Wikipedia talk:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Help desk page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

How-to guide for those answering questions

Archive 1: Up to January 2006 Archive 2: January to May 2006 Archive 3: June to December 2006 Archive 4: October 2006 to early May 2007 Archive 5: May 2007 to February 2008 Archive 6: March 2008 to April 2008 Search Wikipedia talk:Help desk and its archives

This is a talk page for discussing the WP:Help Desk. Don't ask questions here, unless they are about the Help Desk itself.

Contents 1 Recent constant use of the resolved template 2 Archival 3 New Header 4 Resolved Template 5 Changing Template? 6 new Hebrew/Yiddish (?) interwiki links 7 Can't Access I-281

[edit] Recent constant use of the resolved template

I find it stunningly annoying; profoundly useless; garish. At times improperly applied, it cuts short dialogue and wastes server time, makes the help desk look like an automation fest, draws the eye away from the content. Just me two cents.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also annoyed that {{resolved}} is often marked as soon as someone answers, even if it's the wrong answer. (In such cases, I generally leave the resolved tag there but write the correct answer in the section anyway.) --ais523 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop using it then. ;) I thought it was the help page practice so I blindly followed, but yes, some of them have been inaccurately placed. I'll add something to the top of the page a bit like at WP:FAC, where graphics like {{done}} and {{not done}} were putting loading strain on an already backlogged page. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It's actually in the how-to guide, which I assume was written with consensus (? maybe). If no one objects in the next few days, I'll reverse what it says and ask editors not to use the resolved template. In the mean time, I'll message those listed on the WP:HPP page with a link to this discussion. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree.The template is becoming just a tad bit annoying.How about only HPP's and admin's can put it on this page? Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just created this:

✔ Resolved.

. This does not have an image, just a unicode tick. {{resolved3}} SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What if we only put it there if the user says something like: 'thanks, that fixed it' or similar (and, of course, users can add it themselves). I like {{resolved3}}, it should speed up loading...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes I agree. I think there are two main issues: page loading and incorrect placements. I've noticed quite a few "blitz" resolveds (sorry about the bad neologism!) on the page which don't help the requester if they're not getting the answer they're looking for. I like the idea of only placing it when it is clear that the editor has explicitly said they're satisfied. Lack of activity could mean waiting for more responses, so just because there hasn't been a reply in 25 minutes it doesn't mean that it's necessarily resolved. Other opinions and links unknown to the original volunteer are also appreciated, especially by the requester. And yes, {{resolved3}} is perfect, considering how long the page is on a daily basis. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As a counter-point, I find the "resolved" template a very helpful tool when used correctly (e.g. the user says "thanks!"). For me, a greater evil than closing a discussion too early is to miss a question altogether. Sometimes when there are a lot of questions in the queue, it is hard to tell which ones have been resolved and which one might still need to be looked over. I can very quickly scan over the entire HD page and quickly pick out the ones without a resolved tag on it to see if further help is needed rather than scanning each and every entry. Without this quick-scan ability, I'll more likely just jump to the bottom of the page, potentially missing any questions that have roamed to the top unanswered. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A basic principle of communication is that merely sending a message is insufficient evidence that it reached the recipient. Therefore all effective communication protocols explicitly incorporate some mechanism whereby the recipient acknowledges receipt back to the sender. (See also Voice procedure, Hasty generalization, and Argument from ignorance.) Placing a {{resolved}} template without first hearing from the questioner that the answer satisfies the questioner is like pretending Murphy's law no longer applies. The assumption can fail in at least two ways:

• The answer may be wrong.
• The answer may be correct for the question as stated, but the questioner may discover, upon trying to apply the answer to the real problem, that the questioner stated the question incorrectly, and thus the questioner still needs help.

Then again, most questioners never tell us whether we solved their problem, so only a small minority of questions could get a "resolved" template if we wanted to be rigorous about it. We can't realistically expect questioners to adhere to any sort of protocol on the Help desk, since many new users are lucky if they can just edit a question. If an experienced Help desk volunteer thinks the question is resolved, that's probably right more often than wrong.

