Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:51, 11 August 2020

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Marked as a guideline page

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Noticed today that this page was demoted to an essay from a guideline. I assume there is some sort talk on the matter somewhere. Can we get a link for historical purposes please.....last rfc on the matter was long ago here .--Moxy 🍁 18:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The one thing that makes me hesitate is that this page focuses on the wrong target. We can’t control what questions people ASK at our Reference desks... and I don’t really think that ASKING for medical or legal advice is necessary wrong.

What we DO have control over (and want to prevent) is our editors GIVING medical or legal advice. That is where we could get into trouble.

So before we promote this page back to guideline status, I think it would need a minor re-write... shifting the focus from “asking” to “giving”. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Promoting this page back to guideline status would violate existing Misplaced Pages policy.

WP:PROPOSAL is crystal clear on this: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy. Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy."

Please note that the page is currently untagged, not tagged as an essay. I did not want to assume that "has no more status than an essay" equals "is an essay".

Per our policy at Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Levels of consensus, an RfC on Misplaced Pages talk:Medical disclaimer can not override a policy or guideline. (Also, Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer contains nothing that resembles the so-called "guideline" that the RfC discussed.)

Again per Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Levels of consensus, until this "guideline" has been formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, it has no more status than an essay.

If someone wants to go through the process of making this into a real guideline, I suggest first editing out the portions that clearly contradict existing policies such as WP:TPOC, then proposing the new policy or guideline at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) or at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

So I am guessing that there is no talk on this matter....just your interpretation of what constitutes a guideline page and how they were tagged in the past. So how do we move forward here....does one editor and their interpretation of past events override past RFC and longstanding tag on the matter? As of now this looks bad because the normal demotion process or even disputed process was not follow and involves a change by someone in a dispute on the content. We are talking and a page tagged for over half a decade and referenced hundreds of times in disputes. --Moxy 🍁 20:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I gave you links and exact quotes to the relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Can you explain why you want to violate Misplaced Pages's clearly-written policies other than "that's just your opinion, man"?

Regarding that "half a decade", in the last five years there has been exactly one edit by one editor -- by you in 2018, improperly adding a content guideline category to a page that has never gone through the process of becoming a content guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand the policy I helped write very well. But as a long time member your fully aware that the majority of our guidelines and policies did not go thru this process thus you need to explain whats wrong here over arbitrarily making a decision for the whole community. So what we have is someone coming by 7 years after the tag was added to page that was subsequently referenced in hundreds of conversations leading to other consensus saying they "don't like it". As your aware and linked above there is a process to demote a page you have just found that has been longstanding in its classification. Personally have no clue if the content is still valid but can tell you the precedent you're trying to set will cause many problems. So let's do this properly so it does not look like your ducking around with a community endorsed page all on your own with no community input. We had this same problem with the portal guideline and I took lots of input to change....not changed because one person is in a dispute about its content. Serious conflict of interest.-Moxy 🍁 02:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Does this page reflect community consensus

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this page be labeled as a guideline? --Moxy 🍁 05:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Should this be categorized as a guideline or a type of essay

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Support has been a guideline for a decade. If there is a small problem fix it.--Moxy 🍁 21:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Neither: The above question presents a False dilemma. Category:Misplaced Pages supplemental pages is a better choice than either choice listed.

In particular, categorizing this page as a guideline would allow any editor to delete comments from other editors in direct violation of our existing policy at WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Moxy just silently changed the above question from "Should this be categorized as a guideline or an essay" to "Should this be categorized as a guideline or a type of essay" The question should never be changed after editors have commented on it.

