Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 5

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 5

Saran

These rules should be the essay, which will be linked from the guidelines. Wikipedia already has an established tradition of associating essays on policies and guidelines from their pages. I hope there is no objection to it. However, for community work, consensus, collaboration, collaboration, etc., I ask you here before I make changes: is there an objection, not regarding the eligibility of the StuRat-supported rules, but to link it from the page? A.Z. 20:47, June 2, 2007 (UTC)

I objected to linking to them because I objected to the content of this rule. Perhaps you are not familiar with history yet the set of rules never enjoys any widespread support I have ever noticed, and they are much more bureaucratic than the kind of guidelines we use on Wikipedia. If I remember, they were created as fork content when the guidance discussion did not go as the author wanted. Friday (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how objections to the content are valid reasons for declining to link to it. All comments after your first sentence seem totally irrelevant to this issue. A.Z. 21:02, June 2, 2007 (UTC)

If they are written in test format, then there may be a precedent for this. However, because the page is less context or broader meaning for the general reader. If you or anyone else wants to write a well-structured and meaningful essay on the Ref Desk philosophy, then I do not think there will be much controversy. e t 21:10, June 2, 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I've been thinking like that before I read your post. I apologize because I did not make it clearer when I first made this part. A.Z. 21:13, June 2, 2007 (UTC)

No problem, come back when you have an essay and we can see what that consensus is. e t 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It may take a long time. A.Z. 21:20, June 2, 2007 (UTC)

The rules are not essays but a {{reject}} proposal. I would suggest marking them that way. & gt; R a i a n t & lt; 14:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, there was never any consensus to reject the proposal. StuRat 05:42, June 20, 2007 (UTC)

That's not an essay. That's what we discussed above, that it should be an essay. A.Z. 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• If something is not an essay, then it can not "be" the essay just by changing the tag as well. Tags are not "status", they are page descriptions, and you can not change the page by changing the description. All the talk about "promoting" "change" and "want to mark as" is misdirected. & gt; R a i a n t & lt; 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 5

Analogy

"The Wikipedia reference table attempts to provide services that are comparable to the library reference table." (proposal on Saturday morning)

I brought this part back because I still think that the analogy should not be included in the guidelines. A.Z. 03:02, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

This is already discussed; the statement has broad support as a useful analogy. Note that "proportional to" is not equal in meaning or intent as "identical to"; the sentence has implicitly acknowledged that there is a difference between the brick and mortar library reference tables and the Wikipedia Reference Table.

Whether the Desk itself or the talk page is meant to be a debating society or an unlimited trial appeal - please do not copy & amp; insert a big discussion back to reopen the completed debate. Please note, A.Z., that I do not want to start a big discussion about what I mean by "debate" - or another word - and that I will not respond further in this thread. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1) You made the wrong decision, in my opinion.

2) No debate has ever been "closed".

3) I do not think "broad support" is relevant to whether you need to archive threads or not.

4) This is the policy talk page and here is where each user talks about as many guidelines/policies they want to talk about the policy/guidelines. If I decide to stay here 24 hours a day nonstop discussing what you think is a small detail of policy/guidance with other users, the most you can do is to let me know that it's bothering you. You can not just tell me to stop.

5) This is not an appellate court because it has never been court in the first place. No one needs to be "petitioned", because there is no court decision.

6) Take it back, please. A.Z. 21:28, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to try to revive the discussion by copying the old thread here in its entirety. If you think the discussion should be reopened, make a convincing case, with an argument that not only repeats the argument you made earlier. "I still prefer my version" does not cut it as an argument, sorry. I prefer to choose, though, that you stop behaving like a a 12-yea someone who's trying to change the Reference Desk Wikipedia to the Simple Debating Club. Ã, --Lambiam ^Talk 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and I respect it. I just do not think it is a good reason to archive threads. Ten at least could explain clearly whether it's okay for me to cancel the archiving or not, and he can only tell me that he thought it was an inappropriate approach and suggested I voluntarily file it. His actions were very rough, and it was hard to believe that he did not question my intentions and my intelligence. A.Z. 22:18, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

