Old talk moved to:

• /Archive 1: from creation to January 2006

I've asked Cryptic if he can get his bot to automate the addition of new supersctions and moving of old supersections to the archives. He's working on archiving TfD at the moment, but will look at the help desk once that is running smoothly. I'll post here again before Cryptic lets his bot loose on the live page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've run this in read-only mode for the past few days, and it seems to be working correctly. I'm going to start running it on the live page tonight. Please let me know on my talk page if it does anything wrong, instead of just quietly fixing it, or it'll keep doing it wrong; but do fix it, too, since I'm not at my computer around midnight and won't usually get the message until about 15:00 UTC. (I already know about the new day's header being misplaced if a new section sneaks in between midnight and the bot's update; it just appends it to the bottom. That shouldn't be a problem here unless it takes a lot of retries to get the TFD edits to go through, though.) —Cryptic (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Something really, really needs to be done about all the factual questions people ask on the help desk. How about putting a large label at the top, "this place is not for questions about specific subjects" or something like it? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be a good idea to make some boilerplate text to that we can use to save us the trouble of writing the same message everytime. We could even add a "new section" link to the section of the reference desk in question.--Max Talk • Contributions 08:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

People (1) don't understand that "this place is not for questions about specific subjects" applies to their questions; (2) don't read such a statement; (3) can be generally daft. We've tried making the purpose of this page more pronounced—you don't see anything as large as that "How to use Wikipedia" on other pages—but it's impossible to see any improvement because of the general increased traffic to Wikipedia. jnothman ^talk 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I made the template that I mentioned above. It inserted by writing {{Reference desk}} and it expands to:

Do not use this template. Use {{RD1}}, {{RD2}} or {{RD3}} instead.

Feel free to improve it, I might try to add an optional field where we can specify a subject, and even include an automatic new section link.--Max Talk • Contributions 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit to it so people will be sure what we mean. An optional subject with new section link would be great, for example {{Reference desk|Math}} should have a link leading . But I don't know how to do the conditional thing. And about people not realizing that their question does not belong here, how about something like "Questions about humanities, science, mathematics, languages and the like belong on the reference desk, not here"? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I created a shortcut ({{RD}}) to it.--Max Talk • Contributions 08:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I added an optional section parameter, so that, for example {{Reference desk|Mathematics}} will link to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. The down side is that unparametrized links now have an extra trailing slash, but that doesn't matter much since the appropriate redirect exists. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How do I make a ceratin sentence appear only if the parameter is non-empty? I want to add a link to the actual "post a message" URL, but of course only if the parameter is given. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't, really. There's a request for such a feature, but it seems to have stalled in the absence of a patch. Existing alternatives include {{qif}}, which more or less works but makes the code look ugly if substed and is claimed to cause needless server load, and CSS hacks, which look even worse both substed and in browsers that don't support CSS. Of course, what we do currently have is parameter defaults, meaning that you could make the target category default to, say, "Miscellaneous". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? I was sure I saw such a thing implemented. Oh well, I guess we shall have to resort to other methods. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is with the title, "Help desk". It probably would have been better to have titled it "Edit help desk" (or something similar), and the "Reference desk" as "Topic-subject help desk". That would have likely eliminated about 99.0 to 99.5% of the misdirects.  ~Kaimbridge~14:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating with the percentages. And actually changing the names of the pages is a bigger change and I guess a lot of discussion will have to talk place before such a thing is agreed upon. But I still support the idea of a sub-heading of Helpdesk "isnotisms". -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone, Check this out. If you know the topic the question belongs to, use for example {{RDT|Mathematics}}:

Template:RDT

If you don't, just use {{RD}}:

Do not use this template. Use {{RD1}}, {{RD2}} or {{RD3}} instead.

-- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. Good Job!--Max Talk • Contributions 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I found what I've been looking for. The answer is {{qif}}. Now you can use {{RD}} and {{RD|Mathematics}}. {{Reference desk-Topic}} and {{RDT}} are now obsolete, and I will soon TfD them. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Three points about the use of this template since its advent:

1. Do not use the template when the reference desk won't want the question either (eg a question about how to graduate from Harvard University)
2. If the RD's response will be to give a link to an article, just give the questioner the link yourself (maybe as well as a link to WP:RD; eg a question on use of APA style)
3. When you DO come about to using the template, please subst it to avoid extra weight on the Wikipedia servers.

Thanks. jnothman ^talk 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't forget to sign your name as always.

--Max Talk • Contributions 05:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. But substing the template reveals its weakness, that the whole qif structure is being substituted, which I'm not sure is what we want. Any ideas on how to make only the relvenat part be copied? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

For now, the best solution would probably be to split it back into multiple templates. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I don't think we should have different templates. What I've mentioned is a problem, but not big enough to justify that. Readability of the code isn't a real issue, since this is the kind of answer that shouldn't be replied to anyway. And my guess is that with the way data is compressed on the servers, it shouldn't have a long-term impact on hard drive space either. And we really should at least try to find a solution before starting to create templates all over the place. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made an addition to the template, but it still needs to be worked on. Basically you can type {{RD||APA style}} to get:

Do not use this template. Use {{RD1}}, {{RD2}} or {{RD3}} instead.