The claim that supplemental pages are a kind of essay is factually incorrect. Category:Misplaced Pages supplemental pages and Category:Misplaced Pages essays are different categories and generate different headers at the top. Look the the headers at the top of WP:YWAB and WP:BRD to see the difference. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Best read over Template:Supplement#Current usage and I take it you're are aware this is not a talk page were talking about .--Moxy 🍁 06:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• It should be policy. On what planet is " is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis." not already a non-negotiable rule? Jenga Fet (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Jenga Fet, just to be clear, are you only !voting for the restriction on requesting medical advice or are you also !voting to allow editors to delete each others comments? This page contains both. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Guideline While I loathe the reference desk, I understand why it continues to exist. As long as it does, we need to ensure that its scope is narrow and does not get our helpers into trouble. As far as I understand, it is both unethical and against the WMF's wishes to offer medical advice. It is also bad practice on our part. We should not pretend to be experts in things we aren't. The RD exists simply to point folks towards more info, not act as a Yahoo Answers to solve their every problem. This page has existed and been working practice for more than a decade; it is a de facto guideline anyway. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  And yes, I think it okay to redact or collapse questions regarding medical advice. This page does not say it is mandatory, it even says that it is discouraged, but if you're going to....provides some instructions. The wording is perfectly fine, and gives us leeway to use our discretion. Folks can then use their best judgement about when egregious things should be redacted. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Guideline Pretty much as per CaptainEek (including the disdain for the desks themselves). I'd also point out that the removal of harmful posts is already part of the the talk page guidelines and I would see providing unqualified medical advice anywhere on Misplaced Pages as being in this category so I don't see any conflict. This would include the questions prior to any response, because the longer they stay up, the greater the risk of someone not so familiar with these guidelines answering. When this is done is another question, and can be clarified if needed by further developing this guideline, with edge case redactions addressed in the same way as others (BLP, legal threats etc) by consensus or admin assessment. Scribolt (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  We already have a policy that says that harmful advice is not allowed. You appear to be assuming that all medical advice is harmful. Some medical advice ("don't risk eating rotten food. Throw it out and thoroughly clean anything it touched") is not in any way harmful and is vastly preferable to "ask your doctor if eating rotten food is OK". Other medical advice ("go ahead and eat rotten food") is harmful and thus is not allowed. The difference is that telling someone not to eat rotten food is not a harmful post, but telling someone that it is OK to eat rotten food is a harmful post. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Informed medical advice is not necessarily harmful. I am of the opinion that any medical advice given by Misplaced Pages editors to each other is uninformed, has a risk of causing harm, and the more it is encouraged, the greater the chance of harm occuring. This is not outweighed by any benefit gained by the person being able to ask their question within the Misplaced Pages environment, as opposed to another forum. Scribolt (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your metaphor is super accurate here Guy. Folks aren't asking us those questions. They're asking things like "my hand hurts, should I take some ibuprofen". And while we could probably say "yeah that's fine" and be right most of the time, that's irresponsible of us, because we don't know what harm we could cause. What other medications could they be on that would interact poorly? What if their medical history contraindicates NSAIDS? We're editors, not medical professionals. Without that formal training, even seemingly innocuous replies can have real world danger. CaptainEek ⚓ 08:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The typical questions are actually of the sort Guy pointed at, take e.g. this questions asked elsewhere. You typically do not get question on taking potentially harmful medicines. This is because the sale of medicines that may be harmful is regulated such that only relatively harmless medicines are available as OTC medicines, and all medicines include information for the patient. If you think about this, there really is no good reason to have a "no medical advice policy", as there isn't actually a problem to be solved. Medicines and potentially dangerous treatments are kept under lock and key. We cannot prescribe medicines as the WMF doesn't operate a pharmacy. We cannot prescribe open heart surgery to someone with chest pains as the WMF does not operate hospitals. Count Iblis (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

WTF? Count, my vague recollection of you is that you don't usually say idiotic things. But what you just said is idiotic. EEng 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the above (which I fully agree with) even if someone gives an answer that is actually harmful (for example, someone who believes in Ayurveda might advise taking traditional Indian medicine medicine (sadly, not regulated by US prescription laws!) that contains heavy metals such as mercury or lead), that answer is already prohibited by our existing ban on harmful advice.