However, despite all that, I myself haven't noticed a serious problem from hasty resolved templates. When I see that a "resolved" question isn't really "resolved," I just add whatever I can think to add. (The Help desk history shows several instances where I added onto a "resolved" question, and I think I've corrected a few wrong answers.) The presence of the "resolved" template doesn't make much difference to me. I haven't had a problem with loading time for the Help desk page, particularly since I recently bought a new computer. I've noticed that the Help desk loads much faster on my fast new computer than on my older slower computers. Then again, I'm in the U.S., so I may have a faster connection to Wikipedia's servers than users in other parts of the world. I can believe loading time matters for some users, given how the Help desk is currently just an ordinary wiki page (and not a true threaded discussion system which would let a reader load just the latest replies, efficiently). I agree that the absence of "resolved" templates is a useful visual cue; I probably focus more on those questions, since we at least know that nobody on the Help desk thinks they have been resolved yet. --Teratornis (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

←So, from quickly skimming through this discussion, I'm going to say that - 1.)Replace {{resolved}} with {{resolved3}} 2.)Only mark resolved if it really is resolved, as in, the questioner replies saying the question is resolved. Matter finished? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's

✔ Resolved.

, yeah...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the people who pointed out that the "resolved" tag is sometimes put in when the issue hasn't actually been resolved. My own question, Google help, was never satisfactorily resolved. If there's no clear answer, just say that there's no clear answer. I'm fine with that. But don't say that the issue is resolved when it isn't. Dismas|^(talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually roam the page and mark as resolved threads that seem completely closed, I hope I haven't made any errors in that department and I do take many precautions. If it's agreed upon the others, I'll tag them resolved3 from now on and in the case of repeated errors, I will stop altogether. My reasoning is that tagging resolved issues really helps direct the helpers' attention to unresovled issues. However, I can see where this could create errors if everyone tags - perhaps we can come up with some system where certain editors have the helper community trust to tag threads as resolved.. just a thought/suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The irony of this thread being boxed and collapsed thus essentially marking it "resolved" less than 6 hours after my opening post, before I even had a chance to comment as the original poster (I posted and went to work), is almost perversely appropriate. Why would this be closed at all and hidden, which is usually done only for courtesy blanking based on privacy reasons? Certainly not after 6 hours, though I don't see why it would ever be. Anyway, back to the topic. I'm not expecting anyone to change their minds. In fact, I wasn't sure when I posted anyone would agree with me about the use of the template at all, I just thought I'd throw it out there. But let me say a bit more about why I think the use of resolved should be stopped entirely; the "solution" of using {{resolved3}} instead of the predecessor template in no way addresses my objection, which do not resolve to server load and misplacement.

• First the server issue, was really just a side note, but I wasn't thinking of page loading time. What I meant was that users are making separate edits and saving solely to add the template which is just a waste. Its use also raises the likelihood of edit conflicts which is something of a plague when you are a regular on the help pages. Again, just a side note.
• The help desk is one of the best learning forums on Wikipedia. Anything that tends to curb reading posts is a net loss in my opinion. I think the use of the template has this effect by its draw of the eye away from the content and its essential closing of the topic, whether correctly or incorrectly done. "oh, topic closed, on to the next."
• The closing of topics in this manner has a much more insidious effect: It discourages further posts on the topic. Even if a topic looks closed, even clearly so, you cannot possibly know what someone else may have to offer. Especially with respect to non-regulars who won't know to ignore it and post anyway. I imagine seeing the template in place will often result in a user saying to themselves words to the effect: "well I might have added my two cents; pointed out this other link; provided a different take on the solution, but I don't want to post to a closed topic." None of them should be closed solely for this reason. While there are times when I've seen the template patently prematurely applied, in my opinion before the help desk is archived it's always too early. I think this alone far outweighs any benefit of users being able to more quickly scan for "unresolved" topics, which is the only benefit I can see for its use.
• The poor archives! What purpose can this possibly serve in the archives but to hog space and be an eye sore? If we must use it the archiving bot should remove all of them as part of its task.