I do not see that putting old discussions in the archive box is something that looks rough. People who want to see it can click "show" and if it does not, it will prevent screwing up the page. I do not see anything wrong by saying that we provide services that are comparable to the reference table - which seems pretty much what we're aiming for. Friday (talk) 21:12, June 11, 2007 (UTC)

Comment "Here is archived debate. Please do not modify it." makes it sound like a decision has been made and the debate is now closed. No one has the authority to close the debate here, so such an act is inappropriate unless everyone agrees. StuRat 05:35, June 20, 2007 (UTC)

If this is true there is no debate to be over. Holdouts are not up to the filibuster indefinitely. David D. (Talk) 07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the debate should not be completed for action on the subject to be taken. There is no problem with just discussing, indefinitely and without the intention to immediately change things. As far as I know, there is a lot of open debate about the guidelines, and there is no "closed" debate just because there is great support for the current state. A.Z. 18:38, July 1, 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the filibuster and bringing new ideas to the table. David D. (Speech) 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The only difference I can see is that the first has bad intentions and the second acts in good faith. A.Z. 23:19, July 2, 2007 (UTC)

src: www.vancouverarchives.ca

Purpose of Ref Table

Does anyone know what the real purpose of the Reference Desk is and how do they help Wikipedia? - MadBarker 00:54, June 27, 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Much has been written about this. See Wikipedia: Reference table/guidelines (which of course you already know) and also this old document version and I'm sure there are still Users: TenOfAllTrades/RD_thoughts. Friday (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy to see that User: Friday has found it appropriate to answer this question and I thank him for it. However, I feel that the real purpose of Rds has not been properly defined. - Previously undelivered comments added by SmellyMuffin (talk o contribs) on behalf of Mad Barker et al!

He's a man. [2] A.Z. 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can behave like an adult and discuss something civil, you can even participate in some discussion about the purpose of the ref table. If instead of acting like a crybaby, your contribution will most likely be removed. Friday (talk) 18:02, July 2, 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the recent entry here by the user of his newest socks: RectumParalyser, it will be a high order. I hope I'm wrong. David D. (Speech) 18:22, July 2, 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologize sincerely on behalf of my Partner's Users: RectumParalyser. His comments on Friday are OTT ways and he should not post them. I can only explain his actions by assuming that he is drunk. I will have strong words with him to ensure that such a nickname is only intended as a non-reproachful insult.-- OrificePlate 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read and try to understand before deleting.

Yes I know that:

• RD tries to answer questions primarily from people who do not know how (or do not want to be bothered) find their own answers.
• some editors see RD as a playground and a light source of help from the heavy encyclopedia build task.
• RD provides training for some new admins in 'vandalism' bouts.

However, no one has provided a solid explanation of how RD actually helps to build WP. Unless this question is answered, the policy can not be assigned and the RD may also be separated from WP because, by definition, RD does not serve WP purposes.

In my opinion, the amount of Admin (mostly wasted) effort that goes into the RD setting is to divert them from their proper job to help build an encyclopedia! BTW I love RD but I'm not sure they are much related to WP anymore.-- OrificePlate 13:42, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

1. Reference table created - or can help build - Wikipedia in some way. Some are listed in the link provided the previous Friday in this section.
2. Admin - like all other editors on Wikipedia, is a volunteer. We let them do any task and contribute positively to their liking. In any case, the Ref Table actually requires relatively little in the way of admin maintenance and intervention.
3. The table will require less attention if a sockpuppeteer and destroyer is very childish find something useful to do with his time rather than coming here, but it's not too distracting.
4. In general, we tend to ignore policy suggestions from vandals and trolls.

Incidentally, I have blocked OrificePlate due to recent sockpuppeting and vandalism, as well as a dishonest apology. More contributions from Mr. Lloyd will be returned on sight, and I will not feed this troll any further. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One intervention, and only one, though I doubt the person addressed to my statement, is really interested in a meaningful answer. There is a lot of work in the Humanities Desk itself which started feeding into the main section of the encyclopedia. Would not it be better to put MadBarker in the beginning? Clio the Muse 22:35, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

Friday decided to treat her like a responsible adult to see if she could respond well. I assume that on Friday expect the imposition of six months of Light currently imposed from Wikipedia may cool it enough to split meaningfully again. Given that he failed the test thoroughly, we can again ignore Mr. Lloyd with a clean conscience. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

my take

I guess it's useless to handle serious answers to threads like this, but I've thought about this question again, so here's my answer:

The purpose of the Reference Desk is (in order):

1. To upgrade the encyclopedia. They do this in two ways:
   • by finding, through people's questions, which of the articles we need to work (or not fully), and begin the process of improving/adding them; and
   • by helping Wikipedia editors with their questions, as they work on the article.
2. To help others on the Internet by answering their questions.
3. For fun showcase our knowledge, expertise, and knowledge.