That existing ban also covers harmful non-medical advice such as

"if you connect 120VAC directly to the 12VDC power input of your laptop it will go ten times faster".

What this proposed new policy does is to allow deleting questions and answers without even trying to show that they cause harm.

Making this a policy would prohibit my

"don't become addicted to crystal meth, it it bad for your health. See Methamphetamine#Adverse effects"

advice and would allow any editor to delete it on sight or any administrator to block me for giving it despite there being zero chance that anyone will ever be harmed by following it. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Guideline It operated as a guideline, and was labeled as such, for over a decade. If we need to have a formal !vote to confirm it, then lets do that. This has been used as, and should be formally adopted, as a guideline and should be enforceable as such. --Jayron32 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  The above claim appears to be factually incorrect. Can you show me a single example of anyone ever being blocked for violating this "guideline"? How about looking at the many times that removals under this "guideline" were reverted. Did any administrator ever take action against those doing the reverting? Have I ever been sanctioned for saying "don't do crystal meth"?

You do realize that if this becomes a guideline, an editor could write (with citations) "There is no good evidence that indicates Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease, and it is pseudoscientific." in the Ayurveda article but would be prohibited from cutting and pasting the exact text from that article into an answer of the reference desks, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC) \

Nothing you've written there has ever happened yet. It's a total strawman. Generally, we have in the past hatted, archived, or removed inappropriate questions and responses, and other than you, I can't recall anyone reverting such a move or fighting it so vehemently, especially on posts that you were not initially involved in. And no one has ever claimed that an answer like the one you gave is inappropriate. Except you, right now. --Jayron32 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Re "Nothing you've written there has ever happened yet. It's a total strawman", see (a direct quote from a medical expert at Seattle Children's Hospital with no commentary) and (direct quotes from the Center For Disease Control and the National Institute of Health, with a bit of added non-medical political commentary that was removed as being medical advice). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Guideline – offering medical advice falls squarely within the wheelhouse of what Misplaced Pages is not, and this page appropriately explains that. As long as we maintain a reference desk on this site, it must do little more than point people to the right section of the encyclopedia, rather than engage in original research, unqualified opinions, or speculation. – bradv🍁 14:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  If medical advice is prohibited, then linking to medical advice in Misplaced Pages articles or in reliable sources would also be prohibited. Several answers that contained only links to Misplaced Pages pages or reliable sources have been deleted already. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not at all. Referring someone to well-sourced well-written content is very different than offering one's own unqualified opinion. – bradv🍁 14:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Really? How do you explain this? Did I not refer someone to well-sourced, well-written content? Was my answer my own unqualified opinion or was it a link to a medical expert at Seattle Children's Hospital?

Or how about this? Did I not refer someone to well-sourced, well-written content? Was my answer my own unqualified opinion or did it cite the Center For Disease Control and the National Institute of Health? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• (note: I was pinged by Dolphin51 to participate here) Guideline and yes, I read the part that says to edit other editors' posts (Any answer that provides medical advice, whether the question sought it or not, should be removed, or at least hatted, and an explanation should be given along with a link to Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer.)

