Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

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

RD Guidelines

1
2
3
4
5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Obligatory?

Some source titles contain errors (e.g. wrong apostrophes), is it permissible to correct them or is it obligatory to leave them unchanged? JacktheBrown (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This space is for discussing the reference desk, where volunteers attempt to answer user questions about the real world in the manner that a library reference desk would. From your question, it appears that you're asking about citing references within Wikipedia, the policy of which can be found here. Questions about how to use Wikipedia are typically better-placed on the help desk, which is here. However, your question is a little unclear; can you give a specific example? Broadly, remember that the whole point of citations is to facilitate verifiability. If the change you make will make it easier for others to find/link/understand/read the citation, you're probably okay to do so. If the change you make doesn't do that and is merely cosmetic, it may be better to focus efforts elsewhere. Matt Deres (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown:, please ask your question at Wikipedia:Help desk instead, and it will be answered. Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте я могу уточнить свой счот

Я могу уточнить свой счёт 213.206.61.132 (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, 213.206.61.132, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in an English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Russian; did you know there is a Wikipedia in Russian? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! If you need help, please feel free to notify me on my talk page. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Добро пожаловать!

Здравствуйте, 213.206.61.132! Добро пожаловать в Википедию! Хотя мы и приветствуем попытки улучшения Википедии, к сожалению, Ваши правки сделаны на английском, уровень которого недостаточен для действительно полезного вклада. Кажется, Вы лучше владеете русским; знаете ли Вы о существовании русской Википедии? Возможно, Вы предпочтёте вносить вклад в её развитие. В любом случае, добро пожаловать в проект и спасибо за усилия! Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

archiving woes

Something (likely on the Mediawiki side) has changed, and the RD archiving bot 'scsbot' has stopped working. For the moment, date headers are not being automatically added to the reference desks, and old entries are not being archived. It's not immediately obvious what changed or what went wrong, and unfortunately I'm fantastically busy in real life at the moment, so I'm not sure how soon I'll able to dig in and fix this. All apologies. —scs (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to ask if something was up. The February questions/answers appear to be "gone" (i.e. not archived and not on the current desks, but presumably still technically recoverable from history). From history, it looks like scsbot kept removing content from the active desks up until March 16, when it supposedly archived March 2, but the actual archives end with January. It's been a long time since we had to manually archive the desks and I sure don't remember the steps (assuming they'd still be germane). I'm pretty sure the first step used to be creating the archives by editing the list to include redlinks and then editing the resulting empty pages, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more. Maybe we can find some assistance on Village Pump/Tech? Matt Deres (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke; I guess the archiving was done (example), but the results are not being linked to in the main archive page, which currently ends with January. Matt Deres (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the main archive page has never been automated. I'm not even sure which of the regulars here typically take care of updating it manually. —scs (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate something I must have said some time before: we should take this opportunity and simply switch the whole reference desk archiving to a standard bot setup as used on all other talk pages and noticeboards. The ref desk setup with its baroque pattern of archiving and indexing by days might have been useful ten years ago when the volume of questions was much higher, but it's long been overkill and useless ballast. A simple sequence of numbered sequential archives and a standard archiving bot will work just fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: that seems like the obvious solution. Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk have the same problem. TSventon (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is working again, thanks to some inspired help by Gergő Tisza. It's chewing through its backlog now.

However! This bot in its current form is living on borrowed time. I'm going to need to find some time to rewrite it, or else it's going to have more problems like this in the future.

For those curious, some details are at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 219#invalid returnUrlToken?. —scs (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - as always - Steve, for the continued work on the archiving. Matt Deres (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shantavira

I have read most of his answers are not perfect but he is eager to answer everywhere. He reminds me similar to SinisterLefty or Sturat.

