Template talk:Medref

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Suggested wording change[edit]

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)

Using talk parameter makes link to 1[edit]

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)

I think I have fixed the problem, in Template:Medref/sandbox. I have not copied it to the main template. This edit, from 2012, appears to have changed or eliminated the |talk= parameter's functionality. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You should probably ask MSGJ (talk · contribs) why the edit was necessary, and what the consequences of reverting it will be. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
In 2012 I added the same or similar functionality into Template:Ambox, which is activated with the talk parameter. This paramater can either be the name of the talk page where the discussion is taking place, e.g. |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)
This is a similar problem as described at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Template links duplicated in article namespace. In Scribunto, the surest way of finding out whether the talk parameter is a talk page or not is to create a mw.title object for it, and creating a mw.title object creates a link in "what links here" for that title. The alternative would be to try and get the same result with Lua string matching, which would have some tricky edge cases, or to preprocess {{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)
Yes, that patch does affect what links here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So this problem will go away when Jack's patch gets accepted. Hopefully that won't be too far in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jonesey95, Redrose64, MSGJ, Mr. Stradivarius, Jackmcbarn: Thanks to all of you for working together to discuss the appropriate solution! GoingBatty (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The documentation for this template does not appear to match the functionality that MSGJ describes above. Should it be changed? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)