Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice: Difference between revisions

→‎Discussion: reply to lambian: this guideline used to define what constitutes medical advice on RD
(→‎Discussion: reply to lambian: this guideline used to define what constitutes medical advice on RD)
: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. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 19:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:: I agree; making the guideline more explicit in this respect is probably more helpful than dismantling it. A problem that remains is that these overzealous removers with their absurdly broad definitions of "medical advice" quite likely will not have read the guideline. But being able to refer to a clearly defined process in undoing undue removals may cut protracted unproductive discussions short.  --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 06:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
::: This sounds like a reasonable way forward to me. As for "absurdly broad definitions of medical advice", this guideline actually [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice&oldid=518246645#What_does_this_guideline_apply_to? used to contain a (IMO) fairly clear definition] of what should be considered medical advice on the reference desk, although it was apparently removed when the page was reorganized in 2014. (And it still references [[User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion|Kainaw's criterion]], an essay based on that definition.) Perhaps going back to the 2012 version of the guideline (maybe adjusted to reflect the fact that current consensus seems to favor hatting over outright removal) might serve as a reasonable starting point for further improvements? —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 15:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 
=== Boycott ===