Talk:Strain

Too much content deleted?

User:Ringbang, you said "streamlined" but I think you have been too radical and have taken too many items out. I would like to go back to the version before your "streamlining" unless you can explain why you took so much out? e.g. the one on "straining" in connection with constipation is important. EvMsmile (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvMsmile: Hi, I'm so glad that you're thinking about how readers will use the page. To make disambiguation pages as useful as possible, I do my best to follow MOS:DAB. Often, well-intentioned editors make changes that go against the MoS, such as by adding dictionary definitions in inappropriate cases, or by adding unambiguous entries when the article topic contains the ambiguous word in some form (like Lunar Strain and Strained tendon). Most of the topics I removed were of this latter type (cf. MOS:DABNOENTRY). Often we keep certain qualified terms if they might be used unqualified (both Strain, Arkansas and Strain: Strategic Armored Infantry might reasonably be referred to as "Strain").

As for the word straining: I read the discussion at Talk:Constipation. First, the definition on the talk page is OR; even if it weren't, we don't add dictionary definitions. The word in this sense just means "exertion" or "struggling" (as in sense 5 of "strain")—or, at most, overworking a muscle. Even so, phrases like "straining to defecate" or "strain to stool" are attested as discrete terms by a few of the medical dictionaries I consulted, and maybe there's colloquial usage. Here is the problem: Constipation is not the only possible reason one might strain at stool. Similarly, it's not necessarily a result of rectal tenesmus or a bowel obstruction. Since there is no article for this topic (and it's unclear whether such an article would even be desirable and what it would even called), let's say we had an entry like this:

Straining to defecate, a potential consequence of constipation, rectal tenesmus, bowel obstruction, and other conditions

This reads like an attempt to diagnose a medical condition, and then to send readers to one of an arbitrary set of articles based on that diagnosis. The entry also has multiple links—which almost always is something to avoid—and after all that, none of the articles defines the phrase. So what if it was limited to the following?

Straining to defecate

While this might clarify an ambiguous use of the word straining in some hypothetical context, Defecation offers no information about it, and its usefulness is so limited even in the hypothetical that I don't find it worthy of inclusion.

I did, however, change the target of the Straining redirect from Constipation to Strain, since we can't suppose that constipation is what everyone has in mind when they use this term. The only article that references the redirect is Hiatus hernia, and its usage is ambiguous. —Ringbang (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation, much appreciated! I can't really argue with that. However, I am just wondering about this: if a user puts the word "straining" into Wikipedia and they now get redirected to the page on "strain", would they really find what they're looking for? Is the verb perhaps not the same as the noun? A "strained ligament" is totally different to "I am straining". I just wonder which of the articles on the disambig page should perhaps be modified so that the user can somehow find out about the connection of straining and defecation. EvMsmile (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvMsmile: You're right, those senses are very different, which is why we need disambiguation pages! We don't know what the user's intention is, so we give them options. You could just as easily ask that question about the redirect if it still pointed to Constipation. But I take your point: What if the option they want isn't there?

I think this will help put it in perspective: Straining is an important and relevant redirect, but it's a low-traffic one: it gets used about seven times per day, and about 3–4 of those page views are from mobile users (so maybe those people are on the toilet trying to figure out what's going on!). In any case, we don't know what those seven people click on (that information requires access to Wikipedia's Web analytics). What we can say for sure is that at least some of them are thinking of the word in some other sense. The gerund straining isn't as ambiguous as strain, but it still has multiple meanings. It so happens that this one particular meaning isn't the topic of a Wikipedia article, and no article that I've seen defines it.

Writing an article on this topic might be tricky. It could easily result in a WebMD-like entry. If you're concerned about advice seekers, remember that Wikipedia does not give medical advice. If you see a need for a neutral, well-sourced, non-diagnosing, non-advice-giving article, then by all means have a go at creating one. Certainly it's an encyclopedic topic, and one that people would read. From my research, by far the best headword to use is Straining at stool. —Ringbang (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your thoughtful answer! Perhaps I could suggest at the Wikiproject Medicine page as an article for creation: "straining at stool" or "straining during defecation". EvMsmile (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvMsmile: Cool! In Google Books and Google Scholar, straining at stool occurs orders-of-magnitude more frequently than any other phrase I tried, even after omitting lots of less reputable references from the search results, and it seems to be the preferred headword in a number of medical dictionaries. I think it also has the advantage of being more literally correct, since the strain doesn't necessarily involve defecation, just engaging specific muscles with effort, regardless of whether or not that strain is productive or necessary. And of course, just because the redirect is low-traffic doesn't mean the article would be, since search engines and other articles would link to it. Anyway, may all your efforts be strain-free. —Ringbang (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)