Truth is that questions rarely get answered on talk pages. I think the reference desk is better for questions and we should just remove the talk page link. jnothman ^talk 11:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would depend on the popularity of the article. AFAIK it is better practice to ask about a specific subject on that article's talk page, so we should offer this option. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think it might be better to split {{Reference desk}} to avoid the conditional parameter logic. I have proposed this on the tempalte's talk page. DES ^(talk) 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is currently discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Restructure_with_subpages about restructuring the reference desk with subpages instead of having one huge page. This idea could potentially extend to the help desk. Your comments and thoughts would be most appreciated. Thanks! enochlau (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea, and I want to see who agrees with it: We should have a "Featured Content" Portal. That way, members who only trust featured articles can just navigate between those. JaredW 12:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Something like Portal:Featured content? :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And, Jared, the place to propose such an idea is not the talk page of the help desk. Try the Village Pump. jnothman ^talk 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have a policy of deleting email addresses posted on the help desk?--Max Talk • Contribs • 05:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Partially out of stubbornness: that's not how this help desk operates, and if a user can't read the instructions...
• Mostly because email addresses posted in public places get lots of spam (spammers spider for email addresses on web pages) - and every page of Wikipedia gets mirrorred many many times in public places. So we do the user a small favour.

jnothman ^talk 06:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newcomers help page has just been rejuvenated and now functions much like the Help desk so you (Help desk volunteers) might considering paying a visit.

New users can also place {{helpme}} on their talk page and that puts them in Category:Wikipedians looking for help.

There is also the #wikipedia-bootcamp IRC channel for real-time help. If you are unfamiliar with IRC you can click here to be instantly connected. In the IRC channel a bot reports if anyone has added {{helpme}} to a page.--Commander Keane 10:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the first things I read when visiting this page is the referral to the Reference Desk to ask factual questions? I find this very confusing. What is a "factual" question? So I went and looked it up. I now realise that "factual question" is actually a technical term. But it doesn't seem very user-friendly to use confusing jargon up front on a help page. Is there not a simpler and clearer way of expressing this? Carcharoth 11:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "See the Reference Desk for questions about the world not covered by Wikipedia"? --Malthusian (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds to me like an invitation to post here any question on anything covered by Wikipedia (i.e. anything with an article). Is factual question really confusing/technical? Not that most people read the intro. Notinasnaid 12:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "factual question" is fine, but that more elaboration is required. I've made a go at rephrasing it in a way which, hopefully, will be clearer to those that do read the intro. What do you think? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two distinctions I don't think everyone is making when using the Help desk:

1. Between "using Wikipedia" (which is an encyclopedia), and "looking up ______ on Wikipedia", which is exactly what an encyclopedia is used for.
2. Between asking "how do I look up ______?" and (whatever it is they're looking up).

So the big question is, if a user needs help looking up something in the encyclopedia, why can't they ask at the help desk? Why can't they get the "help" they need? --Go for it! 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem: we are telling them right at the top of the page that this is where to get help using Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And the main thing you use an encyclopedia for is looking things up. So the main kind of help people will need is finding a specific piece of information. Then we tell them that we can't help them here, that they have to go somewhere else. The problem is that it isn't intuitive. People don't want to have to read instructions. Instructions are boring. The function of a "help desk" for something should be intuitively obvious - to help them with whatever they need help with. To a lot of people the obvious type of help to be offered should be with the information they are looking for. It is an encyclopedia after all. Maybe we should change the name of the Help Desk to make its function more obvious. --Go for it! 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there's some validity to this, but someone has to come up with a compellingly better name. · rodii · 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Technical Help Desk"? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Help with Wikipedia", "Editing help", "Help for Wikipedia contributors", "Help using Wikipedia" -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning something with "editing" would be good - that really differentiates it from anything else someone might need help with. -- Natalya 04:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My two cents worth. I think the help desk should become a subsection of the Reference desk. So people will have to choose between Science/Humanities/Language/Math/Misc/Wikipedia. "Help desk" and "Reference desk" are silly names (although I see you are working on that) - since they are completely interchangeable and thus useless.--Commander Keane 10:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Commander Keane is probably right that the names "Help desk" and "Reference desk" are quite arbitary. But I'm not comfortable with the idea of placing the HD as a section of the RD - it doesn't logically belong there. There's a difference between asnwering questions about the world - divided into humanities, science etc, and answering questions about Wikipedia. Naming it "Editing help desk" and the like looks promising, but the HD is not just about editing, it's also about every other aspect of using WP such as searching, navigating, citing etc. But if we do change the name (which I'm not sure will help much), I'll go for "Editing help desk", for lack of any better term. But here's a better idea - since most questions (afaik) are refdesk-type, how about making sure that every place that lists possibilities for asking questions has RD before HD? People tend to go for the first option presented. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure how well the Help Desk would work as a subsection of the Refernce Desk. As much as we want to make sure RD-esque questions aren't asked on the Help Desk, I think it's important to keep the Help Desk easily accessable to anyone who would need help, without having to go through the Reference Desk. Meni Rosenfeld has a good point, though, that the Help Desk is not just for editing help. At the same time it's not wholly for questions on using Wikipedia, because many people will interpret "using Wikipedia" as finding information. This is for more of the technical side... but all the names I've come up with that describe that are much too long. "The Help for Using Wikipedia, Including Searching, Editing, and Navigating, but Not Factual Questions Desk" doesn't really work out too well... ;) -- Natalya 19:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)