Now, even if I am alone writing the guidelines, I will not need to state this goal in this way, because (as it is written) they are very easy to misinterpret. But I will explain what I mean by them, and why I enlist them like that:

First of all, my list is a mix of things and how they should be. (That is, I become descriptive and descriptive and , thus maximizing my chances to urinate everyone off.Ã, :-)).

I believe that "helping the encyclopedia" should be our first priority. There are others, and it becomes impossible to answer the question, "then what does this table do as part of the Wikipedia project?" Saying that this is a top priority does not mean it's a priority just , but it's important to include it that way so we're clear about what we're supposed to do here.

I also believe (in answer to a poll from a few months ago, go to the page) that yes, ideally, we should answer every question by quoting existing Wikipedia articles. In fact, I will go further than that: for any question, if the existing Wikipedia article does not adequately answer, so an aspiring RD interviewer is tempted to launch into a smoothly clarified explanation, the right thing to do, theoretically, is to add an explanation that is subtly written to the appropriate article, and then link it.

However, as such, I do not actually believe or hope that any Reference Desk will actually fulfill this "ideal" practice. In fact, I do not want it; a Reference Desk that does not contain excerpts of the article, without good friendly explanations tailored to a particular questioner situation, will be boring to all, and I will not be interested in participating. (True recognition: I like launching it into a fine-for-wipe explanation here on the table, an accursed Wikipedia article, and I know I'm not alone.) But I think this idea is worth keeping in mind, for ( again) clarify our thinking about what our true purpose is here, even though I have a negative expectation to achieve it. (But declaring the ultimate goal or goal that you never expect to actually meet is a very risky proposition, which is why I say I will not always say this priority in this way in the actual guidelines.)

Number two is clear. That's the obvious purpose of these tables it always seems and probably will always look like that. But (although selfishly audible), I think that helping the encyclopedia should be a higher priority than helping each individual questioner. This not , of course, means that we are not interested in helping individual questioners, that we will not always try our best to help them. But if there is a conflict between helping the project versus helping the individual asker, the project should take precedence.

Finally, number three. I'm sure I'll get scolded for putting that in there altogether. This is solely in "things like that", not "the way it should be". But I think it's just as important to acknowledge, because it explains why those who participate are really here. It's all well and good to state the high altruistic principles of altruistic for these tables, but people will not come here and contribute their time and expertise to answering questions unless they are happy to do so. So their pleasure is important. In fact, to the point that some humor and fun-loving banter, those aspects are also important. They certainly can not be rejected and should not be discouraged. But, again, they come to a lower priority: if (when) they conflict with the purpose of helping-the project-and helping the questioners, they must give the first way.

--Steve Summit (talk) 19:14, July 7, 2007 (UTC)

All right, Steve. The definitive statement, as far as I know. Clio the Muse 22:19, July 7, 2007 (UTC)

Good post. You can create a page with that content and add an essay tag, with titles like "Destination from the reference table". I think your post is much better at explaining the reference table to newcomers than, say, the current guidelines, and it's especially good that the parts of your personal opinion are labeled correctly like this: it allows people to know that they're not "forced ", the" official "view of any superior entity such as" Community ". A.Z. 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is Steve's brilliant post, but you forgot to mention flying monkeys, listening is not easy keeping a hundred monkeys flying, eating, drinking and being happy and frankly I've had enough, either monkey insert it in the guidelines or else! (empty threat!) :) Perry-mankster 11:38, July 10, 2007 (UTC)

Good post - thank you!

