Template talk:Medical resources/Archive 1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by WhatamIdoing in topic Partial merge to Template:Authority control
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Patient UK
@Doc James and CFCF: Shouldn't Patient UK be hidden when its parameter is empty? k18s (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Sister links
Wondering if we should add sister links to this template? Than we would not need the sister links template. The data could also go horizontally.
DMOZ would be something else we could add once they get themselves back up and running again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Placement
Where should this be placed? Current version of Meningitis#External links looks just plain wrong. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks perfectly fine to me. What do you think is wrong with that placement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: How is this? I reordered to recommended positions and positioned one or two that are semi-vague on placement to be visually appealing. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure so the question is were should this be placed? This is not a portal bar, nor an "authority control". This is partly a template of key external links and partly a template of key classification terms thus IMO it should go above the other external links. What do you think of this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer placing this template below traditional external inks for three reasons: Firstly, the description of this template states "... to display parameters and data that is important, but not relevant to the average reader", making other external links likely to be more relevant. Secondly, this will only be placed in some medical articles and there is no equivalent template for other topics, meaning the vast majority of other articles with external links begin with the normal external links at the top. Lastly and leastly, I find it more appealing visually when placed at the bottom. I'll have to look into where {{portal bar}} is generally placed in comparable articles. On a side note, this doesn't comply with WP:ELTEMP, specifically "Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites ... [such] templates should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting." Has this template been discussed or proposed anywhere; keeping in mind that participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it looks better as it was. We can have another RfC. Let me get drafting. We do not consider any of the ELs very relevant which is why we are moving to placing them all at the bottom. These were actually deemed more relevant than others which is why they were once commonly in the lead. This template has actually been discussed for years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with that external links are generally not relevant. External links should not be placed in the body of an article, meaning that outside of infoboxes, this is where they belong regardless of relevance. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I have a comment on the rfc, if you don't mind, please give me a minute before you take it live. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure we can draft it here. Have not made it live yet. Let me know if there are other options you wish to consider. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Placement (i.e. should it be above of below the traditional external links) is a secondary concern that can be handled on this talk page. The bigger question for which an rfc may be due is simply, "Should {{Medical resources}} can be placed within the external links section of articles?" and a mention of WP:ELTEMP in some way, or something along those lines. (Sorry that took longer than I intended due to a phone call) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- So you are of the opinion that this template should be deleted entirely? You can add it as one of the options if you wish. Discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Infobox_update_April_2017 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I don't hold the opinion that it should be deleted. Policy states
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
(Wikipedia:Local consensus) Consensus should be gained for such a template and I do not think that such a query should be lumped in with the rfc below. As far as the rfc below goes: I would suggest leaving {{portal bar}} out of the examples, as that is a separate issue, and further complicates the rfc. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)- Ah? From my understanding one can still WP:Be bold. One does not need pre approved EN WP wide consensus to divide a prior template related to a narrow topic area into half.
- By the way have you read the justification for this change? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I don't hold the opinion that it should be deleted. Policy states
- So you are of the opinion that this template should be deleted entirely? You can add it as one of the options if you wish. Discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Infobox_update_April_2017 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Placement (i.e. should it be above of below the traditional external links) is a secondary concern that can be handled on this talk page. The bigger question for which an rfc may be due is simply, "Should {{Medical resources}} can be placed within the external links section of articles?" and a mention of WP:ELTEMP in some way, or something along those lines. (Sorry that took longer than I intended due to a phone call) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure we can draft it here. Have not made it live yet. Let me know if there are other options you wish to consider. