Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Awyong J. M. Salleh 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk/Miscellaneous

 * I am requesting the deletion of Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. All the questions posted there can easily fit in any of the other desks.


 * "Otto Rank's view of Death, Life" a Philosophical question which could have been better answered at Humanities Desk. Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. --Parker007 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Was not Galileo responsible for proving Copernicus' theory was correct: That the earth revolves around the sun, not the sun revolving around the earth" would have been better answered at the Science Desk. Reference_desk/Miscellaneous


 * "Background music in Nissan Sentra ad?" would have been better answered at the Entertainment Desk. Miscellaneous.


 * "So, I know that there are people in the U.S. who follow the lives of the British monarchy for whatever reason and they're called Anglophiles. So is there an equivalent word for people who follow the American scene? Amerophiles, maybe?" could have been better placed at the Language Desk. Reference_desk/Miscellaneous.


 * --Parker007 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of other questions that do not comfortably fit into the other desks, e.g.:
 * If a country is just starting to participate in an Olympics event, is it allowed to send the best team they have, even though it is substantially worse than that of the other countries?
 * Humanities Desk involves Society. --Parker007 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * where to go in order to find the value of a set of 1994 mint condition topps series 1 and 2 trading cards for baseball. cant anyone help me out?
 * Humanities Desk involves Society. --Parker007 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As a kid, living in the UK, I (and kids I'd meet from elsewhere in these fair isles) used to play a playground game called "Wembley". My question is, does this game exist elsewhere in the world and if so, what's it called?
 * Humanities Desk involves Society. --Parker007 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard Branson has said that he'll pay Hawking's way on one of the Virgin Galactic flights in '09. This got me wondering, can Hawking not afford these trips?
 * Humanities Desk involves Society. --Parker007 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you've made your point. However, by that argument Entertainment, Computing (and possibly Language) are redundant too as all are societal in origin. Rockpock  e  t  21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They could probably be squeezed into other desks, but these sort of questions benefit from a wide range of "common" knowledge that those who frequent the Miscellaneous Desk bring. Rockpock  e  t  20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose, so you mean Everything in the world that can be asked is either Science, Humanities, Language, Mathematics, Computing and Entertainment. Oh, come on. Edit: Something similar to Rockpocket's argument, why can't we just have two categories: Questions beginning with the letter A and From B to Z. That would be clearly exhaustive, but utterly useless, huh? The idea of these categories is usefulness (BTW, Entertainment is clearly under Humanities, by your argument that should be removed too), not, err... logical consistence? --Taraborn 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! --Parker007 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This place is a good place to put things that don't fit in other boards, and sometimes even ones that do. This AfD is a joke, right? --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Get Serious for once in a while! Sheesh!--Parker007 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even if the other six were exhaustive, it would be useful to have somewhere for when the questioner isn't sure of the best category Algebraist 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its the questioner's job of figuring out which catregory it should fit. --Parker007 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Why is it the questioner's job to figure out in which category it should fit? This isn't bothering anyone. We're here to help people, not to help them only if they can properly categorize their problem. This is just silly. What the heck is the point? What about questions about food, or fashion, or general health, or a whole number of topics on the murky line between your six catch-all categories? This is really just a pointless, and in fact slightly distruptive, thing to do. 70.108.199.130 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose So let's try to categorize some of these questions I saw on the miscelaneous desk. Keep in mind that even if you can place them in a category, odds are that this decision isn't absolute and we could find all sorts of people who'd disagree with you: "Television Buzzing", "radio scan frequencys (wilco) marlow, oklahoma. 73055", "Mobile Phone", "Netflix for Books?", "micro finance". 70.108.199.130 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - not everyone knows where to put their question, and there are often ones which won't fit squarely with the others on any desk, and that's what WP:RD/M is for. As I've said elsewhere (that discussion seems to have been deleted, for some reason?) - as long as a desk is getting a fair number of questions, there's no reason for it to go. On a procedural note - where did all of those other discussions (WP:VPR/WP:RD go? Found them, and restoring - deletion of discussions when the consensus is against isn't a good idea :) Mart inp23 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose (keep) - The questioner does not have a 'job'. The questioner is often unfamiliar with Wikipedia, or even with the English language. They usually try their best to conform to the guidelines we give for asking a question, and try to classify something as best they can. However, sometimes they just don't know where to put something! Some questions cover more than one category, others may apply to a category, but this is unclear to someone who doesn't know much about the category, or the topic they're asking about. The categorisation of the desks is purely because we get too many questions to put on a single desk. They are divided in such a way as to try to avoid getting too many or too few questions on any one desk, while making sure that the people who are most likely to be able to answer a question are most likely to notice it. When a question clearly would get better attention on a specific desk, people usually copy it across. However, some questions need a more cross-category view than a specific dicipline provides, which misc provides. In addition, I could make an argument for all questions fitting Science, but only having a science desk would not be a positive move. In summary, deleting this would have the advantage of freeing up a tiny amount of Wikipedia disk space and encouraging some people to try harder to categorise questions, but the disadvantage of discouraging some people (the ones who are less confident, less knowledgable, less fluent in English, less comfortable with Wikipedia, etc) from asking a question at all, and remove a place to discuss questions that don't fit neatly into a category. I feel it would be a net loss. Given the below comment, I almost wonder if someone is impersonating Parker. Skittle 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please oppose my adminship Requests_for_adminship/Parker007. :) . --Parker007 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wanted an airplane identified. Sure, it could have fit science, but not very well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It remains a very active page with regular questions and answers being given. What value is to be gained by deletion? The current set (Science/Entertainment/Humanities/Maths/Computing) are not all encompassing and it is easier for most people to see a desk they can put it in, rather than worry about putting it in te correct place. As long as there are people answering the questions posted there is no reason to delete it. ny156uk 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * '''Strong Oppose (Keep). The page is always brimming with questions, why was this AfD request even taken seriously; the page is obviously of great use, and would be sorely missed. There are no forseeable reasons to get rid of it. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not every questioner can tell which desk a given question belongs at. The Miscellaneous desk is used and useful, and more harm than good would be done by eliminating it. Per your request, I opposed your adminship at this time. Edison 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.