To speak with (3) in your list of reasons, I consider answering less reference table questions as 'showing off' and preferring to do crossword puzzles. The person doing the crossword is waiting for a new set of instructions every day. Same here - I hope to open the ref table and see what questions are there today. Many times I can not answer it - and that's where the value goes. But the motive (certainly for me) is not showing off - it improves myself. In researching (or even just thinking of) replies, I learned a lot. It forces you to go and look for facts - it makes you think. It means that we increase the breadth and depth of our knowledge - and (almost as importantly in the modern world) practicing skills with search engines.

The benefits to Wikipedia are tenuous. Most good newspaper encyclopedias have reference tables. Years ago when I bought a copy of Britannica paper, it came with about 100 small vouchers. You can copy one of them to the letter containing the question and send it to their reference table. I use most of them. The result is often a photocopy of an article they have written for others (they obviously have a 'FAQ' list) - sometimes a set of references to the encyclopedia - and sometimes, handwritten notes that give the right kind. information we provide here. A good reference table is part of the encyclopedia - and I do not think further justification for our existence is necessary. The lower benefit for Wikipedia is that I and many others here are WikiGnomes and it's common to fix small things in articles we read that we would not normally think of to read. This is how to direct the editor to improve the articles that people really need. The ref table will never lead you to read articles that do not need to be in the encyclopedia - by definition, everything we need to reference is needed to answer someone's question. This is a way to direct the editor's effort to the required articles - and that needs to be fixed.

Ultimately, Wikipedia should see this based on cost/benefit. Fees for WP are negligible. The traffic here is less than many of the other talk pages out there that produce less results. The daily storage and bandwidth costs for the ref table can be skipped compared to one photo elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Returns in terms of improving public welfare and increasing encyclopedias can be very small and still useful. SteveBaker 15:32, September 11, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Links to Wikiversity

The guide should have a link to the Wikiversity Help Desk, so people have a friendly place to debate things they can not debate here because guidelines forbid it. I forgot to link, but I've added that information to the guidelines. Rockpocket returns it. A.Z. 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have advertised this discussion on Wikiversity. A.Z. 03:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has given his opinion on this issue on this page. A.Z. 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest external links go to the section called "external links" e> t 03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ã, Done No problem for me. A.Z. 03:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

src: www.vancouverarchives.ca

Examples of "legal" legal and legal questions removed from guidelines

User: Ilmari Karonen deleted the sentence "However, the general medical and legal questions (" What treatment is used for diabetes? "," Which country recognizes the marriage of common law? ") Fine." and replaces it with "Questions that seem to require that suggestion should be deleted and replaced with a message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) pointing to these guidelines."

I am not opposed to elimination per se, although I have noticed that the difference of seeking medical advice vs. asking questions about medical science has not received much direct attention recently, but has blurred for used as a straw in the discussion as well as suggestions on how to overcome our refusal to provide medical advice. (For example: "What diseases can headache, blurred vision and tingling of the left little finger as a symptom?" Instead of "I have..... What can happen?"). Just wanted to show this here. Given the many misconceptions, different understandings, and sharp behavior in the past, we may need this distinction at some point. --- Sluzzelin talk 06:59, September 11, 2007 (UTC)

