Medicine Template‑class | |||||||
|
I see two distinct ways that articles can be non-compliant with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). One is simply lacking sufficient reliable medical sources. The other is an over-reliance on primary sources (even when MEDRS-compliant sources are also present). Can the wording of this template be expanded a bit to accommodate this? I suggest changing "This article needs more medical references for verification" to "This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources". I have gone ahead and made this change, but if anyone objects, please revert me ( WP:BRD) and we can discuss it. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
When using this template with |talk=1
, it seems to provide a link to
1. Notice that
Heart rate turbulence,
Nocturnal emission, and
User:GoingBatty/sandbox are all listed on
Special:WhatLinksHere/1. What's the best way to change the template so it doesn't generate the WhatLinksHere entry? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
|talk=
parameter's functionality. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
|talk=Talk:Sausage
would provide a link to
Talk:Sausage, or the name of the section of the current article's talk page, e.g. |talk=Foo
would provide a link to the #Foo section of the talk page. I have no idea where, how or why
1 is being linked.
Talk:1 would make a bit more sense as there are some ifexist checks in there. The template has since been converted to Lua (
Module:Message box), so perhaps there is an error in the module code. Any ideas
Mr. Stradivarius? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 11:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
{{FULLPAGENAME}}
and {{TALKPAGENAME}}
, which is slower than using native Scribunto functions. But before we try either of those, I saw that
Jackmcbarn submitted a patch for mw.title yesterday which would reduce database accesses, and I wonder if it would help in this case. Jack, does your change affect what would appear in "what links here"? —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪ 12:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Refimprove which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 09:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this template needs a removal notice. Please add one if you can. 86.29.64.45 ( talk) 16:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the recently added phrase "with questionable factual accuracy" because I think that it very often doesn't apply where this template is used. In cases where unreferenced medical content has questionable factual accuracy, that content should be immediately removed instead of being tagged with this template. This template is generally used in cases where the medical content appears reasonable, but needs medical citations to support it. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Treating as non-controversial technical request considering the well-attended requested moves for the templates upon which these are based. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
– Following the moves of {{ Refimprove}} and {{ Refimprove-section}} to {{ More citations needed}} and {{ More citations needed section}}, these templates should follow the same style as both template's text asks for "more citations" of a given subject. Gonnym ( talk) 11:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion concerning the impact of using {{ find sources}} in templates that have "section" variants, such as {{ unreferenced section}}, and others. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 01:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes to a series of templates (i.e., {{ unreferenced}} ( diff), {{ More citations needed}} ( diff), and {{ More medical citations needed}} ( diff) ) and their analogous *_section templates altered the output of these templates to add the output of {{ find sources}} to the template display. These changes were originally requested in this discussion, and a related follow-up Rfc discussion is here.
The intent of this change was desirable, but caused some undesirable knock-on effects to existing invocations of the analogous section-level templates (i.e., ({{ unreferenced section}}, {{ More citations needed section}}). These undesirable effects are described in detail along with a proposed fix here. The fix requires changes to templates in pairs, and the fix was implemented for templates {{ unreferenced}} ( diff), and {{ unreferenced section}} ( diff) on July 2. The same undesirable effects are present in this template and the analogous section-level template. They need to be fixed in the same way as {{ unreferenced}} and {{ unreferenced section}} were.
Fixing this pair of templates means creation of, or changes to six files :
Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 06:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Can we remove the link suggesting Newspapers might be a source of reliable medical information sources? HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 04:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
In the wake of the creation of template {{ find medical sources}} extending the functionality of the earlier {{ find sources}} template, Alexbrn made a request to upgrade this template to take advantage of the new functionality and generate links more appropriate for finding medical sources. This should be easy to accomplish, but requires some feedback from the community to define what it should do.
Background
Before we can discuss what it should do, some background is necessary:
The regular (non-medical) "find sources" capability comes in two varieties, a standard one that produces ten links (top), and a shorter variant called {{ find sources mainspace}} (bottom) that produces five links:
Maintenance templates like {{ Unreferenced}} use "find sources mainspace" to generate the shorter list of links (presumably so it doesn't wrap inside the maintenance template box), so it would be natural for " Template:More medical citations needed" to do something similar and also generate a shorter list of links, using {{ Find medical sources mainspace}}, which however does not yet exist.
But the template {{ find medical sources}} does exist, and produces this set of medical links (example shows results for "virus"):
Recommendation
So what I would recommend we do to implement this request, is to create Template:Find medical sources mainspace, with a (possibly) shorter set of links designed for use within maintenance templates like {{ More medical citations needed}}, on the pattern of Template:Find sources mainspace, which produces a shorter set of links for the general case.
That leaves the question of what links to include in the new template, maybe creating some mockups with different sets of links in them so we can see how it looks when enclosed in a surrounding tmbox that generates the maintenance template.
Note that there's no rule saying we *have* to do it the way other templates do it. Other solutions are possible, such as:
Mockups
Here is a "hard-coded" mockup (using tmbox to #invoke the module template config) made by picking several of the medical links to see how it would look boxed in the template. This is not a recommendation of any kind, just a conversation-starter: (live mockup; you can click the links)
This article needs more
medical references for
verification or relies too heavily on
primary sources. |
Feedback needed
It's up to the community how you would like this to appear. Mathglot ( talk) 03:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox version available
Sandbox version is now available at {{
Find medical sources mainspace/sandbox}}. No test cases yet, but can be tested in situ by adding {{medref/sandbox}}
to the article (not Talk page), or at
Special:ExpandTemplates with the context title set to 'Giardiasis' (or any medical article). Adding
Wikmoz.
Note that {{
Medref}} does not currently have the |find=
parameters used by {{
More cn}}, and this means that the search terms will be the article title, exactly; this can yield poor search results, especially with articles with longer, descriptive article titles which are not often the exact expression used in sources:
The find params could be added, if needed, to ameliorate this if it becomes an issue. Since the top part of the banner already has the link to MEDRS, maybe we don't need the bolded, 'Guidelines' link here, and if we dropped it, we could add another link or two to the list. Mathglot ( talk) 21:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Giardiasis
and wikitext =# {{more citations needed}} # {{more citations needed/sandbox}} # {{medref}} # {{medref/sandbox}}
What does "relies too heavily on primary sources" mean? Why is this phrase linked with the phrase "needs more medical references for verification"? Apologies for asking too many questions, I am trying to understand what is the reasoning behind combining these two phrases in this banner. -- kupirijo ( talk) 12:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: Thank you. Isn't a citation of a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal a primary source? Could you give me an example of a primary source in medical citations that should be avoided? Thank you once again and apologies if my questions seem very basic. -- kupirijo ( talk) 14:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: Thank you! -- kupirijo ( talk) 14:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)