Okay, end rant. And everyone: take a bow for being help desk (and other help page) regulars. I personally think we perform an invaluable task for the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for my reply. 1.)I collapsed it as it was getting long, not to resolve it. Resolving discussions is what the AfD close templates are for. 2.)The point of the help desk is to get questions, inform the questioner of the answer, and repeat. All other effects just happen to be side effects. 3.)OK, the resolved template does waste tons of edits. But it does, as said above, focus attention on the un-replied questions. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing a recent and modestly sized thread such as this is not customary at all and has a decided chilling effect on its dissemination but I don't want to belabor the point, it's off topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No intention to be a stickler, but I also felt it was collapsed a bit unduly. I just raised a thought/suggestion and suddenly, the thread was closed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment re the resolved tick, and the "done" tick that pops up sometimes in the ref desks, I quite like the friendly effects of it, like being watched over [Hey, we got a tick for that] Cheesy, I know, but just offering my own lighter take on the tick though the issue above is important too. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, a little laughter can't hurt anyone. But I don't think the template should be used the way it was (if at all), I personally didn't use it. For one thing, my browser (which surprisingly was IE7) couldn't identify the unicode symbol (it was shown as one of those boxes) until I installed a language pack just recently. Not everyone might be able to see it. I agree with having something to mark answered questions but maybe we should have a time limit guideline, for example: "Add resolved if user had responed affimitivly, or question was answered to a satisfactory amount and 1 day has passed without any more discussion/questions".--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 02:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunny910910 is correct— we need to be prepared to answer questions about why the Resolved template has a big question mark when readers have problems with Unicode support. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why this is an issue suddenly. This is the same system that is used on all the noticeboards without issue for a very long time. Pick any noticeboard from Category:Wikipedia_noticeboards and you'll see exactly what I mean. If nothing else, the most compelling reason to keep the system as-is is simply to provide consistency, rather than throwing yet another one-off system at our users. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no system. The help desk is not a noticeboard. It's inconsistently used where it is in use. There are analogous places where it is barely used at all such as the village pump.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a "notice board" and a "help board" is academic at best. The users making the requests won't see a difference and frankly I don't either. However, you've not really answered the question. Why is this suddenly an issue HERE and not an issue anywhere else? Why isn't the fact the there are resolved tags all over the COIN archives not a problem but they are "an eye sore" here? Why aren't the resolved tags being crucified on AN/I for edit conflicts, but they are here? Why are we proposing yet another -- and different -- system (however loose it may be) that will be used nowhere else but on WP:HD? We're here to help the users and I strongly feel that being inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia is not a good way to accomplish this. I realize that Wikipedia itself is not consistent, but that's no excuse to further increase the problem. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Fughettaboutit but I will say that there is very little need for a resolved template here. At WP:ANI and WP:AN, there are user disputes, consensus issues and finally a resolution. Not so here. It's just a place to ask help, and threads very rarely go beyond six or seven posts. It's about user satisfaction, not consensus. The user can see if their question has been answered, and if they really wanted to know they'd check back. If they're unsatisfied, they can continue the thread, so marking it as resolved is sometimes incorrect; but in the end, it's not really necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that's it's really useful I don't think, but "why now, why here?" Because I edit here a lot and for a very long time so it's where I noticed it; because its heavy use here is of recent origin. I reject the idea that this is in any way a system. But if you want to run with system and consistent, then adding the template is a new system for the help desk and inconsistent with its normal functioning. Ever policy, guideline, recommendation, change in something on Wikipedia comes through someone proposing it or discussing it. I don't think your point addresses the substantive issue of whether the template's use is good or bad. Meta concerns are valid, but I think they're of little weight here, where there is no established "process" sought to be overhauled. Thank you Peter for the point above. This rushed post is the last possible for me for many many hours btw.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate my questions and concerns being marginalized as "meta" or the condescending tone. That's not really fair or constructive at all. The use of the resolved template was added to the "how to guide" a year ago. Therefore, to say that this is "new" is ludicrous. Because its been well established for a long time, I don't think asking "why now?" is in any way unreasonable. It may help us find a compromise point if we know what changed over the last year to suddenly make you want to speak up. You see, I find the tags a very useful communication tool. If they are being used in an inappropriate manner, fine. That can be easily adjusted. However, I'd rather not stop using the communication tool completely unless there is a very compelling reason. So far, I've not heard one that convinces me that if a thread is really and truly closed, that it shouldn't be marked as such. Perhaps you can work with us to find a happy middle ground? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A proccess would be a good idea. I've made some suggestion above and had another one in mind but it would seem as though consensus is forming to not use the tag. I honestly don't understand why this is such a huge concern - it's not as if discussions can't be re-opened if they are unresolved. Anyways, I'd appreciate some consideration with my previous suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion. The reasons it was brought up was because 1) it was significantly slowing down the page loading time (and considering my laptop is on its last legs I've noticed it) and 2) because the tag was being incorrectly placed. I know you've said above that you often mark dormant sections as resolved, and this has no reflection on your edits, but discussions can be dormant for a number of reasons. New users aren't as active, so it could be a while before they respond. If new users see their posts prematurely patrolled, they may be put off. I repeat that the help desk isn't WP:ANI, so leaving discussions open seems a better alternative. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't close dormant help requests, only ones that have been fully addressed to and there seems to be nothing else that could be added to the discussion in them -- When I'm uncertain, I leave it open. For me it really helps to be able to skip issues which were properly addressed to. However, I can see where this could lead to people closing threads irresponsibly and therefore some process might be great to save time for the helpers so they won't read through a thread which was already properly handled. Arbcom for example have their trusted clerks, why not have a couple of "trusted helpdesk clerks" also? We can also come up with basic guidlines for this. Anyways, for me it would have a hampering effect to not being able to skip already resolved issues.

