User talk:Freshgavin/Sandbox/Reference desk/Tally

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General opinion[edit]

Before adding your name to this list, please at least glance over the preamble outlined in the section above, which I hope will let everyone know what exactly this is, and will clear up any misunderstandings.

I ask that you insert your name so that I (we) can get an idea of how everyone feels about this new layout. It is very easy to make changes to the layout at this point, so please speak up if you think something should be done in a different way. This is an opinion tally, and please include a basis for your opinion if you think it's relevant.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the new layout as-is[edit]

Support the new layout with or without some small changes[edit]

  1.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  - I will wait until there is proof of some sort of support for the current layout without changes before I move my name up.
  2. QuantumEleven — I like the new layout. I don't think splitting the desks further decreases the number of editors - we just monitor more pages, it's no big deal. As for problems finding the right category for a question (eg it concerns both physics and chemistry), is it really such a bad thing if it ends up in the 'wrong' category? No big deal, it gets answered anyway. And this way each page individually becomes less swamped with questions, so they move 'up' more slowly and are therefore more visible to the people asking and answering them.
  3. Marco polo 13:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC) I think that this is a good idea. The existing pages do take a while to load on my home computer. The proposed layout would also make it easier for me to zero in on the topics I know something about.[reply]

Support the new layout if some specific changes are made[edit]

  1. If the background color of the cells is made cleaner and more wiki-ish, and no more than one or two desks are added (and they're not too specific), I'd be fine with the new layout. Also the "other places to ask questions" sticks out of the bottom of the right column.. that has to go. // The old layout is fine but nothing wrong with a little change! See my other posts on this page for more info --frothT C 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support if 1) the list is located at or near the top of the page for quick reference (the new version requires some hunting around which is a usability problem and 2) that icons are added for each new desk similar to the current version. Suggestion: that a review period be set a few months down the road to decide, based on formal guidelines, if the new sections are getting enough traffic to warrant their inclusion. Specifically, I suggest keeping the same layout with smaller visual icons to accomodate more desks. More details here. Antonrojo 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with Froth. I don't really care if it changes though. I think the new layout is almost perfect except in a couple aspects, one of those being the color. It doesn't look wiki-ish enough. I'll admit it, those long pages can get annoying sometimes, and besides, who doesn't like a little change now and then? -Kyle 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have been active at the ref desk for almost a year now and I've seen it grow considerably (just look at the size increase in the archives). I'm not sure if there should be so many splits right away, though. But more specific ref desks might attract more experts. If they know about it, that is. If there is a specific biology ref desk, biologists might be more interrested in scanning through (just) that every day. It might be a good idea to make them aware of it, though, by placing a note at various biology article talk pages. And maybe at message boards and such outside Wikipedia as well. This might also be a great way to attract more experts to Wikipedia in general, the kind of people we want here most. (Maybe even do a more general Wikipedia awareness campaign on the Internet? But I digress.) Of course better answers will eventually lead to more questions (given time). For other comments see below. DirkvdM 07:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't really mind the colors all that much, but I feel there are simply too many specific categories. Perhaps There could be a merge of hard sciences and a merge of soft sciences? Also, how many of your average 9th graders working on an essay will know to look for art under "Humanities" and not "misc."? Also, could Pop Culture be merged with Misc. and perhaps sex/relationships with health? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russia Moore (talk • contribs)

Undecided / neutral[edit]

  • As Dmacks says below, the pages are currently cumbersome for those with slow internet (such as myself) because they aren't archived frequently enough. The problem will persist if the new pages aren't archived enough either. However, I don't think it will lessen the number of editors. I don't feel that the current system is broken or problematic but I don't think adding pages will make a broken or problematic situation either. Just more work for admins. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't support -- too many desks etc.[edit]

  • Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of concerns; key for me is that so many desks means fewer editors (potentially with answers to live questions) will browse each specific desk. Fewer answerers means less chance of answering questions. Dweller 11:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed dweller. I understand that it may be a problem for users with slow internet connections, but more desks isn't the answer. Come up with a better one. --frothT C 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far too many desks. Who would ever bother to follow them all? We don't get that many questions. Rmhermen 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • too many desks.Ken 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many desks. If the problem is that the science page is huge, archive it more frequently...most discussions seem to peter out after 2-3 days on the science desk. Or instead of archiving, have each day always its own page and then a transcluding "past three days" for current discussions and "past week" for those who like to chat beyond the specific answer. Except by looking at the history or diff-since-last-reading, no way to tell how a page has changed since last reading, so "just monitor more pages" is kinda clunky. DMacks 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that this proposal consists of too many desks. I don't have a problem with finding a place to put the question, and I don't see a problem with questions in the wrong place. This would increase both for no particular gain. Not only this, but it is much harder to monitor so many pages. —Daniel (‽) 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the number of desks, i think it'd be better to have broad categories - Have you ever thought of using a tagging system within the desk using templates to give a better idea of a specific area of each question (E.g IT/Computer->GNU/Linux->Compiling)? Benbread 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that not that many people use the humanities and language desk that much anyway, why split them up even more? People don't want to be clicking around everywhere to go to another desk, they want it in one place. BAD IDEA Reywas92Talk 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The language desk isn't split. And please don't shout. And don't vote twice, even if your vote fulls under two headers (btw, it's your shouting that gave you away). DirkvdM 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It ain't broke. No need to fix it. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think there was a problem with the status quo. --Maxamegalon2000 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many desks. Confusing for newbies. Difficult to manage. The present system is a reasonable compromise which works well enough most of the time. Page size/archiving problems need a specific fix, not a major re-design. Gandalf61 10:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix iff broke. !broke => !fix. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Black Carrot 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't support -- don't like the design[edit]

  • Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (also too many desks - see above)[reply]
  • Comment I actually like the design but the off-blue color of the header backgrounds needs to change. Maybe the gray color of the screen space borders? Colorzilla says it's #AAAAAA. --frothT C 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like reading two things side-by-side, but in one column. Also, I miss the pictures. The actual links to the desks aren't big enough. AGAIN, A BAD IDEA TO CHANGE IT I also agree with froth below. Reywas92Talk 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't support -- other reasons[edit]

  • Comment I don't think people will be very smart about using the correct desk. On many large web forums there are dozens of small forums with very specific topics, but nobody uses them because they just look for the most popular on-topic board and post there because they don't want to wait a month for a reply. The misc desk functions as a nice catch-all for people who want quick answers. --frothT C 17:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You voted no less that four times. If you don't select one to keep, I suggest all your votes should go (how else are we to count your vote?). if you have other comments, put them under 'other comments'. DirkvdM 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple of an issue; I'm for the graphical change and against the addition of too many more desks. Anyway, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Also I had points under each of those categories, so nothing wrong with posting multiple times, especially since it's not exactly a vote yet but a search for general consensus. "Polling discourages consensus" "Polling encourages false dichotomy" "Wikipedia operates on discussion-driven consensus, and can therefore be regarded as "not a democracy" since a vote might run counter to these ends." See don't vote on everything and voting is evil and WP:DGFA, not to mention light current's question on this page... --frothT C 20:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we have to change, gradually, is the spirit of our RDs.
We may not be able to format perfect questioners, event with plenty of don'ts and subsections.
So we have to change ourselves. Answer what has to be answered. Your question is not well-formed ? Okay, there's my (beginning of an) answer, polite, concise, not too smart : Search more. Improve your question! Please allow us to give you the desire of coming back. It works! -- DLL .. T 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

Is it a joke that we are including physics with astrology? Maid Marion 07:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it's supposed to be astronomy. BenC7

