Rather than engage in edit wars over non-consensus deletions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, I've created this page to reflect only consensus discussions. StuRat 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and refactored from the Ref Desk talk page archives:

Here I wish to only build a list of Ref Desk policy issues under dispute. I don't wish to discuss them here, just build a list. That discussion can happen elsewhere. Please add any issues I missed to the list. Also, add a link after each item to where that discussion is or has occurred, if you have one:

• Purpose of the Ref Desk [1] [2] [3] [4]
• Is the Ref Desk considered to be like an article or like a talk page ? RESOLVED
• Rules for deletion RESOLVED [5]
• Is opinion allowed RESOLVED
• Are references required for all statements of fact ? RESOLVED
• Are answers containing original research allowed? RESOLVED [6]
• Are answers with references outside of Wikipedia allowed ? RESOLVED
• Are responses which don't directly answer the question allowed ? RESOLVED
• Can we address another responder, or only the original poster ? DROPPED, DUE TO LACK OF INTEREST [7]
• Is humor allowed ? RESOLVED
• Is sexual content allowed ? RESOLVED
• Are poorly written questions allowed ?
• Should signatures be required ? RESOLVED
• May we edit the posts of others ? RESOLVED [8]
• Avoid using abbreviations like "OP" ? RESOLVED [9]
• Is "just Google it" a valid response ? RESOLVED [10].
• May the same people post both questions and answers ? RESOLVED [11] [12]

Some of these numbered links lead only to the entire Ref Desk talk page, so they do not show any consensus that an editor can refer to. And it is meaningless to ask a question and say "RESOLVED" without saying which way the outcome was. Edison 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the broken links are a consequence of the consensus discussions having been archived. I will go track them down and fix the links, eventually, but don't have the time right now (would you be willing ?). To see the decision, just pick "project page" above. I was assuming that nobody will go and change that without consensus, though. If you want, I can copy the text over to here, from there, as well, I was just trying to keep things as short as possible. StuRat 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We should avoid any abbrevs that are likely to confuse newbies (I had a specific question on the meaning of "OP" from one of them). Also, many of the abbrevs baffle me, as well. StuRat 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thought this has been decided. Also the suitlalby empasize or whatever. -THB 15:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree It does not improve communication to sling neologisms and abbreviations around, IIRC. I must Suitly emphazi, it would be like going to RfAr because of a PROD or a 3rr vio in an AOTW, or a Wheel War started by a Rouge Admin who gets desysopped because xe didn't AGF and did a NPA vio after an RfC, so it winds up on on BJAODN when it could have been a COTW. Might as well post in hexadecimal. 52,49,47,48,54,3F . Edison 16:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly because we really ought to keep our thoughts about our questioners to ourselves where they belong -- on the talk page. We could simply create a template for our use, something like "subst op" or whatever. ^_^ Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes of course. WP:SNOW, sturat.. --froth^{T C} 22:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THB, good point, perhaps we should say "Avoid using abbrevs and neologisms" ? I think it was decided, but the decision wasn't documented, so we need to do it formally before updating the consensus rules. StuRat 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have a consensus in favor of this one, so I will add the rule. I realize this was a "no brainer", but I don't want to be accused of ignoring consensus and acting unilaterally, so it's necessary to do things rather formally. StuRat 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few people are using this to work on their own version, because they're unhappy with how things are going at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline. Alright- but what happens when you're done? This would need to get merged into the guideline page, right? How is that going to work? Ned Wilbury 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. That isn't an "official" page, incidentally, but only a proposal. We could decide to only use one, the other, or both, as is, or we could take aspects of both and do a "merge", as you suggest. StuRat 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will this help resolve disagreement, or only help delay disagreement? Ned Wilbury 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the immediate concern was to cool the heated tempers among those who believed changes in the rules can be made by anyone (there) and those who believed a consensus should be required for any change (here). Hopefully, once tempers have cooled, we can once again work together. StuRat 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be obvious that this page does not reflect consensus, since only one side of the earlier debate is included here. Proposals that do not reflect consensus are not merged, but {{rejected}}. (Radiant) 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The other side is included there, why should it be copied here ? I've only copied the portions here which relate to this rules page. StuRat 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly nothing more than a content fork of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline. StuRat - if you want a private copy of the guideline page I suggest you keep it in your userspace. If you won't do this willingly, I'll nominate this page for deletion per WP:MFD. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"questions for consensus" should be held on the /guideline page, but there's nothing wrong with an index of what exactly has been decided, with links to those discussions. And it would be appropriate to a talkspace subpage too. --froth^{T C} 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the people there will just delete any "questions for consensus", just as they've deleted the results there. StuRat 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is recoverable (from the history if nowhere else). What exactly are you afraid will happen? The right way to go about this is to bring up issues on the talk page NOT to fork a new copy. You don't own the guideline page. You don't own this page. If you insist on having a page you own, the right place is in your own userspace. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are responses which don't directly answer the question allowed ?