"Don't do crystal meth, it is bad for your health" is medical advice and is an acceptable collateral damage of such a guideline. Yes, crystal meth is bad for health regardless of specific patient characteristics, but a policy of "do not give bad medical advice" is unenforceable. Admittedly the worse example I could remember in a couple of years on the refdesk but it was once suggested to tape red plastic sheets to safety googles to reduce the incoming light from a laser dot (don't do this); if I could have reverted this on sight rather than going into a lengthy course of optics I would have done so. Tigraan 15:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Guideline Giving a poor reference to historical content at worst just wastes peoples time. Giving poor medical advice can have more tragic consequences. Without some form of control over who can answer medical questions, all medical advice should be removed.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Guideline Misplaced Pages has many purposes, but dispensing medical advice in response to specific inquires is not one of them. We are volunteers, not medical professionals (and even the subset of editors who are medical professionals are acting only in a volunteer capacity on Misplaced Pages); anyone who needs advice and knows enough about the internet to find our reference desks should be able to find the information they need elsewhere. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Guideline per the many cogent comments above - especially AlmostFrancis and Lepricavark. Those sitting behind a keyboard may find it easy to ignore the responsibilities and/or consequences of their actions. Outcomes (dire or otherwise) for a reader should not be caused by volunteer editors. MarnetteD|Talk 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Guideline - If it ain't broke don't fix it. // Guy Macon's belief that the medical advice he gave (in his two examples, above) should be acceptable is a perfect example of why this document is important and should be identified as a guideline. // IMHO we should require visitors to read our disclaimers first before viewing Misplaced Pages content. (If they have cookies enabled they would not need to do this upon every visit.) At the very least, we should post easily identifiable links to our medical, legal, risk, and content disclaimers at the top of every page, instead of our current practice of burying one little disclaimer link in the footer.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Guideline - I generally try to keep my comments from starting on a tone suggesting my preferred approach is obvious, but I'm going to make an exception here: this is clearly both warranted and necessary to 1) protect credulous parties from overzealous respondents whose desire to be seen as polymaths and experts sometimes runs ahead of their prudence about the possible consequences of their assurances (a perennial issue with the RefDesks), as well as 2) to insulate the project from potential liability arising from such representations (no, a disclaimer does not per se shield against the many potential liabilities in this area, and it certainly doesn't erase any costs to the WMF and the project that might arise out of having to wrestle with such potential consequences--though I hasten to add that this is concern is dwarfed in importance when against the potential for harm to the individual). Surely if ever there was a place where the precautionary principle should apply on this project, it is here. Frankly the codification of this rule is embarrassingly late in the game, but I guess that's down to the rule being treated like a guideline by the vast majority of our prudent editors for a decade now, so intuitive is the general rule--and so pervasive was the shared consensus that it was in fact a formal guideline, adherence to which is not optional. Snow 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• History Added to guideline category by User:OlEnglish in 2010 as seen here then subsequently the banner as a guideline was added here in 2012 by User:NTox. In 2020 the guideline categorization and banner were removed based on the fact there seems to be no talk page discussion about it's promotion in the first place ten years ago. Yes it is true that ten years ago our policy promotion protocols weren't strickly adhere to because of the amount of people working on the backside of Misplaced Pages resulting in pages that many or many not have been categorized/"promoted" as many would say correctly (example WP:POG2019RFC). Thus the question today is not about who did what when...but rather does this page reflect current community consensus and should it be categorized as a guideline today. Does it simply need an update or are the principles wrong altogether thus its categorisation as a guideline should have never happened --Moxy 🍁 04:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  I dispute the motivations Moxy assigns to my actions. They were based upon existing policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I do believe you were acting in good faith....just not understanding how we go about this as per WP:HISTORICAL. Perhaps a self revert will get us focused on the content you have a problem with over the edit of demotion being the focus. Or in your mind does this page hold zero merit?--Moxy 🍁 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If I believed that the page had zero merit, I would have listed it for deletion. It contains some good advice along with encouraging editors to delete other editor's comments. There are a wide range of possible choices between nothing at all and creating a new guideline that allows WP:TPOC violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not enough choices: Asking "Should this be categorized as a guideline or an essay" excludes other viable options such as placing it in Category:Misplaced Pages help or Category:Misplaced Pages supplemental pages. We have a page on this: False dilemma. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Only have 2 real choices.... Community endorsed pages and non community endorsed pages. Both have a few different labels assigned to them based on function but all hold the same merit. That said your free to suggest any label.--Moxy 🍁 17:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Biased RfC: the author of this RfC failed to write a brief, neutrally-worded question at the top as required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Instead they wrote a lengthy paragraph arguing for one particular outcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  The question at the top is: "Should this page still be labeled as a guideline?", which is quite brief and, possibly apart from emphasizing the word "still", appropriately neutral (IMO).  --Lambiam 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  The bias is in the history section, which completely ignores an important fact in the history; that my edit was according to policy. ("Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean the page is policy") Instead Moxy provides a biased reason for why I made the deletion that completely ignores my clearly-stated reason. Moxy should place his arguments in a !vote like everyone else, not in the RfC header. I have moved the biased argument into the discussion section where it belongs. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better to move the conversations around mucking up the order that's fine.....but best keep the fact it has been categorized as a guideline for a long time clear to all.--Moxy 🍁 16:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment removed....Guy Macon

