-
Clear liquids (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
"Clear liquids" was redirected to
Liquid_diet#Clear. "Clear liquids" is a very common medical term for a diet that consists of clear liquids. If you look at a g search.
[1] the first term is from the NLM
[2]. A book search also comes up with medical textbooks all the way down.
[3]. Here is a recent RCT of the title "A randomized controlled trial comparing a low-residue diet versus clear liquids for colonoscopy preparation: impact on tolerance, procedure time, and adenoma detection rate."
[4]
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 23:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Very infrequently, at DRV, we overturn an XFD discussion on the basis that it was just horribly wrong. (I've observed that these are almost always something scholarly and not obvious to the lay person. Long term DRV participants might recall
our discussion on Senior Wranglers.) This should be one of those times. There's no need to send it back to RfD for another discussion, just overturn, restore, and leave a pointer to this DRV in the log.—
S Marshall
T/
C 00:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- IMO this falls under point #3, "new information came to light".
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 09:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. "Clear liquids" is a vague phrase that does not necessarily refer to a clear liquid diet. Can it refer to a clear liquid diet? Sure. But I still think it's a
WP:SURPRISE for someone to end up at a place that does not use the term "clear liquids." --
Tavix (
talk) 00:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Yes the 44th link down in a google search does not refer to a diet when they use the term "clear liquids" so it is very rarely used in other ways. But it obviously nearly always refers to a diet.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I have to go through 57 medical links before I reach a non-medical (but still scientific) one. I understand that Google results vary a bit by location and language, but nobody seems to be finding this name in their top 10.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 22:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore (coming here from WPMED) am surprised that this is a redlink; in the medical/nursing/dietary world this is an extremely commonly used phrase. There are many terms of art in WP, and this one is widely used. —
soupvector (
talk) 01:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- All we need is a title that makes the meaning obvious obvious , eg
Clear liquids (medicine).
DGG (
talk ) 02:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore — this has essentially no other uses, and the original argument for deletion was very poor indeed. It did not take at all into account the actual use of the term. The article it redirects to should indeed better mention the term and its use — but that is actually not related to this discussion whatsoever.
DGG — that entirely defeats the purpose of a redirect, does it not?
Carl Fredrik
💌
📧 05:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore - for pete's sake does no one remember being a kid and having the flu and being told to "drink clear liquids" until your stomach settles? (warm 7-up, anyone?) This redirect should exist, for sure.
158 articles in pubmed,
28 of them reviews. And
look at all these hits in the public information section of the NIH website. In contrast,
here is a search of WP with our internal search engine.
Liquid diet is way down past the scroll. C'mon.
Jytdog (
talk) 06:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore If you don't understand why this is the obvious redirect, then put "clear liquids" (quoted phrase, plural) into your nearest search engine and see how far down you have to go to find results that aren't about colonoscopies and other medical uses.
The DRV seemed to be talking about
Clear liquid rather than
clear liquids. Also, the rule cited in that discussion as justification is about what to put in disambiguation pages, not redirects: WP:PTM is
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. Furthermore, it is misapplied, because that section says to "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title" – which is exactly the situation here. Not only is it plausible to refer to a
clear liquid diet as "clear liquids", but that's the most common use. If you give a typical English-speaking adult a generic sentence like, "He said I should try clear liquids", they're going to assume that the speaker is talking about a clear liquid diet.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 09:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- restore per nominators rationale --
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 10:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse I accept that "clear liquids" has a
clear well-known meaning in a medical context. But this is not "Medipedia"—we can't myopically assume everyone would be thinking of the medical context when searching this term. There are other encyclopedic topics a reader could be seeking such as why many liquids are clear (
Light scattering). We risk confusing them without some marker that we're talking about medicine. DGG's suggestion is worthwhile; WhatamIdoing has created
Clear liquid diet, which is also helpful. I'm surprised to see a WikiProject that seems so strict about accuracy (cf.
Myocardial infarction,
Diabetes mellitus vs.
WP:COMMONNAME) taking this position. --
BDD (
talk) 17:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Not intended as a straw man. Maybe I didn't put it clearly enough. If "heart attack" and "diabetes" aren't precise enough to be suitable as titles, it seems strange to me to say that a generic phrase like "clear liquids", whose use is not exclusive to medicine, is suitable here. Apparently others don't find this strange at all. --
BDD (
talk) 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Heart attack is a redirect, just like this page should be. You're missing the point of the entire discussion.