Is it really a good idea to have a desk for Health/Medicine? What type of medical questions would people ask that wouldn't have the answer "See a doctor" or "Talk to a pharmacist"? I think it could be subsumed into Biology, and renamed (e.g., Biology and Health?) BenC7 08:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do so many people quieten when it comes to medical (and legal) issues? Is it that, in the states, you aren't allowed to talk about them if not a doctor, or what? It's that rampant suing, right? Of course, they are serious subjects where a bad desicion is likely to have severe consequences, I understand that, but I suppose that can be the case in other areas as well. Also, I may want to ask questions about symptoms and treatments that might not even apply to myself. Hey, I might even be a doctor and asking something! Even if I am specifically asking about my own health, don't I retain any responsibility for my actions after having recieved an answer from another person? It's another thing if someone falsely claims to actually be a doctor, and you follow their advice just because of that. —Bromskloss 08:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't actually discourage medical or legal questions as it is (we do strongly warn that we can't be trusted), the logic behind having a specific medical or legal desk is that it would be much easier to monitor/inform users on each desk of the dangers of not going to a doctor/seeing a professional lawyer. Like everything, it's up to consensus if everyone agrees.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I am glad to hear that we don't discourage these kinds of questions. Then, aren't we warning a little too much? Finally, is it specifically americans that feel the need for this? I sure can't see it happening where I live. —Bromskloss 12:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The warnings are to protect Wikipedia, mostly. It would be a huge risk if somebody claimed they got advice from a Wikipedian having not known that their advice wasn't reliable. The US is famous for it's lawsuits, but I'm not so sure you wouldn't get into trouble in Sweden for recommending to someone that they kill themself, or masturbate furiously, or feed their dying grandmother teal paint.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably wouldn't get in trouble. IMO the warnings are there to protect people who think they're getting professional advice but need to know that editors are just normal people too --frothT C 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 'health and medicine' should be grouped with 'legal' and have a huge disclaimer at the top saying that people who answer questions can be just about anyone (there seems to be a bit of confusion about that among questioneers) and that therefore one cannot assume them to be experts. And that if people have a medical problem they should go see a doctor (even though that is blatantly obvious). So we don't have to wade through that bull everytime such a question comes up. (note that this comment was once again meant in the best of spirits - maybe I should have a big disclaimer stapled to my forehead too :) ). DirkvdM 07:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was basically what I imagined. Doesn't seem to fly so well with the others though.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh well medicine and legal shouldn't be the same desk just because they have the same disclaimer. A general disclaimer on every desk (something like "Don't trust us because we could be wrong") should about cover it. I like the idea of a medicine desk, though it wouldn't get much traffic, it's a very good example of an exclusive topic that doesn't fall well on any other desk. --frothT C 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What!? Mathematics didn't get the blue colour? Just kidding. Anyway, are there enough participants on the reference desk to populate this many subjects? I think many are already active in several of the current desks and mabye we would lose some of their contributions if we make it more complicated by having them read more pages. I'm not really trying to convince you not to change it. It's just a comment (mabye an old one, even).

I'm not so sure if stuff like "Popular culture" will be populated either, that's why I need input from a larger base of users.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 

Also, I did spot "Physics/astrology". Did you mean "Physics/astronomy"? And I don't care to much for solidi but would prefer "Physics and astronomy".

