Talk:Burn (disambiguation)

Burn as a stream less than a river
I notice the use of North East England as regards the use of burn to mean a stream which is less then a river. I suspect the reference should be to to north-eastern England. North East England is an administrative region and seems an over-precise defintion of the area of this usage of burn.
 * Laurel Bush 15:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC).

Cleanup
I deleted several burn references that were redundant or are more appropriate for wiktionary. But there was one reference that didn't have any backup, so I had to delete it, especially since it was not made clear whether what the correct name was. (I have never heard of it but live in Europe.) Put it back in if you can provide a link to the right article.


 * A beverage from the Coca-Cola company with energy drink properties that is marketed in European countries.

– sgeureka t•c 11:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently it is available in Spain and the Ukraine, possibly elsewhere. It is mentioned in List of Coca-Cola brands, and in the Energy drink article. By the way, great job with the cleanup. --Paul Erik 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Burn (insult)

 * Burn (insult), a special type of insult typically used by teenagers

Hm... That doesn't sound right to me. "special type"? How so? OSborn 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit: perhaps remove it, as it's covered under http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/burn#Verb #9. OSborn 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Removed. :) --Paul Erik 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be put back in. It is a common word used by many people, not just teenagers. Besides, this is a disambiguation for burn, and since there are many meanings for it, it wouldn't kill Wikipedia if we put it in. Anyone agree? Rob657 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Rob657


 * We would put it in if Wikipedia had any coverage of that usage of "burn". (MOS:DAB advises that disambiguation pages are not intended to list all uses of a term. Disambiguation pages are intended to help readers navigate to the article they are looking for.) I did a search just now and did not find any article that covers burn (insult). If that's the case, then the link to wiktionary is enough, according to our guidelines. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Structure

 * 1) Burn is not a title for Dabn of every title that has B-U-R-N imbedded in it, but only for those that
 * 2) Might reasonably be sought directly under "Burn" or "BURN" by either those not stopping to think about the word's ambiguity, or (esp'ly) those wise enuf not to waste time guessing at what the applicable dab'g suffix is; or
 * 3) Might be sought under "Burn" out of mistaken spelling, laziness, or desperation -- in which case they belong in the "See also" section, or even subsections of "See also" (Take care of our careful users first, rather than discouraging their efforts at care; then make reasonable efforts to help out everyone else.)
 * 4) Thus (since we strive mightily to avoid using verbs as titles, unless the article is about the verb as a word, e.g. Fuck, not about what the verb refers to) many of the excessive number of entries belong not here but at Burning (presently a Rdr to here), which is the preferred title for articles that are seen as being about processes or activities implied in use of "burn" as a verb -- or of course at Burning (disambiguation).
 * 5) The principal use of "burn" as a noun that appears here is clearly burn (injury).  Burn (stream) (now a redirect to burn (topography), to avoid confusion that it is about one stream) is minor, and probably burn as in "feel the burn" (result of muscular exertion) and burn as in "controlled burn by the Forest Service" (intentional fire to pre-empt future fires) are also minor. Present article Burn should be renamed to Burn (disambiguation) and Burn (injury) should IMO get a ToP Dab pointing to that Dab pg, and be renamed to Burn.
 * --Jerzy•t 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a Question
I've been wondering this FOR YEARS. People can die from 3rd-degree burns right? But why? The burns are not getting the internal organs. That how I see people die with no hope for living: one of the internal organs is hit hard. I suppose a person dies from the blood vessels turning to crisp......can someone clear up this for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.205.202 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not the correct place to ask a question like that. You might want to try Reference desk/Science, however. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Treatment and history of treatment (burn:injury)
It should also include the history of burn treatment, including previously used but now proven incorrect treatments (eg, butter). Gront (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC) The material proposed in the immediately preceding contrib would be immediately removed from the accompanying disambiguation "article", but could conceivably be on burn (injury). So discuss the idea at talk:burn (injury). --Jerzy•t 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the jackassery. Go to burn and click "discussion". Gee, where do you end up? This freakin' page. Gront (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for your frustration, and it looks like i may have made an error earlier, that led to it. More to follow. --Jerzy•t 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the first problem here is that when i moved the old "Burn (injury)" to Burn, i failed to adjust the link in Burn (disambiguation) to match. This was compounded when i failed to note what sometimes happens, that the corresponding talk page did not automatically make the corresponding move.  As a result, the Dab and the talk page both seemed to imply that the article on burns, in the sense of injuries was still called "Burn (injury)". And when you followed my directions, you were brought to the talk page for the Dab, instead of the talk page for the article on injuries by burning. I think if i had said "that material is suitable only to burn, and discussed on talk:burn, you'd have gotten the two corresponding pages. With the 2nd of the two fixes i've made since you complained, either set of directions now works as i intended (in one case, via redirects).  (And with the first fix, the Dab no longer encourages anyone to give the inherently mildly confusing directions i gave, which became severely confusing in light of the then unchanged Rdr.)
 * Anyway, you will see as i did that there has been a lot of discussion of
 * actual first aid content that was in the article (which i noticed) and
 * one editor's statement, in Talk:Burn, that there should be no such content.
 * I know there has been at various times in various areas discussion of the idea that how-to articles are outside the bounds of WP's proper content, perhaps on WP:NPoV grounds. It appears to me now that content such as you were advocating has been there and gone (without the documentation on the talk page that i'd have hoped for. My guess is that reviewing the history of Burn since 6 June 2007 would turn up the ID of the editor who removed that content, hopefully accompanied by at least a brief general reason for doing so. I'm not sure why there are no external lks to either Wikimedia-Foundation-sponsored or other Web resources on burn first aid, but at a minimum, it seems safe to assume that at least a temporary decision has been made against the approach you suggest; i expect you could learn more by looking at the record of the edits, consulting those involved, and/or finding out what more general policies might have suggested the removal.
 * Sorry to have been a pain in the neck for you, and thanks for the heads up about the situation, at least indirectly via the talk page. --Jerzy•t 09:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)