replace the bulleted lists with "How to ask a question" and "How to answer a question", featuring example screenshots (say one each, showing filled-in edit boxes). Stuff like the child-safe warning can be split off into a different section, as it applies to everyone. I think that having example edit boxes to look at will help people understand what the process actually is.

Quick sketch: (not a fully-formed proposal)

How to ask a question

(Image of the perfect question being composed.)

[Follow this link to ask a question.] Write your question in the large box, and give it a brief, descriptive title. When you press "Save page" the question will appear at the bottom of this page. Other readers will try to answer it by adding to this page - you will not receive replies by email.

How to answer a question

(Image of the perfect answer to the perfect question.)

If you can help answer a question, select the "edit" link to the right of the question title. Add your answer to the text already there, and press "Save page" to make your reply appear.

Useful tips

• You can sign your posts by writing ~~~~ in the edit box, but you need to [get an account] if you want to appear as a name, not a number.
• Please link to any relevant Wikipedia articles. You can do this by putting [[ and ]] around the article title in your message.
• Remember that readers of all ages visit this page.

Comments welcome, as always. --AlexG 21:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Three cheers! m:Instruction creep is a terrible thing, and this page's instructions definitely need a haircut. Let's use Template talk:RD header to work on the new slim-and-trim version? • Benc • 21:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This discussion continues at Template_talk:RD header. AlexG 19:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hee. The complaint used to be that there weren't enough instructions, or that they were unclear somehow. It's only been one month since I created Template:RD header! The instructions aren't creeping, really; nobody's touched them in weeks, and I have nothing more to add to them.

Should the last two guidelines for questioners be removed? Users seem to mostly ignore the request against all-caps, and the other may just be wishful thinking. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 00:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Native American

And please don't use politically offensive terms like Native Americans--- it implies a couple hundred million of us native Americans aren't. Thanks. Alteripse 23:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think it's cool to bash someone about using "Native American", especially when we have the Wikipedia article Native American. For me, it's a little annoying when everyone reads political messages into terms; so much so that half the time I've no idea how to label something (particularly ethnic groups) in an acceptable way. — Matt 23:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Native Americans" is generally viewed as the "poltically correct" term in the U.S., so one can hardly blame anyone for using it, whether it is entirely fair or not. I don't like the implications, either, but we all know what is meant. But my comment to this query was simply that the mere fact that we don't say "Indian-style" anymore (at least not in the U.S.) surely indicates that, at least in popular opinion, it is associated with "Indians" from America rather than "Indians" from India (since we don't have any particular reason not to use the latter). Incidentally, some school teachers are now saying "pretzel-style", which I find rather cute. ;) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It isn't the first semantic atrocity committed under the banner of political correctness. "Native American" in that sense is at least as literally inaccurate and politically offensive as any other term used historically. The inescapable implication of the term is that 200+ million other native Americans are immigrants. It is a racist term with racist implications, and is used exactly as the Nazis referred to Jews whose ancestors had lived in Germany for generations. It certainly isn't one of the top 10 political problems we face these days, and I don't intend to spend time on an edit war at the article but I'm trying to raise a little consciousness here. Especially those of you who are native Americans should recognize what this term implies even if our article uses it and it takes a generation to get rid of it. Alteripse 00:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just don't think it's fair to throw this particular soapbox at an anonymous user who, as far as we know, may have looked up the Wikipedia article in order to determine which term to use here. Assume good faith extends beyond the editing of articles. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Fair enough, I no more intended offense than the inquirer did-- my annoyance was more directed to the usage than the user. Sorry to any offended. Alteripse 00:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alteripse, I'm curious: what term would you use to describe the people that the rest of us call Native Americans? I use that term because I'm not interested in perpetuating Christopher Columbus's sophomoric mistake of calling the indigenous people of this continent "Indians", especially since I personally know a number of people from the India. There are no racist overtones in my speech and writings when I use the term, and I certainly don't use it as some sort of politically correct euphemism. I fail to see what alternatives one would use in place of those two terms, unless referring to specific tribes. --Ardonik.talk() 02:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

