Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask

A bit of discussion
The #wikipedia-desk channel has, in my honest opinion, been successful in the past few weeks helping with enquiries. There have been plenty of people happy with the service it has provided. I therefore believe that we should extend this positive service to as many people as we can help and add it to the header, similar to the help desk. Per WP:CCC I will be bold and add this if there are no objections given in the next day or so here. GDonato (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly consensus can change, but in this case nothing has changed that would make that a good idea. The objections listed in the archive are as valid now as they were a couple months ago. I guess the bottom line is that we already have a reference desk on Wikipedia and we shouldn't be sending people off Wikipedia, IRC is just a collection of chat rooms without any official connection to Wikipedia. wikipedia-desk isn't Wikipedia etc...RxS 22:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * People should be able to see the full options available to them and just because IRC isn't Wikipedia doesn't mean Wikipedia can't link to it. GDonato (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they should have a range of appropriate options and IRC isn't one of them. Like I said, nothing has changed in the last couple months that would make it a good idea, we covered all these issues recently. RxS 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One very important thing has changed, the channel has been proven to work successfully. Countless queries have been answered, and I can't think of one person has recieved a response that is inaccurate or one they are unhappy with. GDonato (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no way to evaluate that claim because there's no oversight. But in any case, the objections went further then just the effectiveness of the channel. RxS 05:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do what you want in your chat room, but please do not advertise it here. The Wikipedia reference desk is the Wikipedia reference desk, not the IRC reference desk. Friday (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Friday, the only thing I'd like to say to that is that this has only ever been intended as a supplement not a replacement (see above and archives). If it clear that the community as a whole does not want this I will drop it. GDonato (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. However upon reading the old discussions again, it seems clear to me that this "supplement" does more harm than good- it fragments the reference desks, and provides little advantage to offset this disadvantage.  It's a lot like suggesting we make Reference_desk/Science/2 to supplement the current Science desk.  Calling it a supplement implies enhancement- I see no enhancement here, only fragmentation.  Friday (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's different to that becuase it is a different medium of communication (and better in some cases thus a supplement/enhancement) - nobody has to use it, I would still expect the vast majority of people to use the wiki - it just gives people another option, especially good if they are looking for a quicker answer than the wiki, the successes so far have been feedback, for example, someone was asking the name of a film they saw, it took a few attempts to get the right one, feedback on the answers like that is much, much harder on-wiki. Imagine that question on-wiki, would the questioner have got the answer they wanted? Perhaps not. Real-time communication has its advantages. Finally, there is a link back to the wiki ref. desk in the topic and often in answers so the seem freedom of choice is gien back if they feel the users answering questions on-wiki would be more helpful. GDonato (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting it right is more important than getting it fast. But, I suspect we're just repeating the old discussion- I don't think either one of us has said anything new.  Friday (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The important new thing I was wanting to say was that this channel has now been proven to work very well in certain situations and I do not believe that answers have been any less accurate than at WP:RD. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And we have nothing but your word for it, due to the inherent disadvantages of the medium. As pointed out above, there were objections to this that did not relate to effectiveness.  Friday (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can come and look if you want! :) GDonato (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, and it's not that I doubt it. You say it works well in there; I believe you.  I still just see it as balkanization, which I don't think is a good thing.  Friday (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How does linking the off-wiki channel help the project? ---Sluzzelin talk  08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it's a good idea. Friday what is this "inherent disadvantage" to IRC? That it's not logged so that we can go back and scrutinize everything someone says? I feel a lot more comfortable in an IRC medium than in a WT medium- the person asks and I have a conversation with the person about it rather than waiting for hours for them to reply and update the section. This does have a less "academic" feel but who cares? They can get their answers faster and topics can be better explored. The channel is on freenode along with WP:IRC, which is advertised across wikipedia as a support medium for the project. This isn't some ref desk fansite, it's an important part of the wikipedia community that's already being used. --⁪frotht 18:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The disadvantages of the medium have been discussed here and there, but briefly: IRC provides no way for me to review recent questions and try to answer them. It provides no way for me to see answers that were given when I wasn't in the chat room.  Go set up a question/answer chat room all you want- I won't complain.  But please do not advertise it here.  It has nothing to do with Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a terrible idea. Someone can give simply awful advice - and there is no means to correct that, provide an alternate viewpoint or even discover that it's happened.   If someone wants to start a helpline independently of wikipedia, that's fine - there is nothing we can do about it.  But the name 'Wikipedia' is copyrighted and you just can't start using it for something else without foundation approval...and trust me, you won't get it. SteveBaker 16:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request
I'm having a discussion here, and there appears to be consensus to change the template. It's a minor addition, and I don't see how ediitng this template is risky at all. It should be permanently unprotected.--Hello. I&#39;m new here, but I&#39;m sure I can help out. (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC) [banned user Primetime]
 * The template forms part of the header for all the reference desks, which are all highly visible pages. They are protected because clever vandalism to such templates can produce obscenities on the page that can be hard to source and remove.  The link you have provided doesn't work - please provide some detail on what you want changed and why. Happy‑melon 11:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the link. Feel free to follow it for an explanation. I am obviously not a vandal, but if you don't trust me, then feel free to leave the page protected.--Hello. I&#39;m new here, but I&#39;m sure I can help out. (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether you are a vandal - you are quite obviously not - but simply the fact that, were the page to be unprotected, anyone (including those people who are vandals) would be able to edit it. As you can see from threads like Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, the consequences of allowing edits to the reference desk to be concealed in subpages are problematic.  There doesn't appear to be a clear consensus in that discussion to add anything to this header page at this time. Happy‑melon 11:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, actually this user is a vandal and his other accounts have been engaged in template vandalism. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·

