Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31

‎Gender dysphoria discussions
(re this edit), I was under the impression that it was the discussion that was archived and not to be edited. Why would it be standard policy to include the closing statement about the discussion in the archive you're not supposed to edit? Is it intended to make it difficult to criticise the closing statement or the decision to archive the discussion? It's very unclear where else the discussion would go, and I doubt anyone would be able to follow if that section cannot be edited at all. If removing my comment is in line with wiki policy then unless I'm missing a lot, it's a policy that seems to have a lot of room for improvement. The amount of bureaucracy on this site is quite frustrating at times.

, here is my comment with context:

"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."


 * How is the result "keep"? I was under the impression this was a discussion, not a majority vote, and the result of the discussion has absolutely not been in favour of keeping the current situation. The primary result of the discussion seems to me to be in favour of DHeyward's proposal.
 * The issues raised by Yworo, Blue Rasberry and Doc James have been addressed. The only remaining criticism is that by Flyer22 and Zad68: the primary topic some people will be looking for will be a diagnosis, rather than the term as it is used within the transgender community.
 * Since DHeyward's suggestion would incorporate both of these into the same article, I don't see how it's an issue. I personally was still waiting to see if anyone was going to challenge the consensus in favour of DHeyward's suggestion or contribute more to the discussion before pushing for some kind of action, since I'm still quite new and not used to policy here (and also definitely wouldn't feel confident starting a new page, beyond suggesting topics and sources).

If you can also clarify where the policy stands on this situation in general it would be much appreciated. I think I've spent longer going over wikipedia guidelines and conventions‎ than the discussions I'm reading them for(!) --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * Yes, indeed, the purpose of archiving the discussion is to discourage people from editing it or bickering over it. Admins like are granted the power to say "that's enough!" and that's not restricted to deletion discussions.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Flower f5a9b8, probably the best place to continue this discussion is at Talk:Gender identity disorder. For future reference, you can comment after a discussion is closed, but that should go after the discussion, and is unlikely to be a good place for attracting widespread discussion (example). While RfDs can result in outcomes beyond just changing a redirect, this seemed too complex an issue for me to rule a fiat on. What I can was that there was not consensus for turning Gender dysphoria into a disambiguation page. I wasn't really ruling on what does or does not belong in the Gender identity disorder article. In fact, I see that as an editorial issue best discussed on the article's talk page, not on a discussion about a related redirect. If you're confident consensus has already been built around DHeyward's proposal, be bold and implement it. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That helps a lot, I understand now. --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)