Practical examples - see [3] - is this a disguised medical advice question? Maybe. How can we know what the intent of the questioner is? My point is that we should not be expected to guess what is in the mind of the questioner. The phrase "appears to ask" is too vague. The template advocate must have a clear and unambiguous definition of "seek medical advice" solely based on on the content of the question. Until such a definition is generated, I am against the use of this template. Gandalf61 08:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the assumption of good faith will not take us anywhere here. For example, an unconscious user can also formulate a question in an abstract way, not to get around the guide, but not to personalize the question and perhaps even make it more encyclopaedic. (I have asked questions like this, even outside of medicine and law). At the same time, the user, in good faith (but dangerous, in my opinion), may intend to apply the answer to his own case. (I do that, too.) To be honest, I can not think of any assumptions or differentiators that can be run here, which does not mean no one else can do it, but applying common sense has a limit when real life disrupts the faceless world. on line. --- Sluzzelin talk 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to change, either because it was created without discussion here and because of questions like "What treatment is used for diabetes?" and "Which country recognizes the marriage of common law?" alright. If we stop providing resources or answers to such questions, Wikipedia ceases to be a useful resource for students or others who want to start their research here. And I believe that the Good Faith Assumption applies here, as well as elsewhere on Wikipedia. StuRat 21:33, September 11, 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I certainly do not intend to make substantive changes to the deletion. The subdirectory linked from that paragraph basically still contains the same definitions and examples, and I feel that, given a complete sub-page devoted to the topic, it would be better to keep the relevant paragraph on the main guide page as short and to the point as possible , leaving a more detailed aspect for the subpage. I certainly do not oppose the re-introduction of the content in question, if one feels that presenting it in the medical advice submen is not enough. (I also will not oppose the removal of much more detailed content that I introduce in the editing of the general guidelines later, but I want to stay there for a while until people have the opportunity to pay attention and become familiar with it.) --Imari Karonen (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at the subpage, I noted that this information has been slightly buried among the instructions. I am now moving it to a more prominent place there. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. There is no strong opinion where it is written well, just thought I would point out the problem of vague differences regarding what is looking for medical advice. (What constitutes giving medical advice - diagnosis, prognosis, advice for treatment - well defined, on the other). StuRat, I picked up WP: AGF because I saw someone suggest that people should have "common sense" to repeat their question in an abstract way, regardless of the real-life situation. In my opinion, this is just another example of trying game rules against their spirits, and I think this should be blocked rather than encouraged. --- Sluzzelin talk 09:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I re-example. I also took that part about removing any questions that seem to seek medical advice. There are many examples of people who treat the question as medical advice that is clearly not. If we add lines to the rules, any questions about biology will be at risk for removal. At the very least, it should be discussed and a consensus is reached before the change is made. StuRat 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed, right here. (The proposal is on the main page of the refdesk before someone decides to share all the discussions about medical advice to the sub page.) If you want to discuss the issue, I suggest it would be better done there. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that I've found the discussion, I've participated there. StuRat 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Desertification

I need to know which region or country is affected by desertification and why? $$$$$ - No previous signed comments are added by 71.208.13.33 (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion page to discuss improvements on Wikipedia: Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 5. You may be more successful if you ask your question on the Reference/Science page. Ã, --Lambiam 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Questions not answered

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but why not create a guideline for asking a question that nobody even tried to respond to, rather than archive it? - Fat Man Who Never Comes Back 16:22, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best forum; Wikipedia talk: Reference desk seems to be a better place. However, just make the guidelines do not work unless it is clear who should uphold it. Imagine, bots can detect unanswered questions will be lost from the table and do something special. However, simply returning it will probably create an undeniable collection of inquiries. I can imagine that bots market a daily list of links to answer unanswered questions in the new section of the Wikipedia talks: Reference desk. In many cases, we can not say more than: "Sorry, but no one here seems to have an answer to this question." Ã, --Rambiam 18:59, October 6, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Sentences about ON

which can satisfy doubts for me, please: who wrote: "if there is fire, and I see cats and pictures of picasso, I will take the cat, because I choose life over art." Thank you! - Unmarked comments previously added by 89.181.35.159 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion page to discuss the improvements in the Reference table/guide. You may be more successful if you ask your question on the Reference/Literary page. Ã, --Lambiam 09:59, October 22, 2007 (UTC)

src: c4.staticflickr.com

Questions about the Answering Question

Hello, I just want to know if there is a place to register if I choose to volunteer, or do I just go in and answer questions. Also, is there a user box associated with this? Yeltsinfan (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered on the Yeltsinfan talk page. - LarryMac | Speak 13:46, February 1, 2008 (UTC)

src: 4.bp.blogspot.com

OP deletes its own question

Please see here. I think the consensus has been reached (the only poster that does not mind agreeing that the OP has no questions of its own). Is there a case that should be made to add something to this effect to the guidelines? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this phenomenon is so rare that it is not worth the effort to formulate the rules. If the post was offensive, then everyone and of course the poster should be allowed to delete it, so formulating rules just as "do not delete your own posts" is not recommended. This is not just for questions but also for responses. Not deleting but editing your own posts can also be problematic, for example when it changes the interpretation of the reaction. None of this is specific to the Reference table; it also applies to many other pages like Village pump and Media copyright questions, so if the rules need to be formulated, it should be done in a more central place. I can imagine that Wikipedia: The talk page guide states that the rules are listed under Wikipedia: The talk page guide # Editing comments is declared to apply to all pages where users post comments, and not just article talks. But again, as far as I can see, this is not an urgent issue. Ã, --Lambiam 15:53, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let him go. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

{{Resolved}} tags?