• If still related to the topic ?
• If totally unrelated ?

Please give your opinion as "Both", "If still related", or "Neither":

• Both. A certain amount of conversation needs to be allowed to foster a sense of "community". StuRat 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• BothBut the emphasis should be on addressing the question. -THB 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Both, within reason. As long as the unrelated chatter isn't disruptive to the relevent discussion then it's beneficial to RD. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Both. This is what makes the reference desk the reference desk. Simple. End of. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 12:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If still related Responses should generally be answers to the question, not chit-chat like an instant-messaging fest. A correction to an incorrect or misleading answer is appropriate. Responses which are not directly answers to the question but which are closely related to the topic of the question and which explore the broader implications are typical of what might go on in a good college classroom or seminar and are appropriate. Responses which answer aspects of the topic the original questioner did not know enough about the topic to include are appropriate, especially if the note the legal, health, or safety implications of something the questioner wants to do. Example: Q:How many carnival balloons will it take to make me fly through the air? I weigh 66 pounds. A: 3,000. (Clearly, more should be said). Unsigned by Edison 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) - StuRat 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have a supermajority to allow both, with the qualification "as long as the unrelated conversation isn't disruptive". I will update the rules accordingly. If the supermajority changes, I will, of course, change the rule to match. StuRat 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are presiding over this process with an overly quick gavel. Since this is not a scheduled or announced meeting of a group or society, and since there is no type of quorum determination, opening discussion, having 4 people register their opinions, and closing discussion 18 hours later is not a valid basis for claiming a supermajority has determined policy. Five days has been a typical period for commentary. We are not on deadline, and there is no fire. Edison 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "closed" at all. I've just recorded what appears to be the supermajority thus far. If it changes, I will change the rule interpretation accordingly. However, I've observed that very few people add comments on things after the first day or two, so it doesn't seem likely that there will be a significant change. StuRat 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow addressing anyone. I think we need a way to comment on other's comments, such as asking for a reference on questionable statement, and/or providing a reference of our own which disproves their statement. This is an important "quality control" feature, as we all occasionally make mistakes. Of course, as always, we need to try to keep the discussion civil. For example, "I've never heard that before User:Example, do you have a source on that ?" verus "User:Example, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, so STFU." StuRat 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another nonsensical straw man poll. Nobody is seriously proposing legislating against talking to other responders. (Radiant) 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there was a serious suggestion that we do just this, on the main Ref Desk Talk Page. The suggestion was part of the idea to build a single answer by having each of us edit the contributions of others, much like how an article works. While I believe this to be a minority opinion, it still deserves to be discussed. StuRat 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been claimed that "metadiscussions" should be on the Discussion page or the users talk pages, rather than having arguments about what RD should be stuck into the answer to someone's question. If the exchange is on topic and civil and there is no great controversy, it could be on the Q & A page. If it is librarian fight, it should be out of the view of the public. The Q & A page should have a higher level of decorum than a blog or even a typical WP talk page. It is a public face of Wikipedia. Edison 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient votes appear to exist here for a supermajority, so I'm going to drop this from the list of items under dispute. Let me know if we need to re-examine this issue. StuRat 02:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]