Talk:Cosmetic surgery

editprotected request

{{editprotected|Cosmetic surgery}}

To place redirect template {{R from alternative name}} on Cosmetic surgery. (Note: Talk:Cosmetic surgery is also fully protected).

-- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and this talk page unprotected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page automatically redirect to Plastic Surgery? This is an inappropriate redirect. These 2 topics are very different. ArizonaFace (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from ArizonaFace, 5 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Cosmetic Surgery should not redirect to Plastic Surgery as it is non synonymous. The case has been made several times on the Plastic Surgery article. It is important to give the Cosmetic Surgery article a chance to develop on it's own. Plastic Surgery is a board specialty of surgeons. Cosmetic Surgery is a collection of surgical procedures undertaken to improve cosmesis. These are not one in the same. Please allow Cosmetic Surgery article to flourish.

ArizonaFace (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has never faced a deletion discussion, so I would be able to create an article for you. The problems it has faced in the past are copyright violations and spam, so it would need watching carefully. Would you mind writing a draft article in your userspace, (e.g. at User:ArizonaFace/Cosmetic surgery) and when it is ready I can move it over for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 22 August 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the permanent full protection from this page. This page currently redirects to plastic surgery, but this topic could (and should) be its own article just as reconstructive surgery is, but the permanent full protection blocks anyone except admins from coming along and creating this article. It looks like the full protection was put on back in 2008 due to copyright violations. Having full protection on a viable article topic for over a decade seems very excessive to me, and not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia:Protection policy which states in the first sentence that: "Wikipedia is built around/with the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors." Dropping the protection level down to something like permanent semi-protection or extended confirmed protection would be much more appropriate and would allow an article on this topic to be created. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done @Rreagan007: to request and discuss unprotection please post at WP:RFPP. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]