Should we use the {{resolveved}} tag, as we did in the helpdesk, here? That way users can ignore questions that have received enough answers ...... Dendodge .. Talk ^Help 19:52, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you meant to post this on WT: RD?

The usability of the tag is less clear for RD. Responses to questions like "How does English perception of France evolve?" or "Will mechs be used on the battlefield?" may be satisfactory to the questioners, but that does not mean that any problem has been "resolved". My impression is that the tag is only suitable for a small number of responses. A more pressing issue is what to do with a question that does not get a satisfactory answer (maybe) at all. See the unanswered Questions above. Ã, --Lambiam 10:19, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

src: i2.wp.com

Financial Advice

Surely the questions that Financial Advice asks should be treated in the same way as questions for Medical or Legal Advice and thus are constrained simultaneously. And this should also be stated explicitly.

Athosfolk (talk) 15:31, January 8, 2009 (UTC)

I think they are already there, where information is given but there is no prediction about what someone should do with their money, unless it's something like "give it to me!" For goodness sake, we will come down to answer about the novel and weather . Scratch that. There's no weather prediction, but I admit you're thinking, Athosfolk. * sigh * Maybe we should make a disclaimer that refdesks are "just for entertainment purposes". Julia Rossi (talk) 10:09, January 9, 2009 (UTC)

Spend less than you generate. Save for retirement. Do not put your shirt on "Straight to the Knacker" at 3.30 in Towcester. All of these statements are financial advice, and very good advice for that. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, January 9, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Approach to medical advice questions

Subject of ongoing debate in WP: RD/S and in WP: RDTK - what is a request for medical advice? The obvious answer is any medical question can be interpreted as a request for medical advice. I have taken the approach that our guidelines do not provide give suggestions, regardless of question, and removing the question does not actually help the OP consider how they will grant their questions. I've already discussed it here, and in the process created a template that I think would be useful, and can be customized by law & amp; financial questions as well. I think this will be a useful guide to operate under. Here's the template:

. Matto paedia ^{Have thread} 4:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it adds much to having graphic templates, not just text "Sorry we can not answer this because it's medical advice". This special template is too big physically, in any case. Tempshill (talk) 21:23, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

TROLLING?

Ok, so I did not do it or was accused of doing it what was a troll or a trolling? Please do not say anything living under the bridge! - Unrecognized comments added by Chromagnum (talk o contribs) 10:48, April 26, 2009 (UTC)

View Troll (Internet) and meta: What is a troll? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:53, April 26, 2009 (UTC)

thanks. (Also said Not to be confused with big warted monsters suspected of living under a bridge, in caves etc.) Ã, :) Chromagnum (talk) 11:14, April 26, 2009 (UTC)

Novels and Potential Difficult Questions

Perhaps there should be an answer to the question of whether a research question can be submitted to wikipedia. "Given it allows others to publish, where I'm only interested in the answer, does it make sense to ask a question to wikipedia?" is how I phrase a question here, and it can help others in making their decision about this kind of question to get an answer in your guide. Extend (talk) 08:03, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

Relationship Suggestions

I noted an increasing number of "relationship suggestions" questions. There is now one at Miscellaneous's desk asking for advice about a girlfriend who thinks she has fathered a child. In the last few weeks we've had a shy boy who wants to meet women, and some others.

I would like to suggest that relationship questions are not the right subject for the Reference Desk, and that they should be excluded by the guidelines. My reasons for this are as follows:

1. Such questions are rarely purely factual, and more counseling than information.
2. They are often closer to chats, and invitations to discuss, rather than asking for factual information.
3. A good answer to such a question usually requires knowledge of the personal state of the questioner, which again brings the question closer to the chats than the demand for facts.
4. These questions demean the reputation of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia will not answer such information, no matter how comprehensive.
5. There is potential for malicious answers provided by inexperienced, or malicious editors.
6. There is potential for trolling questions, which ask for advice on some extreme (but fictitious) situations, with the intent of promoting arguments to mock Wikipedia.

Source of the article : Wikipedia