Thinking about moving the discussion forward... Should we make a mini poll thing for suggestions/perspectives on this?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I neglected to mention this, but the number of times people actually return to say thanks is almost non existent and waiting on this culture to change is as good as waiting for a rock to turn to fire (I just came up with that one). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Some rocks actually can burn. --Teratornis (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh... Tan | 39 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you caught while it was a vandalised redirect to...somewhere else!! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick analysis of the impact of the resolved templates on the page as there was a concern that it was slowing the page down "significantly". I used the version of page that was in effect at the time this thread started as a reference point [1]. Each resolved box takes up 467 bytes. The checkmark graphic is 537 bytes. On the reference page, the resolved box appeared 39 times. All told, the boxes used up 18,213 bytes. If you add the checkmark (which is loaded only once), the grand total is 18,750 bytes. The total page size (not including the monobook theme, background, CSS, JavaScript, etc) was 269,439 bytes, thus the boxes made up just a little less than 7% of the total page size. On the version of the page that existed as I wrote this, there were 28 resolved boxes and 10 resolved3 boxes (at 333 bytes each). This makes up a total of 16,943 bytes out of a total page size of 354,626 bytes -- or 4.8%. For comparison purposes, the Wikipedia logo in the upper-left and the "Powered by MediaWiki" logo in the lower-right combined are 18,395 bytes. I'm drawing no conclusions from this data, just reporting it as it is. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the template should be eliminated, I personally never use it. Many a time a person responding adds it, when really they could be completely wrong and inaccurate. Also, I don't believe a lot of questions can be completely 'solved'. Yes the persons question can be answered, but someone passing could see the topic and may have something to add. This template completely stops this.

All in all the template is to me personally, annoying. I can scroll down the page and every so often see the resolved things, then when I don't see one I stop and read but the question is still solved, making searching very irritating and annoying. If the template was eliminated or completely consistent with everyone using it, which will NEVER happen (like waiting for a rock to turn to fire!). The best option then is to eliminate it.

Adam (Manors) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'll yield to the consensus which is obviously forming here. The only holdouts right now are me and Jaakobou and I don't think Jaako is too strong on the keep side (just my impression). Therefore, I'm officially dropping the stick and backing away.  :) :) Someone should update the how-to page though. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm... so have we reached a consensus to not use {{resolved}} on the Help desk yet, or should we wait? Don't want to update the how-to page too early... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 02:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't really reach a consensus, as there is plenty of people who contribute to the Help Desk who haven't seen this, and more new people will become involved every day. We could only come to a consensus if a message was placed saying explicitly to NOT use it and using it would be considered spam, which I don't like the sound of. Adam (Manors) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a poll with a notice on the helpdesk page? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That would require changing the header, which I think is currently protected or something, and I don't think we need a discussion about how we're going to put it somewhere on the header... but it's a good idea. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds made an announcement to everyone in the HPP WikiProject on May 28th, so all interested parties have been informed. Based on that, if we wait, say, 5 days from that date (June 2nd) for everyone to chime in, I think that's fair and sufficient. However, even though I'm clearly on the other side of the matter (I favor the tags as a communication tool between HPPers), its clear the consensus is going the other way. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I figure a poll with multiple helpers participation would help resolve this issue long term so that no one will complain about it in either direction and restart long discussions over a resolved issue. Just my two cents. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned before, how about only established users can use the template?Like HPP's and admins.We actually don't really need it, any user can just read the disscussion and figure out if its resolved or not. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it much easier to help if I skip over reading the discussions which are already resolved. I also came up with the "established users" suggestion. I'm thinking we've went over this enough for people to make up their minds. Anyone interested in opening the poll? (options as I see them: (1) no tagging, (2) established helpers may tag + basic guidelines will be made for "resolvers") Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

Someone who knows what they are doing should archive this talk page all the way up to the above discussion about the {{resolved}} template. It's getting very long. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that shortly. --RyRy5 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it should be archived when June begins. This page is archived every month from the looks of the other archives. Let me double check.--RyRy5 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we should wait a few more months before archiving this talk page. The average amount of time this page is archived is about 5-6 months. --RyRy5 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, i disagree with your last statement i don't think that the archiving should be based on a arbitrary no of months.The page is long, way to long you should archive when June begins.

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I understand that. Okay, I will archive most of this page at the beginning of June. --RyRy5 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've archived everything up through April 2008. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Header

Do you like the new help desk header I designed. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this should have been discussed first. I'm not sure about it, and the original was fully-protected. Please discuss major changes before implementing them; WP:BOLD is great but this is a very highly visible page. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

However, this is the format for the archives. Why not the main help desk? StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Help Desk heading, because I visited it yesterday only to post a note about the resolved template. However from the little I do remember, there were several templates transcluded into several other templates, and the way it was done looked quite complex. I've fully protected the current heading, but I presume the other one was agreed on by consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We could certainly take some of the better parts and incorporate them into the old one, but I'm not a big fan of this in its entirety, sorry. I'm putting the old one back for now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the huge THIS IS ABOUT WIKIPEDIA ONLY was totally unnecessary. People still asked normal questions. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some people die in car crashes despite wearing seatbelts is not a reason to get rid of seatbelts. One also must consider how many lives they save. Evaluating the impact of instructions on Wikipedia is difficult because the failures are much more evident than the successes. When someone reads the instructions in Wikipedia:Help desk/Header, and as a result does not ask an inappropriate question on the Help desk, we have no indication that the instructions worked - but in that case they did work. I suspect, but cannot prove, that our link to search the Help desk archive is working, because:

• Searching the Help desk archive really does answer a lot of repetitive questions, if people actually try it.
• The number of questions on the Help desk seems to have declined slightly since we added that instruction. In particular, the extremely repetitive questions such as "How do I create a new article?" seem to have declined slightly, although such questions are still frequent.