Request for re-wording
The other day I posted a request at the Ref Desk talk page here, and I was redirected here. I'm afraid I'm not too sure what happens next. I'd have thought that various editors would have views on this suggested wording change and might want the chance to comment. But I, for one, never even knew about this page till yesterday, and I've been a regular on the ref desk for coming up to 5 years. Enlightenment, please? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer requests for clarification.
This page needs a line something like:


 * You should check back on the progress of your question at least once a day because sometimes the respondants may need to ask you to clarify some aspect of your question. Replying to such requests quickly will help you get the answer you need.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

add link
'If you are considering suicide or self-harm, please talk to a doctor, friend, or counsellor, or call a hotline.'

I'd add a link: 'If you are considering suicide or self-harm, please talk to a doctor, friend, or counsellor, or call a hotline.'

anon, 21:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ - This needs consensus before being added. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It was added apparently without discussion. I've removed it. Please discuss here to assess consensus. –Moondyne 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive search box
Propose adding an archive search box to the reference desk pages. Specifically, the following code on the howtoask should be replaced by
 * Yes, you can search first. Please do this. Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search. Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia.
 * Yes, you can search first. Please do this.
 * Search the reference desk archive to see if your question has been asked and answered earlier.


 * Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia.
 * Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search.

See earlier discussion on the Reference desk talk page. Abecedare (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support: Yes coz we have the same questions coming up again and again! -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No objections in a few days so Yes check.svg Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of what a reference desk is
I propose that their should be an explanation of what a reference desk is, either at the top of this section or immediately above it. It would look something like this:

The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to those of a library reference desk. Questions posed by users are answered by other Wikipedians.

Is there any way I can get a faster answer?
 * Yes, you can search first. Please do this.

.

.

.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

proposed change to add general wikipedia search
editprotected because of some comments over on the reference desk talk page about how the 'box to the left' line isn't correct for all skins (including the new default Vector skin), I suggest we simple add a search box to the header, the way it's done on the [|main ref desk page]. this code changes the wording on the first bullt point of the "Yes, you can search first" section, adds another input box, and deletes the redundant second bullet point. I;m not sure whether the 'wikitable' class works right with the series of templates involved - you might test it with and without that class first to see how it looks.

use the following code (beginning here with line 2 of the template): * '''Yes, you can search first. Please do this'''.
 * Search the reference desk archive to see if your question has been asked earlier, or search wikipedia as a whole.


 * Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search.

it looks like the following (without the dotted border, that I added for clarity):
 * Yes, you can search first. Please do this.
 * Search the reference desk archive to see if your question has been asked earlier, or search wikipedia as a whole.


 * Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search.

-- Ludwigs 2 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable enough. But I had a quick question, does the Wikipedia search box (input box) on the right look like it's 1 pixel lower than the input box on the left to anyone else? Killiondude (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It does to me. Can this be fixed before its implemented? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry for the delay getting back on this - I missed your responses and forgot to check back.


 * On my Mac, using Firefox, Safari, and my high tech testing tool (I used the bottom edge of a Finder window to get a sightline), there is no difference. it may be an optical illusion based on the fact that because of the table size the input boxes are not perfectly centered in the table cells.  or it may be a PC/IE thing.  can one of you confirm that it's a real issue instead of an apparent issue?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did the same test and it showed up 2 pixels lower.  Mr. R00t    Talk  00:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Which browser were you using, on what platform? -- Ludwigs 2  00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind. I figured out that the (undocumented) search2 option doesn't accept the break parameter, and that was throwing off vertical centering.  I've modified the table above - problem should be fixed now.  let me know if it isn't. -- Ludwigs 2  01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was using Firefox (and tested in Safari) on Mac OS X Snow Leopard.  Mr. R00t    Talk  00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fixed now.  Mr. R00t    Talk  00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * alright, I'm going to reopen the editprotected template. -- Ludwigs 2  00:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, I think. Just re-open if it wasn't implemented correctly.  (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good and works as expected, thank you. however, if you're in the mood to do a little more I just noticed that the bit immediately following this change (the section on advice and opinions)  is a bit whacked.  it should be as follows, for consistency with the other sections:

Can I ask for advice or opinions, as opposed to references or information?
 * The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead.
 * The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
 * I'll make a separate editprotected request if you don't get to it. -- Ludwigs 2  00:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Search engine change
Per discussion at RD talk, the line:
 * Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search.

should be changed to:
 * Please try searching the web using a web search engine.

Because this page is protected, I cannot make the change. -- k a i n a w &trade; 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the editprotected template to speed this up. To the admin: here is a link to the discussion on the refdesk talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

wording change request
please allow a day or two for discussion (if there is any) before implementing.

I'd like to make the following wording change. the line:
 * "The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead."

be changed to read as follows:
 * "The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions."

This should help end some protracted disputes over what questions and answers are appropriate on the reference desk. -- Ludwigs 2 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a useful change. Support and will come back in a few days and maybe do it myself. I'm not seeing any particular downside to this change. Franamax (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose this change. Those removing such questions are going far beyond the policy as stated, but some of us oppose that.
 * Changing "requests for advice" to "questions that require diagnosis... or opinions... or guidance..." is a massive step in the wrong direction. It changes it from a simple evaluation of what's being posted to a guess about what a responder might "need" to do.
 * Changing "probably" to "usually" gives ground in their direction which I am unwilling to do.
 * I have removed the  tags from the above proposed text and simply indented it, because I believe that the unreadability of the boxed text was designed to distract attention from these major changes.
 * Wnt (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

✅. Wnt: I'm not really sure what your problem with this edit is, but I see little strength in your argument. There is little difference in meaning between "probably" and "usually" and yet it seems to flow better. If you really think the pre tags were to distract attention you may want to go and read Assume good faith again. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Search box and search label need to be on one line
See Village pump (technical)/Archive 200 (now an archive link). It may be found in the archives there by the time you read this. Scroll down to the discussion concerning the Reference Desks.

See Special:Diff/1108768023. Now the search box and search label is on one line. Search suggestions now do not block the search button on my monitor. This happens when the search button is below the search box.

I greatly increase my text size in my browser. That makes the search box and search label even wider. So further efforts have been made to allow search to work well in even narrower devices. Without the search button wrapping below the search box. See Special:Diff/1109066550.

The 2 search forms will wrap to 2 lines on narrower screens, or large enough text. Method is described here:
 * Help:Table. Narrow your browser window to see below:

To see it in use see:
 * Reference desk/Humanities.

Or go to any of the other topic pages linked from here: --Timeshifter (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Reference desk.