Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 2, 2018.

Separation in medicine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase doesn't seem to be commonly used to refer to the target, and could plausibly refer to any of several topics: separation anxiety disorder, separation of prescribing and dispensing, separation test, separated shoulder (though I don't think a disambiguation page would be useful – at least not at this title). This points to the same target as the redirects listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 2#Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic continuing medical education, but I'm listing this separately as the reasons for deleting are substantially different. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Time in Korea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, since Time in North Korea exists. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic continuing medical education[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These take readers from search terms that are not specific to any nation or region to an article that is only about the United States. From our articles on the topics it seems that neither allopathy nor osteopathic medicine is a concept or practice that is exclusive to the U.S. (see also osteopathic medicine in the United States and osteopathic medicine in Canada). As far as I can tell we don't have any articles that could provide the reader with a comparison between osteopathic and "allopathic" or "orthodox" medicine in a global context. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Palace coup[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 9#Palace coup

WP:TRIGGERED[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Trivial and childish, very unlikely to lead to productive discussion if deployed on article talk pages. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It could be useful in the sense that the person looking for it would type out in the search box to get there and in this age of internet culture the term triggered could mean "I don't like it" and it's not necessarily rude or childish but could be seen as a slang. It doesn't have to be used on a talk page. Anyone looking for WP:IDONTLIKEIT could use WP:TRIGGERED because it's much easier to type as it's just one word while the former has four and could at times be inconvenient if they forget to omit the punctuation (') in "I don't like it". Unless there is a better target, this should be kept per its usefulness in aiding search and could also be used on talk pages for the lighthearted editors that don't take offense by seeing this as a Wikipedia shortcut. The editor whose username is Z0 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m confident that very few people, probably none at all, will search “WP:TRIGGERED” in the search bar while looking for a policy equivalent to WP:IDLI. More likely, this shortcut will be used in the context of talk page discussions, with the effect of derailing them. Endymion.12 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the shortcut does not make sense. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:TRIGGER redirects to Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Triggers of a sock puppet investigation. That aside, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer might be a good target for this. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Endymion.12's response to Z0. Project space pages, including redirects (but excluding essays, I suppose), should be in Wikipedia's voice. This doesn't mean they can't be humorous or silly, but there's a difference between the sort of humorous shortcuts (and other content) we keep, which are usually friendly and self-deprecating, and the kind of childish "punching down" comedy associated with 4chan and the like from which this use of the word "triggered" is derived. (I disagree with Tavix's comment though: I think, regrettably, the use of "triggered" to mean something like "offended" or "upset," especially when implying that the person so described is too easily offended or upset, is common enough that WP:RFD#D5 doesn't really apply. Separately, as Godsy notes, Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Triggers of a sock puppet investigation and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer are possible targets, but retargeting this after it's been linked to in several discussions would only cause confusion.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "triggered" can mean offended or upset, but the target does not have anything to do with that. (nb: neither WP:OFFENDED nor WP:UPSET exist). -- Tavix (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The target uses "This offends me" as an example of the kind of argument it describes, so I think it has something to do with offence at least. "Upset" isn't specifically mentioned but strikes me as being broadly similar to the types of argument that WP:IDONTLIKEIT describes. It's probably not a particularly important distinction either way. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts comment immediately above, and add a hatnote pointing to the content disclaimer and possibly Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. In my experience people who use "Triggered" usually do so in a way that refers to someone else's objection as an "I don't like it argument", those who do suffer themselves more commonly use "trigger", "triggers" or "triggering" - although neither are exclusive which is why I'm suggesting the hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This isn't mainspace where we are trying to serve a wide variety of readers who use lots of different vocabulary for lots of different concepts. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is extremely well-known among editors. It has literally tens of thousands of incoming links. There's no value in creating additional obscure slang shortcuts to it. At best that just wastes the time of everyone in the discussion as they try to figure out what policy or guideline you're trying to invoke, and at worse the new shortcut itself is more likely than the original to cause offense and degrade the tone of talk page discussion. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sunil Butolia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Shirt58 as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 15:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotional redirect. Onel5969 TT me 02:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. This really should qualify for WP:CSD#A7, notwithstanding that there's a redirect sitting on top of the text. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Diahcasial cyme[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 9#Diahcasial cyme

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_2&oldid=1036307538"