But... surely anyone who is not a descendant of Native Americans must be an immigrant or descended from immigrants? Every person living in America must be one of these, and they are mutually exclusive. Caucasians are not native to any region outside of Europe. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 02:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All evidence suggests the human race had a single origin in Africa. Much evidence suggests several waves of immigration from Asia to America occurred between 15-30 000 years ago. There are bits of evidence that there were more episodes of immigration from other continents before 1492; maybe not. At any rate, all of us born in America are dscended from immigrants. How many generations does it take to qualify as a native? Your taking it for granted that ethnicity is the same as being native is what has been used to justify ethnic cleansing and worse atrocities in Europe. No matter how many generations of ancestry in the country, the "____" should not be considered "native ____" and they don't really belong here. Nasty, isn't it? Alteripse 06:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Non sequitur. The majority of people are not insane and do not participate in ethnic cleansing. Equating people with Nazis because they do not share your views of ethnicity is not a productive argument. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 10:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The term "Native American" has a 2 century history of being used to discriminate against immigrants of other ethnic groups. The groups change, but not the label, and not the ignorance and bigotry behind it. It is both inaccurate and racist to use the term Native American in a way that excludes the majority of native American citizens.

Native American in modern usage refers to the (large) group of people who cannot reasonably be said to be descended from immigrants. While the term may have had an unfortunate history of misuse by non-native groups, it is rarely seen today to connote any division between people of European descent. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 10:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as alternative terms, both First Nation and Amerind have less inaccurate baggage. Although the latter obviously derives from "American Indian" it is a new word without the ambiguity and has no history of misuse. I am open to other suggestions, but most of us should not metaphorically "exile" ourselves by allowing one group to claim "Native Americanness." If words don't mean what they say as long as everyone recognizes them, what was the problem with American Indian? Obviously what they mean is important to lots of us. Alteripse 06:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both First Nation and Amerind are quite inaccurate. The first of these implies that these people had a single, unified culture and even some form of pan-American government. It is thought there have been up to four migrations across the Bering Land Bridge; to which of these groups should First Nation apply? How might one distinguish between descendants of each of the first four nations?

Indian as applied to native Americans is a continuation of a tenacious 500-year-old error from a time when Europeans believed India to be east of China. Using American to clarify which group is meant does not correct this error. Amerind further suggests that there is some meaningful genetic connection between native Indians and native Americans.

The most accurate usage would be to refer to the native tribes individually, there being little connection between them. However, when referring to a nonspecific group of people native to the Americas at the time when Europeans began colonizing the region, it is unambiguous to refer to native Americans.

By considering the indigenous people to be native Americans and myself non-native, I am not exiling myself, but rather acknowledging that my ancestors have not lived in North America for thousands of years. I might consider myself a native Scandinavian or a California native. Regardless, I remain a native United States citizen.

As a final note, I would consider citizenship and nationality to be far more relevant to genocide and hostility toward immigrants than any notion of nativeness. Nationalism is a disease nearly as destructive as religion. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 10:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I didn't make up either of those other terms, so do not feel need to defend them. If I recall correctly, First Nation was devised by people belonging to that ethnic group. It certainly can be construed as claiming temporal priority, to which I have no objection. The term has political unifying implications much as European does, so most people feel a need for a term, but lots of us feel that Native American has all the drawbacks of American Indian. As far as your comment about citizenship and nationality being more important than perception of "nativeness" to ethnic strife, you are flat wrong: the Balkan wars, the German persecutions, the mess in the Caucasus, rebellion in South Tyrolia, the Basques, all involve people with the same nationality and citizenship. It is the "nativeness" that is used as the excuse for either independence or for expulsion and persecution. I suspect I've pissed you off enough that you won't agree the sky is blue, but I haven't offered you a single fact you can disprove. But feel free to keep your opinions. We can agree to disagree. Alteripse 16:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)