Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

[edit]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134

RD Guidelines 1 2 3 4 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

In the past couple of days they've rolled out a new look for talk pages (which include the reference desks, of course). As usual with these things, it was pushed out without much announcement or fanfare. I had to dig around a bit to find the most recent discussion, which is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Discussion Tools usability improvements becoming default. Personally I don't like it much, although I can see why some people might prefer it. You can disable it at Preferences → Editing → untick "Show discussion activity" if you wish. --Viennese Waltz 07:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip! I also don't much care for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Im posting here becaus I want the people who answer questions to not attack the people who ask questions for their alleged mistakes.Rich (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any examples in mind? --Viennese Waltz 13:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe like allegedly becaus he can't spell opurtunistically? He griped at the user Greglocock about something, though exactly what could require further reading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it has to do with this exchange. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Reference desk/talk header transcludes {{Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/edit}} since Special:Diff/200013182, but figuring out what exactly happened, and why can be tricky because of the history merge (mentioned in Special:Diff/350752614). The wikitext of Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/edit is

<p style="text-align: right;"><nowiki>[</nowiki>{{Plainlinks|URL={{fullurl:Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header|action=edit}}|NAME=edit}}<nowiki>]</nowiki></p>

This wikitext is transcluded at the top of this page through the page Wikipedia:Reference desk/talk header. The wikitext generates an "[edit]" link just above the right corner of the banner which is produced by {{Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/general}}. This link leads to editing of the page Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header, i.e. it is similar to Special:Edit/Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header.

Page Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header has little to do with what the banner at the top of this talk page is about. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header is an obscure talk page and a poorly functioning talk page. It had instances of vandalism that went unnoticed for years (see one, two, three). It contains four sections with unanswered questions about the header (from Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) till "Choose" or "Select"?). I, myself, while implementing a refactoring of the header and its constituent parts in 2022, didn't even realize there was a talk page, and only posted on this talk page about the consequences of this refactoring (one, two).

I propose to do the following:

1. Archive every section of Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header with a corresponding banner {{moved from|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header]]}} to the archives of this page.
   • We can dump everything to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 134 (the latest archive subpage at the time of writing), or find a more chronologically appropriate subpage for each section.
2. Redirect Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header to this talk page to centralize discussion, similar to what I have just done with Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/talk headerWikipedia talk:Reference desk/talk header (cf. Template:Centralized talk page).
3. Remove the transclusion {{Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/edit}} from Wikipedia:Reference desk/talk header.
4. Delete the page Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/edit as no longer necessary.

What do you think? —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The redirect Wikipedia:ANSWER has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 29 § Wikipedia:ANSWER until a consensus is reached. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

If we're going to do that (I've done some, @Baseball Bugs has done some, I assume a few others have too at some point), we're going to be left with not much RefDesk. I was surprised to see the recent uptick in questions, and suspicious when they all seemed to be from one or two accounts, but now that they're blocked, maybe we can review our options a bit. IF we're going to roll up those sections to "deny" the block evader the attention, why not just delete those sections altogether? Or, if we're not going to delete that stuff, should we bother hatting it? As I say, I've done it from time to time, but it feels like a half-measure. Matt Deres (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are other editors who have outright deleted. The rule of thumb seems to be that if the question was unanswered, it's fair game for deletion. Maybe we could establish some more rigorous guidelines here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

In the "rules" section of each desk, we say we may remove questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice, but we don't talk about removing questions in any other circumstance. We also say we don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate, but we don't go as far as say we'll remove such questions.

Hatting is nowhere mentioned, and it's a moot point whether the hatting we do is tantamount to removal, or in fact has the opposite effect of ensuring many eyes that would not otherwise have bothered will now click the link out of sheer curiosity and see the offending question.

Maybe it's time to tighen up and clarify the rules and our practice. We should:

• spell out that we WILL (not just MAY) remove questions in specified circumstances (including trolling, and otherwise acceptable questions from banned users);
• and then implement our policy (or carry out our threats, if you prefer).
• abandon the practice of hatting. It has no useful effect, and the result is inimical to our intentions. It's often done under the rubric of WP:DENY, but we're certainly not denying the OP any publicity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with what you're saying. The trick will be to convince those who answered a banned or blocked user's questions and think that their own contributions shouldn't be deleted. That's what fueled the business of "hatting", as I recall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

More often than not, good faith replies are given to banned users' questions by people who are unaware that the offending user is banned. I have no problem with deleting such good faith replies, although it's polite to leave a note explaining the action on the user's talk page. If a good-faith reply is deleted, it's not the fault of the person doing the deleting – it's the fault of the banned user, who should not have posted the question in the first place.