Reclassification based on a 10-year old omission in process does not hold much weight after this amount time used as a guideline and seen by thousands... WP:TALKFIRST and WP:HISTORICAL. Besides the fact that this page has been referred to and subsequently influenced countless discussions over the past decade can you explain what's wrong with the content. Why is this page you just found now a concern marked as a guideline besides your POV that's is local and not community-based? Let's forget the gaming and get to the current unknown content problems.--Moxy 🍁 05:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The main content problem is that it violates our policy at WP:TPOC. This has been explained to you before. Here is an example of the kind of comment removal that this page encourages: On what planet is that "medical advice"? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I would call that medical advice, at least borderline. And (hate to say it) your constitutional law needs work. EEng 11:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's borderline, but the first paragraph of that removed answer does offer what could be construed as advice for treating or preventing a communicable illness. Also, the answer rather goes off on a tangent and fails to actually answer the specific question as asked. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In Guy Macon's defense, I've always found running off on a tangent better than going around in circles. EEng 02:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Finally an example.....so in response to that edit you demoted this page? So really as per WP:POLCON this should be reviewed and talked about as now is happening.--Moxy 🍁 06:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody "demoted" the page. It was never "promoted" to a policy in the first place. What part of "Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean the page is policy" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Its been here for ten years and used as a guideline by hundreds WP:PGLIFE. ....its wonderful you found it now and dont like it....but we have a process for just this type of thing.--Moxy 🍁 06:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• As currently written, this page is focused on the wrong thing. ASKING for medical/legal advice isn’t something we have any control over, and to my mind isn’t wrong. What we can control is someone GIVING medical or legal advice. Giving advice IS wrong, so THAT is what needs a policy to prevent. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  The page is clearly meant as a guideline on how to deal with questions seeking medical advice, not written for the people posting questions, but for the volunteer respondents. As such it is a useful supplement to the general maxim that Misplaced Pages does not provide medical advice.  --Lambiam 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Revert demotion; then Discuss. I find it curious, to say the least, for someone to boldly demote a page from its long-standing guideline status to whatever without clear consensus, and then to argue that reverting this demotion amounts to establishing a new guideline. The best course of action, IMO, is to revert the demotion and then have an RfC on a proposal whether to keep or remove the guideline status, with a proper preceding discussion. If people have issues with the wording of the current version, regardless of its status, these should preferably be discussed and resolved first, because they may otherwise work to muddle the discussion.  --Lambiam 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment: I was pinged about this discussion, as I made some significant edits to this guideline back in 2007, based on a proposal I made back then. As I haven't been active on the RD since 2010, I cannot really comment on the subsequent changes made to these guidelines, other than to observe that it (or at least the recommended procedure for dealing with questions asking for medical advice) already differs substantially from the version I proposed and wrote back then (which was, in a nutshell, to promptly replace both the question and any answers with {{RD-deleted}} and let the asker rephrase the question if they feel it was not intended as a request for medical advice). Not being familiar with the current state of the reference desk, I cannot say whether or not the current version of the guideline still serves its purpose, although I also see no obvious reason to demote it from its historical status.