His answers and replies are not friendly and welcoming like other people in Reference Desk. 42.108.156.209 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange post. You didn't courtesy ping Shantavira and his posts here are absolutely fine. There are very few, if any, troublemakers on this board nowadays and he is definitely not one of them. --Viennese Waltz 06:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Rat didn't get the credit he richly deserved for setting an pioneering example of civility to all of us including me....When the reference desk first began, not only were the answers incorrect, they were often obnoxious, snotty or condescending, or at least flippant. Stu Rat gave a lot of good answers and was one of those who was tenacious in remaining civil and friendly. People criticize him now for occasionally incorrect answers, but the civil discussion is more important. incorrect answers can be corrected with further discussion, and people can learn from thinking thru the logic errors of others , and of themselves. Some of the people who complained about Stu Rat have brought down the level of civility, at least somewhat.Rich (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks. Looking through that discussion, it's pretty clear why he was banned from the ref desks. As for civility or the lack of it, I don't know what you're talking about. There is no problem with lack of civility on the ref desks these days. --Viennese Waltz 06:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I cannot ping you because you are excommunicated i.e in Wikipedia terms "blocked indefinitely", but I hope you see the meritorious report above by Rich. The invitation by Viennese Waltz to review the treatment StuRat received is timely because with cooler heads we may reach a conclusion different from that reached in november 2017. A worrying question in the closing admin's sentence "[Sturat] can appeal the [total ban from the desks] sanction...after a year [when] the community will evaluate their contributions in other areas during this time." is just what inspection of StuRat's private life outside Wikipedia desks did the admin @SpacemanSpiff: envisage? Some 16 of 3242 users that admin has blocked are now unblocked so one may wonder what principle for unblocking StuRat, if any, he has in mind. I actually understand what talking about an "example of civility" means and so do users who addressed this important quality at User_talk:StuRat. They (e.g. @Lomn:, @SemanticMantis:) write; "..you are great at largely remaining civil,.." and "..thanks for all the spectacular work I see you do quite often at the Reference Desks."

These editors expressed appreciation to StuRat by awarding him barnstars.
@Deeptrivia:, @Trollderella:, @AndonicO:, @FrothT C: , @Adrian M. H.:, @Rockpocket:, @Pheonix:, @Ye Olde Luke:, @Anirban16chatterjee:, @Crackthewhip775:, @Μηδείς:, @Cuddlyable3:, @Doug Coldwell:, @Paradoxical 0^2:, @66.87.0.140:, @Legolover26:, @Futurist110:, @Jethro B:

If condemning StuRat to Damnatio memoriae in 2017 was an experiment to test whether the Reference Desks would improve in his forced absence then I think it time to declare that experiment failed. If StuRat wishes to contribute to the reference desks again then I see no good reason not to welcome him back as a valuable contributor again, and I would do so without imposing any humbling prerequisite such as a "penance and apology" for alleged previous errors. Furthermore, when after necessary reconciliations StuRat is free to post here he can answer the insinuation by single-purpose IP User 42.108.156.209 that StuRat is or isn't Shantavira, and I shall believe the answer. Philvoids (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, with diffs, why you believe the ref desks have got worse since StuRat was banned from here. And by the way, maybe you're not aware, but StuRat is indefinitely banned sitewide for sockpuppetry, so he's not going to be making a reappearance around here any time soon. --Viennese Waltz 19:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 reference desks and my recorded contributions show zero - 0 - engagement ever in some 4 or 5 of them. From this one may (correctly) conclude that I judge desk activity with my bias towards STEM subjects (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). I allow my opinion that Wikipedia has built a formidable reputation as a go-to reference in these fields and that the greater part of that work was done in the years when StuRat was influential before he was silenced in 2017 on the sockpuppet pretext you mentioned. I decline to be drawn into debate whether the act of indefinitely banning StuRat was a mistake that worsened or chilled the ref. desk climate. I am neither StuRat's confidant nor am I here to bury nor to avenge his treatment. It is evident that 7 years have passed, that there is no voice claiming that Wikipedia or users gain from anti-StuRat policing of the ref.desks and that there has emerged a sizeable group of past or present friends of StuRat named already in this thread. I am pinging each so they may express an opinion about a collective call to rehabilitate StuRat. Philvoids (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]