Another problem is that it's not always easy to identify a banned user, especially in these days of temporary accounts. I used to be able to recognise VXFC's posts on sight due to his easily recognisable posting style, but he's gone quiet lately and I can't identify the posting style of any of the current crop of banned users. --Viennese Waltz 06:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of dropping a note to replying users. Maybe worded in such a way as to not give too much recognition to the banned user. Something like, "FYI: Your note on [ref desk] was deleted along with the original post by a banner user." Not mentioning the banned user by name. If the victimized user is uncertain which post, it will likely still be in that ref desk's history unless it's been rev-del'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favour of all parts of Jack's proposal. As far as letting the respondents know their contributions got caught in the crossfire, I'd suggest putting mentions in the edit summary so they get pinged. I'd also stress that this is a nicety, not a requirement; the latest block evader posted a bunch of questions and cleaning out their problematic edits should not be more of a chore than it needs to be. Matt Deres (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd say leave it up to those who are keeping track of the socks to use their best judgement: delete in whole or in part or hat. Don't worry about any of my replies in threads and thanks for doing this work. fiveby(zero) 13:37, 15 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Seconded! -- Avocado (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Leave it for someone else to do" is not exactly the ethic that built this encyclopedia. Matt Deres (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I read that as "trust their judgement", not "leave the work to them".

That said, I do tend to leave certain work to those who are better informed about the topic or work, and I disagree that there's anything wrong with that. For instance, I'll let someone else copyedit the articles about anime or individually catalogued proteins. The former make my eyes glaze over, and I'd probably make an utter hash of the latter. I don't have access to check new sources added to articles about physics, nor the expertise to evaluate them even if I did -- despite enjoying reading the articles at a pop sci level. I just have neither the desire to learn nor the time and energy to keep up with the information in any of those types of articles.

Similarly, I know nothing about individual LTAs and don't have access to checkuser. I'm not familiar enough with the criteria we use to decide a ref desk post is inappropriate; and it's not clear to me where I would even report it -- or even where I would find out where to report it or what to do about it besides reporting. (Yes, our policies and procedures can be opaque, byzantine, and extremely difficult to locate.) Some people enjoy acting as law enforcement; others find it's not in their nature.

On the other hand, when time allows I derive great satisfaction from hours spent browsing backlogs of hundreds of articles that need attention and cleaning them up -- work that others find stultifying. I hate performing merges, but in one month where I ended up proposing a few, I met another editor who finds performing them very rewarding. We don't all have to do the same work.

This is a volunteer project, and and there's nothing wrong with us each contributing in whatever way we individually find satisfying and a good use of our free time. -- Avocado (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

No indeed, but what was being proposed is how we decide to respond to questions from blocked/banned users. You don't need expertise for that - an expert has already blocked them. Saying that those experts should also be the ones to decide how the RefDesk responds is the nit that I'm picking. Who better than we to decide how it should go? If you *don't* want to take part in that, of course you don't have to, but I would rather "us" (as inclusively as possible) decide; it's not specialist knowledge. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think we each read @Fiveby's comment a little differently. My take is that it's okay to handle situationally. Sometimes someone will post something that's sufficiently disruptive that it should be removed immediately with prejudice; sometimes someone will post a request for medical advice and we just have to shut down discussion by hatting it. Either action can be valid, depending on circumstances. I assume there are cases that fall in between those extremes, and that the folks who are closing those discussions have good enough judgement to assess each case on its merits. And I personally don't care one way or another if that means that sometimes my comments get deleted because I didn't know the originator was evading a block or whatever -- protecting the encyclopedia comes first. -- Avocado (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think you're right. FWIW, my response was a bit more pointed than it needed to be as well. Quips don't exactly aid in communication! Matt Deres (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, all's well that ends well, or so I hear. Thank you for your work cleaning all this up! -- Avocado (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply