Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

August 31

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2014.

Cite book

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 keep. While this was close enough to perhaps be called no consensus, I find a weak consensus for keeping, given previous outcomes of such discussions. Either way, the outcome is the same. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we delete this redirect and replace it by T:Cite book. In its current form it breaks syntax very often. Check this fix for instance. This is not a new situation. Many new editors are confused. If some editors still want to save time by avoiding to type the template prefix I suggest that they use a shortcut for template. I think this is a fair compromise between those in favour of deletion and those you still use the redirect to save keystrokes. Magioladitis (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible cross-namespace redirect. I think it has already signed its own death warrant. Wouldn't have taken it against the OP if he had delete it himself, per WP:SNOW. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete destination has no information about book citations, it merely formats references used on Wikipedia. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not create the suggested replacement. {{tl|cite book}} is only one character longer than [[T:Cite book]], does not break namespace division, and does not force the user to type a capital "C". — Keφr 09:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nothing has changed since the consensus to keep was re-established at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30#Cite journal. I'll ping the users who took part in that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left a message on the talk page of all the registered users who contributed to that discussion, excluding the IP user with no recorded contributions in 2014 and one indefinitely blocked user whose user page indicated they had retired. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, this is blatant canvassing since all of them said "keep". Second, nothing will ever change if we keep referring to past discussions like some kind of dogma instead of actually re-evaluating arguments used in them. I think those in the discussion you linked to are quite weak: they fail to address the rationale(s) for deletion and explain the value of these redirects. — Keφr 13:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Contacting everyone who participated in a discussion is explicitly not canvassing, please actually read the project page, doubly so when using a neutral message as I did. The fact that everyone in the discussion recommended keep (which is actually not true, I endorsed someone else's retargetting suggestion for example) is irrelevant. You will also find that nothing changes unless people are actually persuaded that things need to change, simply calling the present state of affairs a "dogma" will not do that. Instead, explain why making it harder for new users to correctly cite their sources is a good thing and how this outweighs the comparatively trivial cross-namespace issues? Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thryduulf behaved appropriately. He informed everyone, not just "specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate". Oreo Priest talk 13:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, almost all of them said "keep" just like Thryduulf above completely by accident. Regardless of whether or not this met some formal criteria for canvassing, this is bad form. If this redirect were so tremendously useful as is claimed, users would have been flocking here without even having been notified. — Keφr 15:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I informed every registered user who expressed an opinion and is not indefinitely blocked (an IP address will not likely reach the same person after 2 years, and the indefinitely blocked editor is unable to express an opinion here and an invitation to do just that may be seen as encouragement to bypass the block). I did not select based on what opinion was expressed. This is the perfectly standard practice of notifying commenters in an old discussion when the subject of that discussion is renominated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you explain how is having [[Cite book]] redirect to Template:Cite book of any help to new users? The conveniently ignored examples of mistyping {{cite book}} as [[cite book]] mentioned above and even in the previous nomination suggest that this is actually an impediment to learning how to properly format citations. Also, new users should be taught to separate organisational matters from encyclopaedic content. Cross-namespace redirects are one of many ways of undermining that. — Keφr 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Altairisfar in the previous discussion: Very useful shortcuts, nothing has changed since previous discussions. Also, with the community recognizing a need to make our formatting methods easier to use in order to encourage more editors to contribute, this RfD would take us in the other direction. The supposed technical issues are trivial in comparison. Oreo Priest talk 13:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RfD and not a TfD. So these redirects not make "formatting methods easier" since the are from main space to template space. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asserting that the redirect needs to be kept for formatting syntax itself. It said "make our formatting methods easier to use", as in making the template easier to find from the search box. Adding two clicks and burying one of them in the second half of the fourth hatnote of a long article makes the template unnecessarily hard to find/access. Across the three deletion discussions you participated in (two of which you started), countless editors made this abundantly clear, so I'm not sure why you're still finding this difficult to process. Oreo Priest talk 08:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss11 you did not reply why this is better than T pseudospace and how to prevent the problem of broken references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"T:Cite book" is far more cumbersome to type than "cite book" or "citebook" and neutralizes the utility of this redirect. If the broken references problem is a pervasive issue, can we set up some syntax bot to monitor it, a la BracketBot? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would definitely be a better solution than deleting the redirect. Oreo Priest talk 08:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every couple of years somebody notices cite book, cite web, cite news or cite journal (but so far not cite encyclopedia) and demands its deletion because it violates the "no redirects from mainspace to templatespace" rule. (One wonders why that rule is so important anyway.} Every single time, the nomination gets shot down, because consensus is that anything that helps increase the addition of citations to articles is a good thing, and WP:Ignore all rules. If this redirect were to be deleted, I assure you that people would notice and take it to deletion review. I personally use these redirects all the time. So, I urge the nominator to withdraw his nomination and spare everybody a lot of extra typing. Abductive (reasoning) 15:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In contrary to other nominations I have strong evidence that these redirects are misused creating broken references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and more and more every month. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

DOS 30

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#DOS 30

Windows 6.x

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 retarget to Windows NT#Releases, retarget, and delete, respectively. The latter item seems fundamentally misleading, since it wouldn't take readers to a disambiguation page, or even something that looks like one, such as a set index. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not discuss the 6.x series in detail. Weak retarget to Windows Vista. - TheChampionMan1234 10:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (Strong delete for Windows NT 6.x (disambiguation)) First, their visit stats are too disappointing. Second, Windows 6.x could collectively refer to Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows 8, Windows Server 2012, Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2. Unlike Windows 3.x and Windows 9x, these versions of Windows are so radically different that there is no ground for invoking such a reference to them. I think someone just though that because Windows 3.x exists, Windows 6.x must also exists. A poor example of WP:OSE applied. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dissapointing" viewing statistics are not a reason to delete a redirect, ever. And the 14-53 hits these have been getting since June is above the median average for a redirect. Prior to June the latter two were getting 400-500 hits/month which is higher than many articles. I haven't investigated what happened in May/June, but there is evidence that people are searching for content with these terms so we should direct them to wherever they are most likely to find what they are looking for. I'm not sure where that best place is, but deletion is definitely not what is needed here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. IMHO, disappointing viewing statistics are not a reason alone. "Alone" is the keyword. 400-500 hits per month is very disappointing too; that accounts for 15 to 17 visits daily. Besides, comparing a redirect with an article (whose main factor of being kept is notability) is not fair. Furthermore, this is a Windows topic. It is obvious why it had that amount of visits: People are so hot about it when it is in the news and even worship its redirects. (I've been in 11 xFDs about Windows articles, the result of all of which had been either deletion or redirection.) Then, the interest dies down and they realize what they idolized so far was nothing but a broken redirect.
        Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is irrelevant to redirects, the only criterion that matters is usefulness - if a redirect is useful then it is kept, if it isn't then it gets changed or deleted. There is no concept of viewing figures for a redirect being "disappointing" or even "satisfactory" or "good", if a redirect gets 1-2 people per month to the content they are looking for then it is useful, if it gets 15-17 people per day there it is useful, if it means 1000 people per hour get to the page they want then it is useful. That the subject is Windows is irrelevant, as is why it is being used, all that matters is that the people who do use it get to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Notability is irrelevant to redirects"
            True; and I didn't say it is either. (I hope I am wrong but I have a feeling you don't read my messages carefully.)
            As for your other arguments, I'd like to reiterate that "alone" is the keyword here. My argument simultaneously takes both usefulness and low traffic into account, AND considers them cause and effect. Consequently, a visit is not necessarily a use.
            Best regards,
            Codename Lisa (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to Windows NT#Releases per � below. Having a compromise is better than having no consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Windows NT#Releases, which is where Windows NT 6 points � (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to version list / Alternative proposal to create a disambiguation page. As ambiguous as they are, "Windows 6.x" and even more so "Windows NT 6.x" are commonly used terms, sourceable in many RS. While "Windows 6.x" is particularly vague (as it could be both a (in this case non-existant) marketing version or a technical version of the underlying system), a term like "Windows NT 6.x" is correct even in a technical sense. Therefore we should keep the entries to catch the corresponding search box input. Since they unfortunately refer to various articles at the same time, the most reasonable solution is to point them to some kind of version list for further disambiguation. The most reasonable link target currently existing is "Windows NT#Releases".
Further, since "Windows NT 6.X" is an uncommon capitalization variant of "Windows NT 6.x" (which BTW already points to "Windows NT#Releases"), I think, we can safely delete the former while keeping the later. Since "Windows NT 6.x (disambiguation)" style articles do not normally point to articles and the term is already covered by the other redirects, I think, we can delete it without loosing anything.
An alternative to this approach could be to actually establish a new disambiguation page for the various Windows NT versions which could be referred to by "Windows (NT) 6.x" under either "Windows 6.x" or "Windows NT 6.x", and point the other 6.x title variants to this disambiguation page - similar to what we do with "Windows 5.x" and "Windows 8.x", (should also do with "Windows 4.x" and probably will have to do with "Windows 7.x" somewhen in the future as well).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Xitit

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 convert to soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect to project space, and there are userboxes on the page too, this just doesn't make sense. - TheChampionMan1234 10:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete people arriving on that user page will be autorelocated to a project page, if they subsequently click on talk to leave the user a message, it will be left in an inappropriate location. So this is clearly harmful. -- 04:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.169.222 (talk)
  • Convert to a soft redirect. We should not be deleting any page if there is another option that solves the problem. In the case of user pages redirecting outside that user's user or user talk space, then conversion to a soft redirect preserves the user's intent while removing all the issues identified. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a soft redirect. I'll concede to a soft redirect. The point of the redirect is I've never considered myself a major participant in the Wikipedia project, rather a major believer in its purpose and goal. I'd rather go unnoticed through Wikipedia and my redirect, I thought, would make that statement. Page hasn't been updated in over 8 years. Userboxes might be obsolete, I wouldn't know. Xitit (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Windows-1351

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. Just Chilling (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another random error code which is not notable. - TheChampionMan1234 10:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like an implausible double typo; could be Windows-1251 or Windows-1361. "Windows-1361" could be retargetted to Windows code page but this one? It seems to lack both purpose and rationale. Also 1351 is the Windows error number for "ERROR_CANT_ACCESS_DOMAIN_INFO" error. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Target article doesn't mention it. — RockMFR 01:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As explained by Codename Lisa above, this syntax is typically used for Windows codepages. I remember CP1351 being a Japanese DOS DBCS codepage, but I would have to look it up if it was also supported by Japanese OEM versions of Windows (in this case, a redirect to Windows code page would be appropriate). It is also possible that the creator of this redirect meant a particular build number of Windows 98, which gained some coverage in the press at its time. However, I have only seen it being referred to as Windows 4.10.1351, not as Windows-1351. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Windows nine

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. Just Chilling (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 9 was already deleted, so we shouldn't keep this. - TheChampionMan1234 10:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inaccessible boot device

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. Just Chilling (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a random error which is not OS-specific, but a BIOS error. - TheChampionMan1234 10:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Microsoft Ireland

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) 17:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Ireland at the target page, and not particularly notable. - TheChampionMan1234 10:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dorphlin

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) 17:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible type and doesn't mean 'dolphin' in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 09:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comic-Con

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 keep. There's a rough consensus that the hyphen isn't enough to distinguish this genericized term. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect be retargeted to San Diego Comic-Con International or continue to redirect to the dab page, Comic Con? My gut feeling was that it should redirect to the dab, but HidariMigi made a good case for redirecting to the San Diego article on my talk page that's worth reading. Pinging the editors who also participated in the recent RM as they may be interested: Gregkaye, Esw01407, Thankstelfair. Jenks24 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose ; keep it as is. This should point to the dab page. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the editor who initiated the redirect to San Diego Comic-Con International, I'll point out my reasoning: "Comic-Con" (with a dash) is a trademark of the non-profit Comic-Con International, which runs the San Diego convention, as well as a couple of others. SDCC has always (in my 30-year memory as a comic book fan) been referred to as "Comic-Con" by fans and the media, and no other convention, until the last few years, even challenged that notion. It's that the recent batch of for-profit "comic cons" (i.e. the former Wizard Worlds and now 2013's Salt Lake Comic Con) have intentionally aimed to benefit from the impressive wave of media coverage that Comic-Con gets to muddy local con-goer's perception, with an undeserved connection to Comic-Con, and thereby attempting to 'genericise the trademark' using the the similarity of "comic con" -- even while their conventions aren't even primarily oriented to the media of comic books.--HidariMigi (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ; keep it as is. This should point to the dab page. All of this activity around comic-con happened after San Diego Comic-Con International sued Salt Lake Comic Con. Conventions such as Birmingham Comicon(1968), Houston Comic-Con(1967) and the first New York Comic Con(1964) started as early as 1964, long before San Diego's first convention. (Can Wizard Operate a Comic-Con[1])Motor City Comic Con started in 1989 and the term Comic-Con is used on other comic con events such as Baltimore Comic-Con, Philadelphia Comic-Con, Grand Rapids Comic-Con, Raleigh Comic-Con, Oz Comic-Con and Tuscon Comic-Con. Since this is an international reference local preferences should not be highlighted. It also appears that there are a number of other comic-con comic conventions. (Salt Lake Comic Con Lawsuit Facts Page)[2] 64.134.228.185 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Can Wizard Operate a 'Comic-Con?' August 11, 2009
  2. ^ San Diego Comic Con International vs. Salt Lake Comic Con) July 26, 2014
Note: this IP has made no other edits other than to this RfD, and the references to the Salt Lake Comic Con "facts page" may be considered suspect as advocacy during the organizers' ongoing legal dispute with Comic-Con Int'l. --HidariMigi (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are a lot of people out their that have comic-con conventions that don't want to be sued by San Diego but our voices are important nonetheless. This all started when San Diego tax payers said they don't want to expand the convention center and now San Diego Comic-Con International needs to become "comic-con". The editors involved with this decision can look through the Salt Lake Comic Con "fact page" and "separate the wheat and the chaff." Do a google search for "comic con" or "comic-con" and you will get hundreds of conventions. They may not be the ones the national news are talking about, but they are the ones that all the local news outlets are talking about. Boston Comic Con gets 10 times as much press in Boston than San Diego Comic-Con does in Boston. It sure appears that HidariMigi has an agenda that goes beyond Wikipedia. 64.134.228.185 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with a ability to Google research can see that SDCC has (nearly) always been "Comic-Con" -- so I'm not sure where this fallacious claim of "San Diego tax payers opposing the convention center expansion" has anything to do with its name. In fact, a quick news search shows the expansion was approved by the California Coastal Commission last year, following approval by area hoteliers to levy a room surcharge to fund the project; but the expansion has been put on hold by an appeals court which ruled the surcharge wasn't constitutional-- not tax payer opposition. See: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/26/convention-center-expansion-no-court-appeal/
Additionally, I have no connection to the convention, other than having been an attendee for years. Please read WP:AGF before making claims of 'agenda' -- particularly after just acknowledging that you have a "comic-con convention" afraid of getting "sued by San Diego." --HidariMigi (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With or without out the hyphen, it should remain targeted to the disambiguation page. There are multiple events that use either Comic Con, Comic-Con, or ComicCon or other variation of the term. If a user types in Comic-Con, are they searching for SDCC or some other Comic-Con? Since it is very likely to be either, having the redirect pointing to a disambiguation page is more helpful to the reader to find what they are searching for. —Farix (t | c) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What "other" Comic-Con? As mentioned before, the individual term "Comic-Con" has been the standard shorthand for the San Diego convention; not only because it is the biggest, but also because that's the way that all news agencies refer to it. Try a newsearch (i.e Google "Comic-Con site:website.com") of any US media outlet (i.e. CNN.com, Foxnews.com, USAToday.com, NBCnews.com, ABCNews.com, etc.) --HidariMigi (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baltimore Comic-Con, Philadelphia Comic-Con, Grand Rapids Comic-Con, Raleigh Comic-Con, Oz Comic-Con, Tuscon Comic-Con, The Great Lakes Comic-Con, Bakersfield Comic-Con, Southern Maryland Comic-Con are just a few.64.134.228.185 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point for me: those are all location modified names, many recently inaugurated and many that aren't even "Comic-Con": for example, "Grand Rapids" was started last October; "Raleigh" is actually part of the "Wizard World Comic Con" circuit, with its first show this year; Bakersfield in October 2008; Tuscon likewise in 2008, and isn't sure whether its named "Comic Con" or "Comic-Con" (it uses both on its own site.) But by itself, when a comic fan says "Comic-Con" they mean San Diego Comic-Con. It's been that way for ages and no matter how many tiny regional conventions want to benefit from the association, they aren't connected to "Comic-Con" in San Diego. Anecdotally, I've talked to countless casual/first-time con-goers who are confused by all these "Comic-Con"s because they believe they're all somehow related to the San Diego show, which is obviously the intention. --HidariMigi (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirecting to the San Diego con page. When anyone discusses "Comic-Con" without some establishing context, the San Diego show is what's meant. It is the show that is talked about on national TV and in major magazines (such as the TV Guide special issue). Yes, smaller cons are often referred to as Comic Con or a Comic Con but only in situations where it is clear that these more local events are meant. If anyone asks you out of the blue if you are going to Comic-Con this year, no one would interpret it as meaning anything but San Diego. --Khajidha (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is redirecting the trademarked term "Comic-Con" with a dash, only -- the search term "Comic Con" which reflects the London event-based events already redirects to the dab. --HidariMigi (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point made repeatedly here that people use "Comic Con" and "Comic-Con" interchangeably to refer to all the events however they are spelled and whether context has been explicitly established or not. This may be incorrect from a marketing and/or trademark point of view, but what matters is what gets people to what they are actually looking for, and as both terms are ambiguous with no primary topic in actual usage they should point to the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mistaken belief: "Comic Con and Comic-con" are *not* used interchangeably for Comic-Con International; nor does "the press use these terms generically." It may be an impression, based on the intentionally efforts of other conventions to make it so. There's only "Comic-Con" without a location qualifier used in the major press in reference to San Diego Comic-Con; and in popular usage, such as the documentary Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope; in future 'Intergalactic' version in Futurama episode "Lrrreconcilable_Ndndifferences"; in books like Comic-Con and the Business of Pop Culture, It Happens at Comic-Con and Comic-Con Strikes Again!. There is no 'other' Comic-Con with this sort of notability.
Again, this is the redirect for the 'primary' usage of 'Comic-Con' (capitalised and with a dash); "Comic con" is still a dab. As noted at WP:PRIMARYUSAGE: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."--HidariMigi (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while voting yes for the original change from Comic-Con to Comic Con, I just can't see the point to this redirect going to San Diego. Yes, while Comic-Con is a business name, it's still too close and generalized to Comic Con. Esw01407 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose when doing a google search for "comic con" or "comic-con" you get the same set of results. Since "comic-con" and "comic con" are both used by multiple conventions and the dab is meant for subsets of those phrases it should remain as is.67.137.56.199 (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coincidentally, this Single Purpose Account has an IP that resolves to the Salt Palace Convention Center, on the first day of the Salt Lake Comic Con -- which is currently fighting a C&D from Comic-Con International for use of the name. --HidariMigi (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:AGF 70.34.2.94 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gender dysphoria

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 keep. While there's currently no consensus for converting this redirect into a disambiguation page, it's far from clear (to me, at least) how these topics will be covered going forward. This is certainly not the last word on the topic, but this discussion has clearly run its course. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Gender dysphoria" can refer to either a subjective personal experience, or a medical diagnosis (compare Depression (mood) vs. Major depressive disorder). Per discussions on Talk:Gender identity disorder on September 2013 and July-August 2014, we should retarget to a disambiguation page. Proposed text:

Gender dysphoria may refer to:

--April Arcus (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that DSM-flavor "gender dysphoria" is "gender identity disorder" by another name. That was indeed the consensus on the September 2013 discussion, which determined that the text currently at Gender identity disorder should not be moved to gender dysphoria.
The objection currently at hand is that "gender dysphoria" is a subjective experience that had a meaning before the DSM ever claimed it, and that would still exist even if the medical establishment vanished in a puff of smoke. If we only discuss gender dysphoria in medicalized terms, we promote the medical community's POV at the expense of the transgender community's. --April Arcus (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a good and actually distinct Gender dysphoria Wikipedia article can be made (distinct from gender identity disorder), I have no objection to it being made. But I do not engage in WP:Activism, which is something I make clear on my user page. Right now, I am concerned with what our readers will most likely be looking for when they type in "gender dysphoria"; I think that what they will most likely be looking for is the gender identity disorder topic (no matter what term it goes by), which is why I have argued that it is the WP:Primary topic for the term gender dysphoria. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose a "good and distinct article" be made without a place to stub it out? Your protestations of neutrality aside, the effect of your position is to nip any discussion of gender dysphoria outside a psychiatric context in the bud. --April Arcus (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no proposal for that. As for the rest, I've already explained. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's disappointing to hear. I strongly feel that acknowledging GID-the-diagnosis and Dysphoria-the-feeling as distinct concepts would not imperil reader comprehension unduly, and will create an opportunity for Wikipedia's coverage of the topic to grow organically. --April Arcus (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That source and reasoning is not relevant to this discussion, we are no longer discussing the differences between the two medical diagnoses. I believe we are all on the same page for this debate that it is not useful to attempt to distinguish between them. We are instead talking about gender dysphoria when it is defined as an experience of distress and impairment, as is common both in the community and out. For example, the UK NHS page on gender dysphoria states "This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, for which treatment is sometimes appropriate. It is not a mental illness". --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: April Arcus alerted WP:LGBT to this discussion, as seen here. And I alerted WP:Med to this discussion, as seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would propose that the article should be titled using the most recent DSM designation, gender dysphoria, with the old designation as the redirect. I mean, the condition was renamed precisely to avoid the "disorder" terminology, but Wikipedia continues to use the older, more offensive, terminology as the article title? Doesn't our "do no harm" standard apply here? Just move gender identity disorder -> gender dysphoria already. Yworo (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the wrong thing to do, and would contravene existing consensus reached after the 2013 discussion. The purpose is of this proposal is not the determine the proper nomenclature for the medicalized notion of gender dysphoria, it is to determine whether and how we may discuss the experience of gender dysphoria in both medicalized and personal contexts. --April Arcus (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't pull out your consensus and wave it around. Consensus can change. In fact, it's always in the process of changing. Suggestions like this redirect issue happen when consensus is treated as unchangable by certain editors. It's a discussion that can and probably should be reopened. 2013 was last year. What's the consensus this year? Yworo (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, if "gender dysphoria" is our article for what the medical establishment calls it, what should we title an article for what the people who experience it call it? At least "gender identity disorder" wears its diagnostic intent on its sleeve. I would hope that "gender dysphoria" could split the difference between the medical community's understanding of the issue and the transgender community's, by linking to both the gender identity disorder and transgender articles through the disambiguation page I have proposed. --April Arcus (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you are misusing disambiguation. There's only one link per line on a dab page, by design. There have to be existing articles to disambiguate between! Disambiguation pages are not definitional. Yworo (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo, regarding consensus, April is simply stating that WP:Consensus is policy and that we should respect WP:Consensus until there is proof that it has changed, and that WP:Redirects for discussion is not for moving a Wikipedia article. You stated in this edit summary, "WP:CCC: consensus can change, a year old consensus is stale and should be revisited)." A-year-old consensus is still quite fresh, in my opinion, and a consensus that is one or more years old should usually be upheld until, or if, new consensus is formed. I stated above that editors can refer to the aforementioned discussions "for why we treat both topics (gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria) under one title and use the gender identity disorder title for the article." Transgender Wikipedians also took part in those discussions, and one of them, for example, as seen at 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC), supported the article remaining titled Gender identity disorder, stating, "I don't think I have really hard and fast opinions on this topic, but I'll say what I'm thinking right now. Should Wikipedia really be involved in whitewashing the medical establishment's views of trans people? The ICD-10 influences treatment worldwide to a greater extent than the DSM-5. As far as I'm aware, most folks are still diagnosed with 'Gender Identity Disorder,' not 'Gender Dysphoria.' Isn't this a reality we want reflected in an article about this diagnosis? Trans people ARE stigmatized for life, both by the medical establishment and by the rest of cis society. This is a horrific injustice. Why should we whitewash this reality?" Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As far as I am aware"... perhaps not very far. Sorry, my experience is the opposite: therapists and doctors involved in the transgender area actually seem to using "gender dysphoria" more and more exclusively and attempting to drop "gender identity disorder". There has been an increase of transgender sympathetic content in media, and noticably increase societal acceptance. Why is Wikipedia dragging its feet, in violation of its own "do no harm" policy? It seems somebody, somewhere, is intentionally trying to maintain this article at an offensive title. Calling changing the title and switching the order of preferance of the two terms in the existing article "whitewashing" seems to be a bit of hyperbole, nobody is suggesting taking any information about people being stigmatized out of the article! Yworo (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quote by the transgender editor I cited above, as you may have seen, is Picture of a Sunny Day (Rebecca Weaver)'s quote. Now that I've linked her username, she might receive the ping via WP:Echo in a timely fashion if she checks in on Wikipedia often enough. Her contributions show that she has edited Wikipedia sparingly these days. Perhaps she will get a message in her email about being pinged to this discussion. Either way, I don't think that she or WP:Med are trying to do harm to transgender people. And I know that I am not. In the discussion I linked above that includes Rebecca, I noted the stigma of the term gender identity disorder and that I sought to contact transgender editors to weigh in on the discussion. In a comment to April Arcus above, I noted that I don't engage in WP:Activism. I've stated a lot on this topic already, so, for this redirect discussion, I'll mostly step aside to see what others have to state about it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm on. Oh, wow! Consulted one transgender person for the consensus! And that one just happened to agree with your position! Next you'll be telling me that "Some of my best friends are trans", I'm sure. Sarcasm off. That's a horribly ineffective methodology, especically when there are articles all over the Internet which would confirm that most trans people hate the "disorder" terminology and find it offensive. Yworo (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above where I stated (now bolded), "Transgender Wikipedians also took part in those discussions"? More than one. It's also clear in the aforementioned discussion (the one I noted Rebecca as being involved in) that I contacted more than one transgender editor, and that more than one transgender editor weighed in on these discussions. I also think that April Arcus has indicated that she is transgender, and her opinions changed regarding the move discussion. As for your sarcasm and hostility, you are barking up the wrong tree, as several editors at WP:LGBT would tell you. I don't have patience for childishness and insinuations of being any kind of LGBT bigot. But like my user page notes, working in the sexuality field, I get ridiculous accusations from both sides; yours is more of the same. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, the .5% minority has a real chance of swaying a pseudo-democratic process. I get it now! Yworo (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what .5% minority are you referring to? Never mind. You can't prove it anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you're not really in the sexuality field, you just play that on the Internet. 0.5% is the approximate percentage of people who suffer from gender dysphoria, as stated in the article on a topic you profess to know so much about. Excuse me if I disbelieve your claims of expertise and lack of bias. You don't even know one of the most basic facts about the condition. Yworo (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're excused. Clearly, my asking "And what .5% minority are you referring to?" went completely over your head. I don't care in the least what you believe or do not believe about me. What I do care about at the moment is that you stop letting your WP:Activism and overly sensitive emotions dominate your arguments in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you. Clearly you are an expert at manipulating people. I am not interested in being manipulated through your hostile reframing of my concerns and interests. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my posts and then at yours in this discussion. Out of the two of us, the one who has been hostile in this discussion has not been me; I already called you on it in my "06:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)" post above. And now you try to turn it around on me? In this discussion, the one who can't take disagreement and is quick to throw WP:Personal attacks because of the disagreement has been you, going so far as to insinuate that I am some sort of LGBT bigot, contrary to what many people at this site know regarding my involvement with WP:LGBT issues for years. You even acted as though known transgender editor Picture of a Sunny Day (Rebecca Weaver) is out to harm transgender people.
Oh, and on Wikipedia, I haven't revealed anything about my line of profession(s). Working in the sexuality field is one of the many areas I work in on Wikipedia. Again, I care not that you think I am "play[ing] that"; many others (as my user page shows) who are familiar with me on this site and/or additionally off this site know that I am not. And that's all that matters to me on the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, now we are moving on to WP:Bullying using false accusations. I know your sort. I've made no personal attacks whatsover. I suggest you stop letting your own form of WP:Activism and overly sensitive emotions dominate your arguments in this discussion. Yworo (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Bullying? Oh goodness. No, that's you in this discussion. And, no, you don't know my sort. My sort usually goes by Wikipedia policies and guidelines regardless of whether or not I agree with those policies or guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't think so. More of your reframing crap. You know, this sort of trolling you're engaged in only work so long as April and I continue to reply to you. Nice technique though: troll until the discussion gets so long and off-topic that nobody else reads the arguments. Sweet. But it also means you are quite done. Yworo (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Nope, I don't think so." No truer words were spoken of your arguments in this discussion. How you have made it as long as you have on Wikipedia with the type vitriol you spew is beyond me. One of these days, the WP:Personal attacks policy will catch up with you. Lucky for you, I am not interested in reporting your behavior to the appropriate Wikipedia venue. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. Dude, there's nothing to report. If that's your idea of "vitriol", you really are the overly-sensitive type!!!! And I can't help but note that you haven't bothered to detail precisely how you believe I've "attacked" you. I've been completely civil, certainly at least as civil as you. You oughta get out more! Yworo (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You thinking that "there's nothing to report" means that you ought to look at WP:ANI more. And you asserting that you have been "completely civil" is laughable! You have made clear WP:Personal attack after WP:Personal attack. And you direct my descriptions of you back at me (for example, "overly-sensitive"), descriptions that don't even come close your violations of WP:Civil, to try to deflect from how wholly inappropriate you've been in this discussion; that wholly inappropriateness started with your "06:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)" response to me above. Heck, I could tell from your "Please don't pull out your consensus and wave it around" ("05:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)") post to April that you are temperamental. And now you are concerned with getting the WP:The last word, even after implying that you would ignore me. Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, I'm calling your bluff. I've been a regular on ANI at various points in my Wikipedia career. You'll be laughed off the page. Go ahead, I dare you. And if you don't, I'll now be sure you have no teeth. Do it. Yworo (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you're wrong again. "[L]aughed off the page"? I don't think you are as familiar with WP:ANI as you are claiming. Either that, or you know you are exaggerating. But like I stated above, "Lucky for you, I am not interested in reporting your behavior to the appropriate Wikipedia venue." You call it having no teeth; I call it not taking the WP:Bait. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but now I've got you 100% pegged. I won't make the mistake of assuming you're actually interested in discussing anything again. Or that your interjections are intended to be part of any rational discussion between equals. You're oh so condescending. You think you hide it, but looking down on everyone is simply so part of your world view, you don't even get that you're doing it. Cheers! No matter how intelligent your future arguments or how provocative your comments, I won't be making the mistake of engaging with you again as if you actually were discussing things in good faith. Yworo (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have anything in this discussion 100% pegged, except your need to issue WP:Personal attacks, your need to go on a war path with me because you especially didn't like my "06:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)" post, your need to hold a grudge because of that and silly assumptions you have about the kind of person I am, and your need to seek the WP:The last word. Yeah, I certainly won't be looking to engage with you either. Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, yeah, this passive-aggressive followup of yours was nice. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for verifying my diagnosis that you are the type that obsessively looks at other editor's contributions and imagines that the articles edited have something to do with you. It's all about you, ain't it, chum? Yworo (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That article is on my WP:Watchlist. The edit history of that article clearly shows that I've repeatedly edited that article. I didn't have to follow you there. That WP:Dummy edit you made at the Cunt article immediately after trying to bitch me out had nothing to do with me, you say? Okay. While we're on the subject of thanking, though, thanks for once again verifying to me how much the WP:The last word means to you, how much you just can't resist replying to my "provocative" posts. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:Activism" is an unfortunate axe to grind when the power structure is tilted in favor of your personal opinions and biases, and all you need to do to get your way is revert and obstruct. --April Arcus (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Yworo (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't engage in WP:Activism in any case, whether "the power structure is tilted in favor of [my] personal opinions" or not. Should I call on LGBT editors such as Mark Miller (Maleko Mela), who are familiar with how I operate on cases such as these, as recently as this case? Other LGBT editors, since my word apparently is not good enough for either of you? No, wait. Never mind. I don't care. But, you see, Mark Miller, unlike some other LGBT Wikipedia editors, recognizes his biases regarding LGBT content and tries not to let that get in his way. You and Yworo are clearly on the other fence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first line links to our existing Dysphoria article through a pipe. I will clean that up to reflect your feedback. --April Arcus (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are really trying to do here is distinguish Gender dysphoria (diagnosis) from the broader, common English meaning of "gender dysphoria". Yes, the latter should be at Gender dysphoria.... but the path there is to write the article under another title, say Gender dysphoria (transgender), then we will need to have Gender dysphoria disambiguate between Gender dysphoria (transgender) and Gender dysphoria (diagnosis). You know what they say: "Write the article first". This seems impossible to resolve now because there is no second article on the topic. Yworo (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last time this subject came up I was explicitly instructed not to do this. --April Arcus (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here has the authority to tell you not to. Draft it in your user space. As long as it is properly cited, it will be self-supporting and can be moved into article space. Then the arguments about what the titles should be and how it should be disambiguated can take place. The problem is, it will take a referenced article to convince them. Because nobody really reads the long arguments about it, even if all the same sources were presented. Their eyes just gloss over and they continue to repeat their original objections. I'd be happy to help with it. Yworo (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's been awhile since I've visited the topic. My recollection is that was important for both diagnosticians and patients to seperate the feelings expressed ("gender dysphoria") and the diagnoses in previous DSM classifications ("Gender identity disorder"). Personally, I think DSM V changed the name to avoid a diagnoses that appears stigmatizing when in fact they ened up stigmatizing the entire range of emotions by having it all under a "disorder" category. If I put on my future glasses and project out what's happened previously, I would say the diagnoses as a disorder is on its way out and if not, it will change rather frequently. For that reason, I would make one article with the fundamental part of it being about the feelings of dysphoria with a small and excisable bit on the DSM V diagnosis as a subset. There are the clinical criteria that can easily be explored in sections about the feelings and experiences of gender dysphoria without the "disorder" aspect. If that doesn't happen, there will be constant battles in either a single article or multiple ones. Indeed, there are battles within the very broad category covering "gender dysphoria" and narrower subsets that seek different levels of treatment such as hormones vs. SRS vs. lifestyle changes that may reflect multi or non gender identities. While they currently fit together very broadly in the clinical sense, they are not necessarily associated socially. There are very adamant people that say they have "Harry Benjamin syndrome" and will take issue with being diagnosed with the same condition as those that don't choose SRS or who have different gender perceptions or even how late in life they identify their dysphoria. Many present the feelings of gender dysphoria but would resent the diagnoses that lumps all feelings of GD into the same diagnoses. How WP treats the topic will be how well we can cover and separate all the nuanced aspects of it. The easiest, I think, is to make the diagnosis aspect small, clinical and concise subsection rather than the main umbrella trying fit every person/category. My 0.02 as this issue touches many other issues such as the LGBT community, feminism, minority and a whole host of other social topics in addition to just the medical and transgender aspects. --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great idea. However, there seems to be great resistance to restructuring the article in such a way in place. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? Yworo (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not until/unless various groups agree on what the topic is. If we can agree that GD is the feeling that has a broad spectrum and range and the clinical diagnoses is smaller subset with variations that make a smaller group with specific types there won't be much compromise. I believe the personal experience that we see now being discussed is that the mistake was made at birth when gender was "assigned." There is a lot of pushback to cast the disorder on the person when they feel it was a mistake by others at their birth. It's a fundamentally different way to write the article as feelings of a person that do not/have not ever agreed with the gender they were assigned based on external genitalia vs. as part of a clinical disorder of not manifesting the gender associated with their external genitalia. In a clinical sense those two descriptions are not different. In the patient, they are fundamentally different. Until there is agreement that perception of the person should be handled separate from a clinical disorder but at the same time there is a place for a diagnosis there will be a large schism. The lesson of how the description of homosexuality evolved from being described as an umbrella term for clinical manifestations of sexual attraction not matching genitalia, should not be lost here, especially as it has changed from being a general disorder to more specific manifestations that require treatment - yet the feelings of the person have not changed. From that basis, I think it is the perception and manifestations expressed by the person that are unchanging as the clinical version evolves from social constructs. Still, while writing from the unchanging aspect of the feeling of people with gender dysphoria, it's also important to avoid adding social constructs that are also evolving - that seems to have the same pitfalls as diagnosis. --DHeyward (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until such a time, can you support the proposed disambiguation page? --April Arcus (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can support disambiguation as long as the two topics are within the realm of feelings/emotions and diagnosis/treatment. I would oppose it if the articles turned into a social activism version of GD that is adversarial to the clinical version of GD and vice/versa. The clinical diagnoses is still focused on treating each individual to whatever level suits their specific feelings and needs. This is why the clinical version subset is important to integrate, or at least complement, the larger context of feelings. I would not like a young reader, perhaps despondent/suicidal, find an article that disparages seeking treatment because that article presents mental health services as useless, negative or stigmatizing. At same time, the clinical article should focus on treatment and coping skills more so than just it's a "disorder in DSM V." For that reason I would prefer one article dominated by the feelings and emotions associated with GD and a subsection on treatment and/or coping methods that are more clinical but without social activism constructs in either. A fork can work if they complement, rather than oppose each other. The deeper, underlying social issues as well as conflicts within the transgender community and with the medical community are beyond the scope of the two articles proposed, IMO. --DHeyward (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel, in a very narrow sense, about the disambiguation page proposed above? --April Arcus (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like it as I don't think the split is not where the discussion should be going. I'd reverse the redirect, have the medical diagnosis GID be a small subset of the feeling. Possibly the article on Anxiety which also has a DAB. IMHO, Gender Dysphoria should be the main article. If there is a DAB, it should come from that. Like anxiety, the range of feelings may not be all psychiatric. I fear separating them now will create political movement articles that will even split the transgender community depending on how it's written especially if people feel classified by GD or GID because of how they choose to deal with their identity. Not being transgender, I hope this doesn't offend but older "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" post-SRS transgender women that had operations at 18 don't necessarily identify with middle-age transgender woman that choose not to have SRS, may have had families, and are still sexually attracted to women. I would hate for one article to be used to describe group A as a social/feminist movement and another for group B as a medical issue. I think the common ground is "dysphoria" which covers a much larger group than the two I mentioned above while the medical diagnoses and treatment can range from nothing through full-blown hormones and SRS. I --DHeyward (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting idea that strikes me as a good way to make the article clear and understandable to someone new to the topic, who might be confused by a disambiguation between clinical diagnosis and personal experience (as others have suggested could be a problem). I'm quite new to editing here, is there a precedent for an article to include a medical diagnosis associated with the topic in its own section? I don't recall seeing it while browsing casually, but I don't browse medical related issues much. On a personal note as a transgender person, this suggestion appeals to me because it puts the diagnosis in the correct context of an individual experiencing distress/disability (as the APA notes here) and also because I think it's fairer and more logical to talk about the broad understanding of gender dysphoria as a very important topic to transgender people, before narrowing down to it as a pathology. As a side note to help your "future glasses" extrapolate, you might find this .pdf interesting :) (if you haven't already seen it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flower f5a9b8 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC) (Minor edit since I wrote in a rush and no one had commented on it yet, hope that's ok.) --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the idea of a disambiguation page. I agree with the wording April Arcus proposed with the following exception: I would strike the language about "especially prior to medical transition" because not all transgender people transition medically (either by choice or by circumstance). For the record, I am transgender myself, have been officially diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria, and have been following this discussion with interest. Funcrunch (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your edit. --April Arcus (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This should remain as a redirect. No acceptable argument has been made for doing otherwise. To have two distinct articles, sources would need to be presented which differentiate these two concepts. These sources are not being presented, so I cannot further consider this request. This seems like an attempt to coin a WP:NEOLOGISM. It is irrelevant whether these are two distinct concepts - sources have to be presented which demonstrate that this is so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two writers who talk about gender dysphoria as a human experience, rather than a psychiatric diagnosis:
"I am/am not feeling dysphoric today" is something trans people say all the time without the weight of a medical opinion. The fact that the APA had the full might of the citation-producing academic system behind it when it chose to co-opt a term in colloquial usage did not suddenly give them on a linguistic monopoly on all of its meanings. --April Arcus (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately these types of self-published blogs aren't reliable sources. Basing an article on them would be original research. I also did a serious search, and I didn't really find any RSs that were about the psychiatric/medical view. It seems like perhaps no one has yet done a study about the subjective side, though I am guessing that someone is in the process… Yworo (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So by Wikipedia's prevailing standards, it is the case that a trans person writing for their community is unqualified to write about trans issues, whereas a not-trans person working for a peer reviewed publication is so qualified. Do you not see the WP:NPOV issue this creates? The sources which Wikipedia considers "reliable" are not free of bias, and by favoring them, the Project imports the existing POV of the medical/academic publishing complex under the rubric of "reliability".
WP:RS states that "a lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." Is the notion that "Gender Dysphoria" has a meaning outside of the field of medicine an extraordinary claim? I think that breathing room can be found within WP:RS to allow the proposed dab page without threatening to send WP:CITE sliding down the slippery slope. I remind my fellow Wikipedians that the existence of this redirect is the subject of a pre-existing controversy, which I believe the proposed dab page would help to address. --April Arcus (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not so much that they are "lightweight", but rather that they are self-published. Self-published sources can be used in an article about the writer, but not in other articles. Now, should any of these essays be collected and republished by a reliable publisher, they would then be usable. Another exception here would be if the writer was already established as an expert in the field with previous publications. Then the assumption is that their blogs will also be reliable within their field. Yworo (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's reasonable. Is the citation Flower f5a9b8 adduces below sufficiently reliable to establish the long-standing prior usage of this term to refer to something other than a mental disorder? --April Arcus (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This seems like an attempt to coin a WP:NEOLOGISM"? Without intending to be rude, that just suggests that you don't know very much about this topic.
Here is a link to WPATH, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. I recommend reading their "Standards of Care (SOC) for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. The SOC are based on the best available science and expert professional consensus". Under "Gender Nonconformity Is Not the Same as Gender Dysphoria" on page 11 of the pdf, it discusses the definition of gender dysphoria and states that "Gender dysphoria refers to discomfort or distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics) (Fisk, 1974; Knudson, De Cuypere, & Bockting, 2010b)". This is not in reference to any medical diagnosis; the next section is titled "Diagnoses Related to Gender Dysphoria" and starts "Some people experience gender dysphoria at such a level that the distress meets criteria for a formal diagnosis that might be classified as a mental disorder." --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_31&oldid=1138579446"