Carl Fredrik
💌
📧 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- This isn't a
partial title match, as asserted in the nomination; it's a full common name. And it's not the same case as
clear liquid or its other variants, also as asserted in the nomination. The "vague"ness the nominator backpedaled to above would have never passed muster at rfd: if someone wants to write a general article about tabun, methanol, cryogenic nitrogen, or what have you, the proper tool is either a disambiguation page or the hatnote generated by {{
redirect}}, not deletion. Overturn. —
Cryptic 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Allow recreation. Given how the RfD discussion went, there wasn't another way to close it besides how I closed it, but the nomination here is convincing that the original target is the best target we have. Based on this DRV, it seems that RfD would be improved if there was an automatic way of notifying WikiProjects about relevant discussions. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions 00:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- There is an automatic way of notifying WikiProjects:
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Tools#Article_Alerts. --
Tavix (
talk) 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Yes we all do not watch that list that closely.
WT:MED gets notice.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 09:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Article alerts only works when the redirect has been tagged with the WikiProject's template, which is not at all common for WPMED (or most other WikiProjects).
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 11:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- A bot can easily tag all redirects that target an article that is tagged. That might be something to look into for future reference. --
Tavix (
talk) 21:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore I can see no argument that contradicts the fact that one of the principal meanings of "clear liquids" is "clear liquid diet" (although the target article could do with expansion to make that explicit). It seems the only objection remaining is that there are other meanings in other fields. But that surely is not a rationale for deletion; it's a rationale for disambiguation - either by hatnote or dab page. Of course, that would only apply if other legitimate targets for the redirect were to be found. I've seen none yet. --
RexxS (
talk) 23:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Restore
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS appears to have reached an innocently ignorant conclusion, and those who understand the term's use and applicability are unanimous that it be restored.
Jclemens (
talk) 03:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I'll note that per user page self-declarations there are two physicians, one physician assistant, one medical device engineer, and one medical student who have advocated that this be restored, while no one indicating any medical background whatsoever has opposed such restoration.
Jclemens (
talk) 03:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Not really a clear and well known term unless you work in or are closely associated with the medical field. I wouldn't object to a link to
liquid diet being included if this were a disambig page, but it's not.
Lankiveil (
speak to me) 04:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC).
reply
- For this to be a dab page, there would have to be more than one target within Wikipedia articles for the phrase. I wouldn't object to this being a dab page, rather than a redirect, if there there were multiple targets. But there aren't. --
RexxS (
talk) 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Ooh, we can play a game! Let's start naming clear liquids and see how many we can come up with. I'll start:
Crystal Pepsi. --
Tavix (
talk) 20:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- That could be the most extreme straw-man argument I've seen. For something to be linked from the dab it has to be commonly (or even ever, not just hypothetically) referred to as "clear liquids".
Carl Fredrik
💌
📧 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- It would technically be a
set index at that point, or more likely, a list (eg:
list of clear liquids.) Not sure where the straw man is. I'll keep going though:
ethanol. --
Tavix (
talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The straw man is where you've argued that lots of articles are beverages. While it is true that each of them are clear liquids, not all uses of "clear liquids" refer to the beverages you mention. It's the difference between implication and equivalence. It would be appropriate in a dab page to write "Clear liquids may refer to:
Liquid_diet#Clear". It would not be appropriate to write "Clear liquids may refer to:
Water" (or
ethanol or
Crystal Pepsi). Neither of the articles
ethanol and
Crystal Pepsi even mention the phrase. Dab pages need more than one target. --
RexxS (
talk) 22:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Which is why it would technically be a list and not a dab. That doesn't negate the fact that "clear liquids" is an ambiguous phrase that doesn't necessarily refer to a clear liquid diet. Im trying to show you the idiomatic definition by providing examples of clear liquids. If you insist on a dab though, how about:
- Clear liquids may refer to:
- I've also seen evidence of usage in Chemisty, but I don't think it's distinct from the idiomatic definition. --
Tavix (
talk) 22:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The dab page you suggest won't work because
WP:DABSTYLE requires one and only one blue link and no pipes per entry. If the article
Liquid had a section Clear, you would have a point. But it doesn't. --
RexxS (
talk) 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, I know. This is why a redlink would be best here, like I said in the beginning. You seem to want something at this title, so I'm trying to play along with that notion by saying that if we have something here, it would have to be a list. --
Tavix (
talk) 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
- @
RexxS: I know, hence the endorsement of the current status quo.
Lankiveil (
speak to me) 23:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC).
reply
- Note:
Standard Test Method for Color of Clear Liquids (Platinum-Cobalt Scale). --03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beetstra (
talk •
contribs)
- Restore I'm normally the first to complain when medical usage encroaches on other scientific usage of the same term. But in this case it's very obvious that the medical usage is the only significant one. Nobody is using "clear liquids" as a search term when looking for information about light scattering, spectroscopy, etc. This appears to be a case where the original discussion participants were not aware of the term-of-art usage.
Opabinia regalis (
talk) 07:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
reply
|