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it looks better as it was. We can have another RfC. Let me get drafting. We do not consider any of the ELs very relevant which is why we are moving to placing them all at the bottom. These were actually deemed more relevant than others which is why they were once commonly in the lead. This template has actually been discussed for years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer placing this template below traditional external inks for three reasons: Firstly, the description of this template states "... to display parameters and data that is important, but not relevant to the average reader", making other external links likely to be more relevant. Secondly, this will only be placed in some medical articles and there is no equivalent template for other topics, meaning the vast majority of other articles with external links begin with the normal external links at the top. Lastly and leastly, I find it more appealing visually when placed at the bottom. I'll have to look into where {{portal bar}} is generally placed in comparable articles. On a side note, this doesn't comply with WP:ELTEMP, specifically "Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites ... [such] templates should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting." Has this template been discussed or proposed anywhere; keeping in mind that participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure so the question is were should this be placed? This is not a portal bar, nor an "authority control". This is partly a template of key external links and partly a template of key classification terms thus IMO it should go above the other external links. What do you think of this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
When something is explicitly disallowed by a community guideline, i.e. "Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites ... [such] templates should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting." WP:ELTEMP, boldly adding it to over 300 articles is not appropriate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- We have been developing this since 2011. Roll out began in November of 2015.[1]
- This is not really the creation of a "new" infobox or template but a split of a prior infobox.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- agree w/ Doc James on this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Medical resources is an external links template. Template:Infobox medical condition (new) is an infobox. They are used in conjunction, but what each one is should not be conflated. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's complete nonsense. The way in which we organise links to highly relevant external resources is a minor issue. The important point is that we have the links in a predictable place. We have linked to MeSH, ICD, etc, for years. They all have fixed-format urls so that a template can generate each link from a single identifier, which also future-proofs the linking from any re-organisation of these websites. Both Template:Medical resources and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) are templates and together make up an on-going programme of replacement for Template:Infobox medical condition. Of course they need to be conflated, because they do a job in conjunction with each other. Is that so difficult to understand? --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- On a side note: Godsy, I wrote that part of ELTEMP, and I assure you that templates such as this and {{authority control}} were not considered when we talked it over. The problem we intended to solve was people duplicating {{Commons}} for their own wikis. See Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 32#Large graphical templates for a rather pointed discussion about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the note. I don't necessarily take issue with this template. My concern is new un-traditional templates that do not comply with policies and guidelines being added to medicine articles (a large number in this case) without being properly proposed, like in similar cases such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner (which ended up being solidly rejected) and Template:WikiProject Medicine app sidebar (which ended up being solidly approved). A lot off hassle and drama could have been avoided there through discussions or notices regarding them at the village pump or through request for comments (especially with the former). I could envision this going down those roads. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am not concerned when editors decide to WP:Be bold, especially when I am confident that they are willing to help adjust articles later if editors decide to go another direction. The English Wikipedia does not operate primarily through a process of getting written permission before doing what you think is best, and the (one) guideline that these allegedly "do not comply with" did not envision anything like this when it was written, so the fact that the template "does not comply with" a sentence that was written to address a completely different problem does not concern me in the least. Or, if you want to look at it from a different perspective, it's probably unreasonable to demand that editors hold an RFC or jump through any other sort of bureaucratic hoops because of a difference over a guideline that could be (and repeatedly has been, and for the specific sentence in question, actually was) changed with no bureaucracy at all. I don't think that WT:EL has hosted an RFC during the last five years (the last one that I actually remember was in 2009, but perhaps one has slipped my mind). It doesn't make sense for us to make it significantly harder to get the occasional exception (e.g., this one template on perhaps 0.005% of articles) than it is to create blanket permission to do this across the entire project (e.g., by WP:PGBOLDly changing the guideline itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it appears we irreconcilably disagree. "They" were not willing to adjust articles bearing Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner when strong objections were raised to it. In fact, it was insisted that formal consensus be gained to remove it from articles, even though none was gained to add it to them. One simply cannot have it both ways. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am not concerned when editors decide to WP:Be bold, especially when I am confident that they are willing to help adjust articles later if editors decide to go another direction. The English Wikipedia does not operate primarily through a process of getting written permission before doing what you think is best, and the (one) guideline that these allegedly "do not comply with" did not envision anything like this when it was written, so the fact that the template "does not comply with" a sentence that was written to address a completely different problem does not concern me in the least. Or, if you want to look at it from a different perspective, it's probably unreasonable to demand that editors hold an RFC or jump through any other sort of bureaucratic hoops because of a difference over a guideline that could be (and repeatedly has been, and for the specific sentence in question, actually was) changed with no bureaucracy at all. I don't think that WT:EL has hosted an RFC during the last five years (the last one that I actually remember was in 2009, but perhaps one has slipped my mind). It doesn't make sense for us to make it significantly harder to get the occasional exception (e.g., this one template on perhaps 0.005% of articles) than it is to create blanket permission to do this across the entire project (e.g., by WP:PGBOLDly changing the guideline itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the note. I don't necessarily take issue with this template. My concern is new un-traditional templates that do not comply with policies and guidelines being added to medicine articles (a large number in this case) without being properly proposed, like in similar cases such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner (which ended up being solidly rejected) and Template:WikiProject Medicine app sidebar (which ended up being solidly approved). A lot off hassle and drama could have been avoided there through discussions or notices regarding them at the village pump or through request for comments (especially with the former). I could envision this going down those roads. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- On a side note: Godsy, I wrote that part of ELTEMP, and I assure you that templates such as this and {{authority control}} were not considered when we talked it over. The problem we intended to solve was people duplicating {{Commons}} for their own wikis. See Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 32#Large graphical templates for a rather pointed discussion about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's complete nonsense. The way in which we organise links to highly relevant external resources is a minor issue. The important point is that we have the links in a predictable place. We have linked to MeSH, ICD, etc, for years. They all have fixed-format urls so that a template can generate each link from a single identifier, which also future-proofs the linking from any re-organisation of these websites. Both Template:Medical resources and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) are templates and together make up an on-going programme of replacement for Template:Infobox medical condition. Of course they need to be conflated, because they do a job in conjunction with each other. Is that so difficult to understand? --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Partial merge to Template:Authority control
Look at Cancer#External links. It contains this template plus the {{authority control}} template.
I think that we should consider moving the "Classification" links into the {{authority control}} template. It doesn't really make sense to have the US Library of Congress number (LCCN) for cancer in one template and the US National Library of Medicine number (MeSH) in the other one, but that's what we're doing.
Pinging User:Alan Liefting, User:John of Reading, and User:Pigsonthewing, because they might know whether this has been discussed before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Or we could move "authority control" into this one. I am currently still working on the update. Maybe we could get the help of a bot to do the merge once I am done in a couple of months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Authority control}} applies to more than just medical topics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's why it would be better to include {{Authority control}} inside a template which also contained these other links. I took that to be Doc James' meaning. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Authority control}} applies to more than just medical topics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I would agree to move (or copy!) the classification into the authority control. That makes complete sense. I would not incorporate other authority control information into this template - keep it consistent with all other topics, as well as shared topics. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- While even Authority control appears to be in the ==External links== section, that is just optically. Per MOS:LAYOUT#Order_of_article_elements there is a virtual section (virtual: no header, not in TOC) called "Bottom matter" (or elsewhere: navboxes) that is separate from section Appendices, "External links". So it is incorrect to move external links around between these conceptual article parts. One effect of this concept is that most or all of the Bottom matter is not shown in mobile view (not even the categories). Another consequence: navboxes and Authority control have
class=navbox, external links not (one can dispute on whether the links under discussion should haveclass=infobox, but that is an other issue). - Also the information of those medical links and Authority control is different from the core. Authority control is just a cross-reference of identifiers and nothing more. The AC example cancer in LCCN shows this. While, the external links for cancer ICD0-10 C97 and MedlinePlus 001289 both link to content pages, giving additional descriptions and context. For this information fact, they belong in the External Links (if added at all), and not in the Bottom matter section. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense, User:DePiep. However, then they sometimes just fail the inclusion standards of WP:ELWP:NOT#REPOSITORY. They tend to duplicate each other (similar information), are better covered through a directory service (we are not writing a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia). I stand by my analysis above, these are better in a collapsed section of an infobox (knowing that that breaks on mobile .. but that is a technical problem). And that is true for more of the infoboxes that carry identifiers). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- If these ELs are unacceptable in the EL section because of NOT#REPOSITORY, then I cannot understand how they would be acceptable elsewhere in the article. The EL guideline keeps telling 'not too much', but within the WP:MED community I have not heard a single editor saying these are not relevant. So only an non-MED beancounter could claim that this dozen is too much becuause, well, it is so many. (After which I could throw in the more repository Authority ELs, which somehow passed the NOT REPOSITORY check).
- Your suggestion to put/keep them in the infobox we have discussed before. It does not solve the in/out discussion, and it denies the designed goal of the infobox.
