Template talk:Medical student notice

On 12 December 2017, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:Student to Template:Medical student notice. The result of the discussion was moved.

comments

This is great! Super high level, simple, direct.

Some additions to consider:

Please think carefully before deciding to work on a featured article (FA). An FA will have a gold star on the right side of the page, opposite the title: see Menstrual cycle. It is hard to improve these articles.
Please try to avoid generating a large of block of text to insert in the article. You are used to creating essays for school, but working in Wikipedia is not essay writing. Look at the whole article in terms of the quality of sourcing (how recent, how strong) and in terms of WP:WEIGHT (are all the sections described in WP:MEDMOS present and complete, and is space allocated to each part reasonably?); those are the two key ways most articles need improving.

- Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add User:Jytdog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doing, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is good; may I have a go at surface copy-editing, which might trim the wording just a little? And I'd like to put on this talkpage a few possible additions, for your consideration. Tony (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Tony1 that would be great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

User:Tony1 Per "but avoid reference tags where attribution is clear (successive repetitions of the same reference number are often unnecessary)."

I actually encourage referencing every sentence. I do. If a bunch of sentences in a row are supported by the same ref you easily hide some with

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take issue with you on this. All I see is ugly, cluttered, subprofessional over-referencing on medical articles. No research journal would ever allow it, and on WP it looks defensive. It's actually lazy, too, since the editors don't need to think: just slap 'em in after every sentence. Not kind to readers. Tony (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is what we do. It is really easy for people to slip unsourced and untrue information into articles about health and medicine - and they do - and this helps us ensure that what is there is well sourced. It is an unfortunate product of the Wikipedia context, and would indeed be bizarre in a more controlled environment. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to object to this lazy over-referencing whenever I see it. Don't bother applying for good or featured article status. Tony (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off I do not apply for featured article. Yes we reference heavily. How can one have a debate about text if the references are not clear? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't lazy; it is a lot of work.Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may not apply; but I'll make sure the referencing is brought under normal standards if anyone tries. "How can one have a debate about text if the references are not clear?" It's not about clarity; it's about redundancy ... that is, when the retrospective application of a reftag is abundantly clear. The fact that you censored my addition to the template of this matter (clearly not understood by many students) speaks of your commitment to this unprofessional practice. Tony (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takes me a few hours to write and fully reference 3 or 4 paragraphs of text. Yes we do disagree on this practice. I would hope that hiding references would be a sufficient compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why spend so much time to create an ugly, difficult-to-read, text that doesn't conform to widespread referencing practice? Tony (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
already explained. Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Tony (talk)
read this Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If every sentence does not contain a reference (either shown or hidden) very rapidly people add "citation needed" tags to that sentence. This is regardless of if it is supported latter or supported in the body of the text. Our readers are requesting it. So to speed up follow up I now reference every sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of this, please? Tony (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So against my pleas on behalf of readers, James makes sweeping assertions: "very rapidly people add "citation needed" tags to that sentence" and "Our readers are requesting it". However, you guys refuse to back these up with evidence when asked to. And just one point, while waiting for evidence: if you persist with an extreme approach to ref-tagging, you might well have been distorting the expectations of those who don't know any better. Tony (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few moments to pull difs :-) Nearly every sentence here has a citation needed tag and a mass were added here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BUT, reading your text at the top here: "If a bunch of sentences in a row are supported by the same ref you easily hide some with " ... that seems like a remedy, although it still makes editing very difficult sans visual editor. However, I'm not seeing the invisible comment method put into practice, and you're encouraging students to litter the display (rather than the edit mode). Tony (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you are pushing your own aesthetics; we are trying to build a very reliable encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The example of overtagging can be seem more here before I cleaned up much of it.

If you look at the lead you will notice 8 hidden refs[1]. This one has 12 hidden refs [2]

I never use the visual editor.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better with your commenting outs. Doesn't that suggest that you agree with my point? I'm not experienced with the templates used in referencing, so one question: are NIH2011Cas, NIH2011Cas/, and NIH2011Diag different section links to the same article? Tony (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been commenting out like this for a few years now. I was hoping this would be compromise [3]? I agree with you that every sentence does not need a visible reference but it must be clear what the reference is.

When we had the issue with Hasty's paper[4] the fact that he called stuff "wrong" which was properly paraphrased and clearly supported by references from NHS was useful for the defense.

Each "ref name" is a separate reference / webpage / journal article / book. The NIH often has a set of pages on a specific topic thus the names you see. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So these are actually not repetitions, but references you've judged are redundant for most readers all the same. I guess not many readers would want to dig up those refs and not know how to access them (i.e. via edit mode). The next question is whether reference "trimming" can be more widely practised. Tony (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify yes we are only hiding repeating references. So if we have

Text.<ref name=1> Text.<ref name=1>

The first ref will be hidden. We could actually build a bot that would automatically do this. Basically if two sentence that occur in a row are supported by the same reference the bot would hid the first one. Will look at getting this build. Must sleep. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bot to do that would be SUPERB. Let's think whether there would be any false positives. Tony (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of any. Will get Amir building it. We can than have the bot do a small run and check them to make sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for bot sent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe they should be shown. Here is the request to have it shown [5] from today. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James, it doesn't seem to be a reasonable query. In your bot request, did you specify that, say, that the [3] in the second, compound ref here shouldn't be commented out?: [3] ... [3,13] ... that is, that it's only sequential repetitions of the exact numbering for which the second and subsequent instances should be commented out ... Also, a new paragraph should reset the bot in this task, right? Tony (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree with all that. Only if all refs are the same and only if it is not a new paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Include page numbers when referencing a book."

So that means don't bother when referencing a journal article, does it? Tony (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem with books; it is not a problem with journal articles. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, so that means don't bother when referencing a journal article, does it? Tony (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we don't look for a specific page reference in journal articles, no. we do expect the journal ref to be complete and to include a PMID. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you directly quote from a journal article and don't provide the page number? Weird. It's not acceptable in research writing. Tony (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect journal cite: Spees, JL; Lee, RH; Gregory, CA (31 August 2016). "Mechanisms of mesenchymal stem/stromal cell function". Stem cell research & therapy. 7 (1): 125. PMID 27581859. - Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name one journal that would accept a direct quotation from a journal article without the page number. Tony (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Journal articles are typically relatively short. In the peer reviewed articles I have published including in PLOS medicine I have not had a request for page numbers for journal articles. We tend to recommend not quoting from sources but paraphrasing them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I don't often see quotes in the primary and secondary biomedical literature. Here in WP, in biomedical articles we rarely quote - that generally only happens when folks can't agree on how to paraphrase. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some journal articles are not short. Sometimes it's appropriate to quote, as you know. In my experience, a page number is required. Tony (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Yes for very long articles I will occasionally use page numbers. Most however are short and thus a lack of page numbers for journal is generally not a problem.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know what topics you edit but for biomedical topics we almost never have to quote. Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My professional experience is unrestricted by area. Tony (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mess students make is other areas. This template has a very practical aim and you are making a big stink over a thing that is almost irrelevant, it happens so rarely. I won't spend more time on this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pursing your lips and withdrawing from an unresolved discussion is the height of rudeness. Tony (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with add "or long journal article" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my lips aren't pursed. you are just POV pushing a style, and there is no end to disputes over style. You are not going to win consensus for your preferred style on medical articles. you can try but it will be a tremendous waste of time all around. and yoyu are doing this over a template we created to help students avoid wasting our time with crappy edits. the irony is ... sharp. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not style: it's verification method. I won't waste my time, though: I'll simply stop supporting Wikiproject Medicine's work. In the past I've given considerable support to it, but your attitude suggests that it's self-centred and arrogant. Tony (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warning about FA?

User:Doc James why remove the warning about FAs? Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply to shorten it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. I see a pretty clear consensus to rename this template as long as the old name redirects to the new, more editor-friendly name. Happy New Year to All! (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 12:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Student → Template:Medical student notice – This is not a generic notice to students, rather it is specific to those editing medical articles. I'm proposing that the resulting very generic redirect either be deleted or retargeted, possibly to {{student sandbox}}, depending on the consensus in this discussion. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support go for it, helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: What do you suggest for the resulting redirect? Delete, retarget, leave it? – Train2104 (t • c) 01:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. I would say delete but some User pages have noted it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Student In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Template:Students redirects to Template:Student. If the goal is to repurpose the term "student" in the "Template:" namespace, this redirect will need to be affected as well. (Also, pinging Doc James as this template was originally a page in their user space: User:Doc James/Students .) Steel1943 (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless someone else wants this exact template name for something else why? I do not need super long templates. They take me longer to type. I have used this 100s of times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose do not see a good reason per requested move--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. When we title articles, we keep in mind the twin requirements of precision and disambiguation to make articles useful for readers. It's worth making similar considerations for template titles, which are useful for editors. There is no existing template performing this function that is more generic than this one, so disambiguation is not an issue. If the basis of the nominator's argument is that it would be more convenient for editors if {{Student}} were to be re-purposed to redirect to {{Student sandbox}}, then I would like to see the evidence of that. --RexxS (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about moving it to a more descriptive name, but leaving the redirect alone unless and until it's wanted for some other purpose? That way, people looking directly at the page will realize from the very first line that it's a specific message, but Doc James could still type what he's used to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as I can continue to subst the redirect am happy with WAIDs suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.