Talk:Glassing

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Glass Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

On 18 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Glassing (crime). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Untitled

Removed citation request for vision loss, it should be considered common knowledge by anyone smarter than a bowl of fruit that getting stabbed in the face with a fistfull of broken glass might put out an eye. --71.1.150.225 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia really prepared to accept the Manchester Evening News as an uncorroborated source for the number of glassing attacks? Is there any evidence that the journalist concerned didn't simply pluck that figure from their ass? One hundred episodes a week sounds unlikely to this UK citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdenweb (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide prevalence?

This seems to be a big think in englishspeaking countries. It is not common at all in germanic countries (maybe at the highly international frequented Oktoberfest, but Bavarian cops are pretty predatory about behaviour like this). Are there any sources on the worldwide prevalence? This phanomenom is realy weird... 91.39.101.112 (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

broken link

Second footnote link "crimogenic products and the role of gouvernment" is broken. J.Appelzaad 13:02 17 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.115.30 (talk)

Tempered glass

Seems to me that a tempered beer glass would still do some pretty good damage if one decided to beat their opponent with it. Really hard, pretty heavy, could probably break a skull. I also think we need more detail on its use as an improvised blade; as someone from the US, I'm not at all familiar with this notion of smashing a beer bottle or glass in someone's face. I have, however, seen plenty of movies where a character facing a potential opponent picks up a bottle by the neck, smashes the base off and wields it like a blade to threaten the other person. That's the only kind of "glassing" I'm aware off, other than maybe someone being struck over the head by a bottle and knocked out. AnnaGoFast (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad stats?

Sounds like there might not be 87000 glassings in the Uk each year https://www.petebrown.net/2010/02/05/how-87000-glassing-injuries-year-gave/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.104.183 (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (

Works ^{ping me!} 11:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NOPRIMARY for this term, as it is also heavily used in hunting circles to describe the use of binoculars or other optical sights. (See Binoculars#Hunting). It's also used in the basic sense of "to cover with glass". I suggest a disambiguation page be created. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose. There is no other article title by this name, so disambiguation is unnecessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DABMENTION means that doesn't preclude the need for disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
article titling policy. - Station1 (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. The act of trying to smash a glass bottle onto someone's head doesn't, in my humble opinion, have greater enduring notability than the sum total of all other activities you can describe by the verb "to glass".
fibreglass'. I'd go for a different disambiguator though: "crime" is a bit too legal and may not apply to all cases; how about "attack"? – Uanfala (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This would go against Wikipedia policy. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't just make a disambiguation page with lots of terms that have no articles. And we don't insert a parenthetical disambiguator into a title when it is not needed to disambiguate it from other article titles with the same name. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any policies here, but we do have the
WP:DAB guidelines, whose very introduction makes it clear that dabs don't disambiguate titles, they disambiguate ambiguous terms when the relevant meanings are covered on Wikipedia. I haven't looked very closely, but it's immediately obvious that we have coverage of glazing and of the use of binoculars, with possibly some relevant content on melting (in Trinitite) and the fibreglass coating (though covered only for specific cases, such as Surfboard). – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We don't have any policies? Then why does
WP:DAB says "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic." Are there any other articles titled "glassing" or topics covered within articles about "glassing"? I looked over the binoculars, glass, glazing, and fiberglass articles and could not find the term "glassing" contained anywhere within those articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see NOTDICT as relevant here. As for the other point, what's important is not for an article to contain the dab term (although that's certainly a plus!), but for it to have content on the topic referred to by the term. – Uanfala (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well we're just going to have to disagree on that. We'll see what other people think. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, topics do not require an article to merit disambiguation, so I agree with Uanfala's view entirely. While they might not mention "glassing" right now, that could easily be sourced and added with little doubt as to its veracity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't necessarily need a full article, but there should at least be some mention of it in other articles for disambiguation to be required. Disambiguation simply is not required in this case. This proposal is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If a placeholder
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then a double nomination of Glassing → Glassing (crime) paired with Glassing (disambiguation) → Glassing might present a greater opportunity of arriving at some form of consensus, including even the necessity of such a dab page, depending upon the viability of its entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose per Rreagan007's comments above, as well as
WP:CONCISE. - Station1 (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. Very clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.