How about "Impopular culture" along with "Improbable research"? ;-) —Bromskloss 08:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questioners already have too much problems posting their question in the right location, adding more desks will promote fragmentation and I doubt it will improve clarity for them. I think we could perhaps do with one or two extra desks, but 15 is just way too many. For one, science is often interdisciplinary. What about questions that are about the chemistry of biology, or the mathematical stuff behind some physics. Fragmenting the science desk will cause people too much headaches about where to put certain questions. Also, the new layout is simply too big. I can now have all desks listed conveniently on one screen (with icons and all). The new suggested design requires too much scrolling, which I suspect would not be appepreciated by mobile phone users who edit wikipedia with them. This needs a lot of alterations before I can support it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are interdisciplinary questions as it is now, and it doesn't really matter where they're placed. I think you're assuming too little of RD users. They'll probably say "I'm not sure if I'm supposed to ask this here...", before they ask their questions, but we'll be understanding and I can't see any reason to move a question that's been placed in a half-correct category.
On my computer, the current header section of each desk fills just over two screens if I scroll down. The one I have designed takes about 1.5. I can also see every desk except other than the Misc ones if I scroll directly to the top, which I consider an acceptable trade-off, though it wouldn't be any trouble to remove all of the paragraphing to fit the list in about 30% less space. If many other people feel the same then I'll shrink the header.
MGM, do you see any other solution to help slim down the science desk? I don't have a slow internet connection or slow computer, and it can often take me more then 30 seconds to load the page, every time I edit a question. Don't you have the same problems?
I left this on fresh's main talk page but I'll post it here. An idea of mine is to change science and math into natural science and mathematical science. Engineering and physics questions (like speed of light questions heh) would then fall under the math desk, balancing out the number of questions so neither page gets too many. Maybe a biology desk if further disambiguation is apparently necessary or if the natural sciences page is still too active. --frothT C 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(One last thing I forgot to add: Have you read RD on a mobile? I tried a few weeks ago, and it's a waste of time. It probably has been since about 2004.)
On another note, I'm trying not to sound arrogant, but forgive me if I do. I'll be all over the place for the next few days and my first priority is to get my opinion (and that of others who have contributed) out in the open and defend what I can, with reason. I'll try my best to give a chance to everyone's opinion.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of whether the proposed new layout is adopted, I think something needs to be done about the growing size of some of the RD pages (e.g. Science). The current layout, in which questions stay on the page for 7 days, is unfriendly to some users (e.g. those using a wireless handheld and those with slower computers/connections). It is also very wasteful of server bandwidth: a questioner checking back frequently for updates on a particular question generates a lot more data traffic than necessary. I propose that an alternative interface (1 ToC page per RD + 1 page per question) be provided in addition to the existing interface. --64.236.170.228 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this may be entirely different elsewhere, but on my current system the new desk-header box (the one with the guidelines, not the navigation) wraps almost every bullet of text, but just barely, so that a lot of whitespace is generated and the box is quite tall. The old two-column format doesn't have this problem because there's half as much space to waste per bullet. Is there some way to reorganize things to be a bit more screen-efficient without becoming unreadable, or perhaps some text that (especially if present on the main RD page) could be elided? --Tardis 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it appears that you're using a fairly large resolution, and just exactly big enough to format the bullets in the ugliest way possible. My screen at work and at home wraps each line an average of about 2.5 times, but if most people are using high-resolutions than me then it'd be easy enough to make the bullets into two columns. That might look strange for people with 600x800 screens though.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The right half extending further down gets worse as the screen gets wider. I have a big widescreen monitor and the 'other places' box starts where the 'how to ask' box ends. This is caused by 'how to ask' wrapping and the other two having short lines. It might be better to put 'topics' and 'other places' side by side and 'how to ask' screen-wide below that (which also makes more sense given the order in which one should read it (for newbies) and for ease of reference). DirkvdM 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what I mean, the 'how to ask' section gets stretched horizontally and because it wraps it thus gets compressed vertically. Because it consists of only 14 lines it can potentially get very much shorter than the other tow sections. Depending on your system you can simulate this by moving the window sideways, partially off-screen, making it wider again, then moving it further off-screen, etc, until all lines are on just one 'line' (I don't know how to distinguish between the two meanings of the word 'line', which is a bit confusing). It then only extends down to the 'science' header of the 'topics' table next to it, leaving a huge white area under it. DirkvdM 12:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I like about a separate religion desk is that it would put any such questions somewhere where everyone can ignore them. :) Also, it would be nice if there were a way to search all the desks at once because even now I often don't know where a specific question was placed. The same goes for the archives, by the way, which I no longer bother to search since they have been split up per day (tto much work). Maybe we should have a special ref desk search box. Other than that, I support the proposal. Oh, and I like Benbread's suggestion to tag questions. DirkvdM 07:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean what you like about a religion desk is that you can ignore it. Fine but it might not be the best way to do it for all involved --frothT C 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(A) I think the "Topics" box should be below the "How to ask" box, not next to it. You don't want new questioners to select a topical desk before having read through the howto. (B) Even before the "Search first", there should be something like "Check first if your question has not been answered in the list of Frequently Asked Questions." (C) In "Search first", give explicit instructions on how to search: "Search first! There is a search box on the left-hand side of your screen. Just type a topic into the search box you want to know more about, for example Shakespeare, and click the Go button. Wikipedia is very large, and chances are, you can find your answer within our articles." (C) The current RD header makes it clear that the respondents are just volunteers. That information should be preserved. (D) Replace the term "Topics" by "Areas", and change the first sentence to: "There are separate Reference Desks for several areas, split according to the topics. Please make sure that you choose the Reference Desk from the list below that best fits your question:". (E) In the current RD header, each desk listed has example topics, like for Language: "Spelling, grammar, word etymology, linguistics and language usage, and requesting translations (check the FAQs too!)". I think a well chosen list of example topics for all areas will be helpful in directing questioners to the right desk.  --LambiamTalk 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To one of your points: Other users have specifically suggested to put the topics box in the most visible area possible, for usability reasons. I'm taking a half-stance that we shouldn't give the desks to new users without having them looking through some introduction test, but we should not go as far as to keep it out of reach of experienced users navigating the same page. I'm trying to cater to consensus here but the opinions that are emerging are pratically polar opposites.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey check out the french ref desk. I really like how the questions list starts at the top so it's not such a bother to scroll through. If we do end up adding more desks it would be even better because maybe there would be no scrolling involved. Just thought I'd throw that out there --frothT C 03:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've heard of stuff like that. User:Light current likes to do that on his talk page, but he always runs into problems with bots. So silly he is. You can suggest a backwards RD as an aside, but it would require a few changes in the bot, and I don't think the problem was ever really scrolling anyways (at least not after I found out what the End button could do!).  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O_O THANK YOU. Try this one on for size: shift-delete to remove individual form suggestions in firefox --frothT C 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RD poll[edit]

Are we allowed to vote under multiple choices, or must we select only one option?--Light current 08:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm trying my hardest not to pretend it's a poll (I used the word tally), it doesn't really matter where you put your name. I just want to see people's opinions, and putting it into some kind of list form makes it easier to see where consensus stands. I am one of the many supporting this train of thought, and I would like to believe that the users of RD are willing to agree to something without having to put it through a balls-to-the-wall vote.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Through the arguments against multiple desks, I see a general agreement that the design change would be OK. At least the assumption is "if the design change and the new desks were implemented then such and such would go wrong because of all the new desks" but there seems to be few problems presented against the design change. --frothT C 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phased introduction[edit]

Can we introduce this in phases, like for example first the new design, and later, when we are used to it (and the changes have stabilized) start splitting of areas into new RDs? The latter should perhaps also be done piecemeal rather than in one big upheaval.  --LambiamTalk 11:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the plan I guess. I've already cut it back down to 6 desks, and once Martin finishes the bot it will be usable immediately. Some users won't be happy with the "vertical" alignment of the navigation now though, and the horizontal one is only good for up to 6 desks. I also don't really like the way the navigation panel looks with only 6 desks on it (so bare! so general!), but I guess that's something to worry about later!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that there is one other thing I am trying to push with the page design, and that's the layout of the files in subpages. Specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk archive goes to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives, and everything else is kept just a little bit neater. All of the headers have already been made into templates though, so that won't change at all.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freshgavin/Sandbox/Reference_desk/Tally&oldid=1145093466"