  However, I'd like to respond to some of the arguments made above in favor of demoting this page by noting that the reference desks are not talk pages. They may look a little bit like talk pages, insofar as they also contain threaded discussions, but they differ from actual talk pages in several ways — most notably in the fact that they are part of the public-facing side of Misplaced Pages in a way that e.g. user and article talk pages (and also most pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace) are not. As such, the talk page guidelines, including WP:TPOC, do not and should not be assumed to apply to the reference desks in every respect. The refdesks are really their own thing, not exactly like anything else on Misplaced Pages, but in some respects (e.g. their intended audience) they're really closer to article space than to talk pages.

  Of course, there's a lot of good advice on WP:TPG for smoothly and civilly conducting any kind of threaded discussion on a wiki page, and much of that advice does make sense also on the reference desks. But it should only be applied insofar as it does make sense here and, in particular, it should not be blindly applied where it contradicts guidelines established specifically for the reference desks. (Also, even if both guidelines were applicable to the same pages, and even if there was an apparent contradiction between them, this would still not in itself be a reason to demote one of them: guidelines are guidelines and, as the template at the top of them says, they must be applied with common sense and with the need for occasional exceptions in mind.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Re: "As such, the talk page guidelines, including WP:TPOC, do not and should not be assumed to apply to the reference desks in every respect", how do you reconcile that claim with WP:TALK, which says that "The guidelines below... apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards."? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  By pointing out the word "editors" in that quote. Talk pages, in the usual sense, are meant for internal discussion between Misplaced Pages editors, which the guidelines on them reflect. They are not intended for answering questions from the general public, the way the reference desks are. Also, as I noted above, even if WP:TALK is construed to apply to RD (which I do admit its current wording leaves at least somewhat open to interpretation), a contradiction between two guidelines is not in itself a reason to demote one of them. It merely means that one must exercise common sense and situational awareness in applying those guidelines (as one always should), and perhaps propose an edit to make the guidelines more in line with each other. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The page is a guide related to a legal policy Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer and would circumvent any guideline we have for legal reasons. It's pretty clear giving mediacl advice is of a legal matter and should be treated as such.--Moxy 🍁 16:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I did notice that WP:RD/G (the parent guideline whose subpage WP:RD/G/M is) does currently include a section explicitly saying that the talk page guidelines apply to the reference desk "unless these guidelines clarify that they do not apply." So it appears that we do have a genuine disagreement between these two guidelines that should be resolved.

FWIW, the discussion preceding the addition of this section back in 2014 doesn't really show a particular clear consensus for it, although I suppose the fact that nobody's ever reverted it over the years should count for something (at least if one believes that long-standing policies and guidelines in general should be taken to enjoy some degree of historical consensus, regardless of how they were arrived at). Interestingly, said discussion also refers to what seems to essentially be an earlier iteration of this very dispute that we're currently having from six years ago, involving the same pages (yes, WP:RD/G/M is also discussed) and some of the same users. In particular, I can't resist quoting a comment from what appears to have been the tail end of the discussion back then:

"Fut.Perf., that is a compelling argument. Based upon the above, I am changing my position. WP:LOCALCON does not allow WP:TPOC to override the refdesk guidelines, and I should concentrate on making the refdesk guidelines better, not on deciding which guideline can override the other, Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"