Since Wikipedia is still growing by every measure, we could expect Help desk traffic to grow in proportion. But it doesn't seem to be. --Teratornis (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

True, people still to ask question more appropriate for the Reference Desk here, but (though it is just my personal memory), I think that they ask many fewer such questions that they did in the past, when we didn't have such a huge disclaimer about what this page was for. -- Natalya 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody would classify all the Help desk questions for the past year or two, so we could generate reliable statistics that might correlate with our tweaks to the Help desk header. (That would be quite a job.) That still would not prove that the header tweaks caused any changes in the frequency of repetitive or inappropriate questions, but it might become harder to argue that nobody reads the instructions. Classifying the questions would have another clear benefit: it might reveal gaps in the WP:FAQ. I'm pretty sure we have a number of questions that come up more than once, for which the FAQ has no entries yet. Links to FAQ entries would be smaller and more efficient than standard response templates, just in case we ever start feeling the need to shrink the Help desk and make it load faster. (I personally don't find the Help desk size to be a problem just now, but apparently some people find it unwieldy with slow connections.) Links to FAQ entries would also make it easier to compile further statistics on the frequency of repetitive questions, in case anyone wanted to compile such statistics (something that would be nice, but realistically I doubt anyone would want to compile such statistics). --Teratornis (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I should point out that many policies and procedures seem to result from hunches and opinions rather than hard data. It's hard to collect the kind of statistics that would let us really know what we are talking about on a lot of issues. --Teratornis (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The last time we discussed the header I had done a (admittedly crude and small) statistical check of the use of {{RD2}} for the month before and after we added the strong heading that the help desk was only for question about USING Wikipedia, and found that the template's use was reduced by 2/3, thus implying that misplaced RefDesk questions were less common after the change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could modify WP:CREEP where it says: people don't read instructions, to: one third of people don't read instructions. Seriously, if nobody reads instructions, Wikipedia could not work at all. This whole site is a giant do it yourself project. The only way to get anywhere is to read instructions. Lots of instructions. Some people miss some instructions, but I think most users are trying. They have to be. --Teratornis (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resolved Template

There has been a discussion about using {{resolved}}, so I created {{resolved3}}. If there is a bot that archives the talk page, can we not set the template so, if the subject is resolved, it's archived, otherwise, its left. StewieGriffin! • Talk 14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, all it should be archived on a fluid basis, as the page does (by its very nature) get very long on a daily basis. I can foresee it getting very out of hand, so I think changing the behaviour of the archive bot will be a mistake. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, changing the behavior of the current archiving bot in this way isn't really an option. There are bots that look at the activity of individual threads and decide whether or not to archive them individually, but Scsbot isn't one of them. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Template?

Hi. I've uploaded the SVG version of an image on Commons.

now I see the "SVG image needed..." template can be changed with "SVG image available..." but I really can't work out how to do that.

can anybody help? thanks

this is the page I would like to edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Germanen_50_n._Chr.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiovanni (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving this to the main page -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new Hebrew/Yiddish (?) interwiki links

Within the past day or two, someone added these two new interwiki links:

[[he:ויקיפדיה:דלפק ייעוץ]]

[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:טעכנישע פראגעס]]

But they added them at the top of the page, and they're messing up the archiving bot. Can someone figure out where they belong, and move them there? Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They were already at Wikipedia:Help desk/Header where they belong so I removed the duplicates at top of Wikipedia:Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Splendid. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was my bot, sorry for that! You might be interested to block certain bots from editing that page by using Template:Bots! --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't Access I-281

Everytime I try to access the I-281 page it brings me to I-481's page. --Did someone set it to do that or what?

--Check77 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Entirely intentional. There is no I-281, but I-481 once went by that designation. You may find the road you're looking for at List of highways numbered 281. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I-281 (and I-481) is a Wikipedia:Redirect to Interstate 481. [2] shows it was made by SPUI. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you referring to I-281 in New York, correct? Tiggerjay (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Japan's I-200 class submarine series never got past the single digits, so I-281 would not have been an Imperial Japanese submarine designation. Just in case anyone was wondering. --Teratornis (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)