- All this while we have the ideal location, especially by all information aspects, for these relevant external links: section External links. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- As a point of fact, the pointfulness of including MeSH identifiers has been debated several times, and the desirability of eMedicine links has been discussed at least twice that I can remember offhand. When a new editor started adding links to GeneReviews in 2009, he was reported to ELN and at risk of being blocked as a spammer. (That's when it was added to the infobox; links in infoboxes carry a lower risk of drawing spam complaints.) Even the ICD links have been questioned on occasion (sometimes the codes; sometimes just the URL that makes it possible to verify that the code is correct), although they've been strongly defended every time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hence my remarks above to put them back in the infobox. It is the classification that is of importance, and that 'database like'/numerical data is something that is more suitable in an infobox. These are, often, not for 'more information' (most are databases telling similar data as the Wikipedia articles in different ways, some are sources that are more reliable than what Wikipedia is, etc.). In an external links section, they are supposed to be including information that cannot be included due to too much detail, etc. etc. (see WP:EL) - these tend to duplicate each other, in the above examples they are also available from the directory service already linked, all reasons that these are not suitable as external links. Moreover, there are many boxes that have classification data in the infobox (template:taxobox is a prime example; all internally linked I agree, but they are classifications). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Stocknames are another set of 'identifiers/classifications' commonly linked from infoboxes (and I recall from the text as well). It is interesting detail that is added, but it would fail our inclusion standards as an external link - it does not belong there. That they are listed is the encyclopedic info, and the link is the primary source that it is correct. That is the same with the information that has now moved out of the medical infobox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense, User:DePiep. However, then they sometimes just fail the inclusion standards of WP:ELWP:NOT#REPOSITORY. They tend to duplicate each other (similar information), are better covered through a directory service (we are not writing a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia). I stand by my analysis above, these are better in a collapsed section of an infobox (knowing that that breaks on mobile .. but that is a technical problem). And that is true for more of the infoboxes that carry identifiers). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, no, no — not the same thing. Will fit very badly. Carl Fredrik talk 08:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Really? Just how different is https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D009369 from http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85019492.html from the POV of any innocent lay reader? They're both library classification entries. Why should they be separated? Should the one that begins with the library catalog's "Tree Number(s): C04" and "Unique ID: D009369" be in the medical resources template, or should it be the one that begins with the library catalog's classification of it as an "Instance Of: MADS/RDF" and SKOS Concept" that belongs here?
I can see a reasonable argument for putting ICD templates in the infobox (my preference) or in this template, but I cannot see a reasonable argument for having two library classifications and declaring that one is important content and the other is "just a cross-reference of identifiers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC) - I completely agree with this .. These things do NOT belong in external links sections at all, they fail our inclusion standards per WP:EL as an external link. Either they are plain classifications, in which case the classification belongs in the infobox, and could be duplicated in the authority control (and for those that are classification, this is my preferred option), or they are important identifiers, in which case the identifier belongs in the infobox (and that is then my preferred option for those). Moving this out of the infobox is a great disservice to the interested reader, totally out of line with what is common practice on Wikipedia, and as the suggestion above stands, in total disregard of long standing policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Dirk, there are also several links to pages that would normally be – and originally were – regular external links. We moved links such as eMedicine and GeneReviews into {{infobox disease}} because they were so universally included. In many cases, putting them in the infobox let editors remove the ==External links== section (and thereby reduce the temptation to add inappropriate links, e.g., to chat rooms). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that, so full circle. Anyway, these fail often what we normally include as external links. I insist that this was a bad idea, but we'll have to live with what has already been done ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Dirk, there are also several links to pages that would normally be – and originally were – regular external links. We moved links such as eMedicine and GeneReviews into {{infobox disease}} because they were so universally included. In many cases, putting them in the infobox let editors remove the ==External links== section (and thereby reduce the temptation to add inappropriate links, e.g., to chat rooms). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Really? Just how different is https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D009369 from http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85019492.html from the POV of any innocent lay reader? They're both library classification entries. Why should they be separated? Should the one that begins with the library catalog's "Tree Number(s): C04" and "Unique ID: D009369" be in the medical resources template, or should it be the one that begins with the library catalog's classification of it as an "Instance Of: MADS/RDF" and SKOS Concept" that belongs here?
- Can someone give links to that {{Authority control}} grand discussion? Must have been a great info&page-design thing. WhatamIdoing? -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- DePiep, I've not been involved in that template's development. Perhaps you will find what you want on its talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)