FWIW, I agree with both that comment and the one by Fut.Perf. that it responds to. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I was indeed wrong when I wrote that. Since then I have experienced the unfortunate fact that if you allow deleting other people's comments for a good reason someone will use that permission to delete other people's comments for a bad reason. It sounded good at the time, but in practice turned into a total disaster. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Another choice that we were not offered: Assume for the sake of argument that someone reading this RfC completely agrees with creating a new policy forbidding asking medical questions but isn't comfortable with letting any editor delete any other editor's comments. Perhaps they think we should have a policy about medical questions but that it should be enforced the way so many other policy violations that are not listed as instantly deletable in WP:TPOC are handled; with a warning template followed by asking an administrator to block them if they keep doing it. Alas, that isn't one of the choices that are being offered in this RfC. Our only choice is to either create a new policy that allows any editor to delete anything that they don't like by calling something as simple as "should I throw away all of my possessions" a request for medical advice or to have no policy at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Presenting highly contrived hypothetical examples so that you can attack strawman positions is not conducive to a fruitful discussion.  --Lambiam 01:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Please read WP:AGF. There is no strawman involved in arguing that an RfC only gives you a limited sort of choices. Do you Agree, or strongly agree? Please choose only one. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Is the choice really between everything goes and anyone can remove anything with any idiotic excuse? I hope that you agree that if someone were to suggest injections of bleach as a quick-acting treatment for COVID-19, they this should summarily be removed. But the idea that someone would disqualify the question whether it is is the policy of public health agencies that patients should discard their personal belongings on the grounds that it is seeking medical advice borders on the surreal. This is basically a Yes/No question. The response to such a question might, however, offer unsought medical advice. The guidelines give an (IMO) adequate definition of what constitutes medical advice. Some people may be overeager and misapply the test. The guidelines also suggest a process to be followed when removing a question or response; apparently not everyone is aware of this. There is also a process for obtaining consensus, if disputes arise, on the issue whether or not a request or response sought or gave medical advice. In the past this has occasionally resulted in a hatted or deleted thread or response being restored.  --Lambiam 15:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  The choice that I said was not offered was between "letting any editor delete any other editor's comments" and "having a policy about medical questions enforced the way so many other policy violations that are not listed as instantly deletable in WP:TPOC are handled; with a warning template followed by asking an administrator to block them if they keep doing it". There is a word for ignoring what someone actually says and instead refuting something they didn't say. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• 'Comment In my experience on the refdesk, a recurring problem is that some users seem to be very over-zealous deleting questions and/or answers. These users will delete any question that even remotely mentions the human body as "medical advice" and then express indignation when their absurdly broad definition of "medical advice" is questioned. When other editors try to have a discussion about restoring the content, it's not uncommon for such discussions to be derailed by histrionics about "allowing medical advice" is a clear sign that the project is going to hell or whatever. This serves to prolong the discussion until it's no longer relevant, and the deletion more or less stands, even when the majority of involved editors thought it was an improper removal.

Therefore, I think this guideline should be updated with clear instructions on when not to remove a question/answer, and a clear guideline that in the case of a disagreement, the burden of gaining consensus is on the person trying to remove the content.

This shouldn't be controversial, that's my understanding of how BRD should work anyway, but as the RefDesk is such a weird exception to the rules, it would be good to have it spelled out. ApLundell (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Boycott

I have been giving this a lot of thought, and I have decided that I am not willing to be part of a group that thinks that a non-administrator deleting an answer that consists solely of a direct quote from a WP:MEDRS source such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Institutes of Health is acceptable behavior. I expect that some here will be happy to hear this. Those who I have helped on the computing refdesk, not so much. Please drop me a line on my talk page if the community decides against this. Unwatching all refdesks pages now. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point perhaps a speedy close is in order...dont see what more could be said.--Moxy 🍁 22:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Explain and give an example of "hatted"

I've been a Wikipedian for over 11 years and I am not sure what "hatted" means in this sentence, which appears in the third paragraph of the section titled, Dealing with questions asking for medical advice: "Any answer that provides medical advice, whether the question sought it or not, should be removed, or at least hatted, and an explanation should be given along with a link to Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer."

I think it means using a generic hatnote like {{Hatnote|CUSTOM TEXT}} or {{Selfref}}, but I'm not sure. Whatever the case, providing a brief explanation and an example would help. Many thanks  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Markworthen, I believe it refers to the practice of using the collapse templates, such as Template:Collapse. CaptainEek ⚓ 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct: it's an idiom that evolved from the name of the template {{hidden archive top}}, also invokable via {{hat}}, although the verb now refers to the us of any collapsible template employed to close a discussion, especially for procedural reasons. Snow 22:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment