Jump to content

Talk:Broken toe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Can you spot what bone that would be? :)
Can you spot what bone that would be? :)

Created by HLHJ (talk) and minor contributions by several members of Wikiproject Medicine (talk). Nominated by DrVogel (talk) at 14:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I love this hook. This is far more interesting and "hooky" than I would have believed possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha thanks :) It was a moment of inspiration. I wanted to do my best to achieve recognition for HLHJ's excellent article. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing...New, long enough, no copy vio issues. QPQ not required as <5 nominations. Will go through and finalise soon.Whispyhistory (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... Hook in article and followed by citation to a reference containing hook fact. Image free and clear. I like the caption unless anyone knows of any reason it shouldn't be used. Are we allowed to put :) ? A suggestion: bullet point some of the sentences in the infobox, and add a citation after every sentence....but up to you. Its not completely in the order of medical articles: ie signs & symptoms followed by mechanism followed by diagnosis etc, but I see what you were doing and I see a lot of effort went here. Fulfils DYK. Well done. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC) :)[reply]
Apologies...I had another look. The article doesn't say " that 88.5.3.2 may not be an IP address,".... it needs another look @DrVogel:. It also needs to say that in the source. Oversight on my part. Please let me know what you wish to do. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whispyhistory: But that would be impossible, the article can't possibly mention IP addresses, it's about broken toes. The hook is just a hook, and serves its purpose. The example in the hook is actually given in the article, and supported by the sources cited. Dr. Vogel (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DrVogel:, reaching out for advice...@Philafrenzy: or others can we have advice here please... reminds me of the cobblers one. It's okay with me if allowed (dyk says hook needs to be in article and in the following ref). Whispyhistory (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that exact sequence of numbers in the source, although there are others that look a bit like an IP address. The trouble is, the nominator seems to be the source for it looking a bit like an IP address, which it does, but we can't use that unless the source makes a similar point, which it does not appear to do. Something like this might work (numbers might need to be changed as mentioned):
ALT1 ... that a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone may be described as 88.5.3.2? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the image, it's a fun idea but I don't think we run images as quizzes and the image is simply a skeletal foot, and not closely enough related to the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly... will wait for nominator to respond...no hurry. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your input. I don't see how the hook you're suggesting is hooky. What exactly is wrong with the hook proposed? It's in the article and it's supported by the sources cited.
And the image is directly related to the hook. It engages the reader into a spotting game. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like everyone else, I rather like the IP-address hook. If we wikilinked IP address, it would be supported in the linked articles, and fulfill the requirement that anyone following the links will be able to verify the hook. I don't think we need sourcing that says that a specific sequence of numbers is an IP address, as we have sources giving the general format of an IP address, and creating an example would be a trivial calculation ("Are all four of these numbers separated by periods in the range 0-255?"):

"IPv4 and IPv6 address formats". www.ibm.com. An IPv4 address has the following format: x . x . x . x where x is called an octet and must be a decimal value between 0 and 255. Octets are separated by periods. An IPv4 address must contain three periods and four octets. The following examples are valid IPv4 addresses:
1 . 2 . 3 . 4
01 . 102 . 103 . 104

This hook is better than any alternative I can think of, and I don't see anything likely to be problematic about it (it's certainly verifiable). I think we might be in agreement on that? So if some rule technically prohibits it, we might have a good case for applying the WP:Ignore all the rules policy. Broken finger is also currently DYK-eligible and I think it uses the same numbering scheme.[1] HLHJ (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [edit: add fulltext url][reply]
I don't necessarily agree with the reading of WP:DYKCRIT 3b (Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source [...]) that says that the IP thing needs to be in the article (compare e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Urine deflector, which similarly took some creative licence in how the proposed hooks were phrased beyond what was stated in either the article or the cited source), and I agree with HLHJ that WP:IAR would be applicable regardless. As for the hooks themselves, writing "a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone may be described as 88.5.3.2" is a much poorer way of writing the hook (less "hooky") than the converse, i.e. "88.5.3.2 may refer to a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone". TompaDompa (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use IP address because the nominator just thought it up "oh, that looks like an IP address". It's not in the source as the nominator admits and therefore is not verifiable. And so what if it does look like an IP address? What does that tell us about broken toes? I like clever or quirky hooks and have written many (if I may say so), but they have to be based on something in the sources otherwise it's things made up one day. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your comments. This is not the place to ignore all rules. The proposed hook is not supported by the source given in the article. I am inclined to approve ALT1 but it needs checking, unless another hook is proposed. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, this has become contentious. I think the contended question is whether it's acceptable to have verified information not found in the nominated article, but only in another article, linked in the hook. Not as hooky, but for illustration:
I don't think we're debating whether the IP-address-hook statement is verifiable. The statement that "88.5.3.2" (and any number in that format) is a valid IPv4 address is supported by the IP address article and the IPv4 article, and this format is the subject of the Dot-decimal notation article. No-one had bothered to cite those statements in those articles, but since they've been challenged here, I've now cited them. So "88.5.3.2 is both an IP address[1] and a code for a broken toebone[2]" is certainly verifiable, and is now verified on Wikipedia. Any DYK reader should have no trouble verifying that the hook is accurate. Alternatives that do not mention IP addressees are not as hooky, but don't contain more information about broken toes:
*ALT4 ... that "88.5.3.2" is a toe fracture in the middle of the bone at the tip of the little toe, while a "78.5.3.2" is the parallel broken finger? Hallux proximal phalanx fracture in adults: an overlooked diagnosis, Meinberg, Eg; Agel, J; Roberts, Cs; Karam, Md; Kellam, Jf (January 2018). "Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium—2018" (PDF). Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 32 (1): S1–S10. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063., pages 87 and 99 of PDF fulltext
*ALT5 ... that "88.5.3.2" is a broken toe, while a "78.5.3.2" is a broken finger? Hallux proximal phalanx fracture in adults: an overlooked diagnosis, Meinberg, Eg; Agel, J; Roberts, Cs; Karam, Md; Kellam, Jf (January 2018). "Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium—2018" (PDF). Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 32 (1): S1–S10. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063., pages 87 and 99 of PDF fulltext
Rules aside, is there any concrete harm to Wikipedia in the IP-address hook? HLHJ (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [edited to replace the wrong url, copy-paste mistake][reply]
Please don't strike the proposed hook as you have done. You certainly don't have consensus to do that. As several people have explained above, the hook is supported by the article and the source. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the reviewer needs consensus Dr Vogel. I agree and have re-struck it. Please work on something else. I am sure you can develop something good, or tweak the Alt1. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about ALT2 ... that 88.5.3.2 is one way of describing a fracture in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Philafrenzy ( a very experienced DYK contributor) for your efforts in helping new editors understand DYK. Your comment higher up about "88.5.3.2" and "ip address" not being in the source is true and I am grateful for your suggested alts. Essentially, the initial and subsequent hooks sound good, but none are in the article or the source. I don't wish for personal comments and don't mind if someone else wishes to take over here. With due respect @DrVogel: and @HLHJ:...You may wish to take this up at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Whispyhistory (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say I wish I hadn't written the article; I hope it's useful enough to make up for the social harm to the project here. I don't think the hostility was intended by anyone; I suspect that it's felt partly due to the ease of mininterpretation in a text-only medium and partly due to human cognitive biases.[2] I certainly did, and do, not intend it.
I spent a day's editing trying to resolve the conflict by finding references specifically saying that the two things were in notation X and adding that text to the article, but unfortunately non-inductive descriptions of the notations seem to have been considered so needless that an Internet RFC attempting to formalize them died of disinterest. I did find a source that explicitly defines the IPv4 format, and one that explicitly says that 88.1.2.2 is a specific fracture, and I've cited the latter in the article, but I don't think this helps. It is probably a bit unreasonable to expect a reviewer to do more than apply rules as best they can, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know might indeed be a better forum for a more detailed discussion. I don't really want to take part in one, though (nothing to do with this discussion, prior reasons). I posted because I felt responsible for the conflict and thought I might be able to help. My impression is that I made it worse; my apologies to everyone I've offended. HLHJ (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is offended, but if I may say so I think you are still missing the point. IP addresses have nothing to do with broken toes even if that notation may have a similarity. That's why the sources don't make the comparison and why the IP-based hooks are no good. Any of the other hooks might be fine (I haven't checked the numbers) just without the bit about IP addresses. The whole thing reminds me of unusually shaped vegetables where you may see a carrot shaped like a foot, people who see faces in clouds, and even apophenia. My personal observation that one thing looks a bit like another is not the basis for a hook unless reliable sources make the point too. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, we are wasting a wonderful hook. Really. IP addresses have nothing to do with broken toes even if that notation may have a similarity and that is the whole point of making good hooks. They are supposed to be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content. And one of the best recipes to make a hook good is to make it sound counterintuitive With any other option but the original, we are bound to receive another hook frequented by maybe a few hundred visitors. I would propose something to the tune of in some contexts, 88.5.3.2 might not mean an IP address but a broken bone in the middle of the little toe's outermost bone? so that no one claims here that we somehow delegitimise the IP address but at the same time so that we preserve the core of the hook. As for the claims that because the hook is not cited in the IP part, it can't be there - please don't be that pedantic. In our today's world of informatics we may assume that people who visit Wikipedia more or less imagine what IP addresses are, and may more or less imagine how they look like (in the worst case they will visit the article for details). The other part is cited. I see no problem with the original. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki I admit that I'm not very familiar with the topic, and the above discussion was confusing, but is the "this isn't an IP address" claim actually in the source? Because if it's not, then no matter how good the hook proposal is, it can't be used in a hook since hook facts need to be based on a reference. Also, I'm pretty sure that assumptions don't count as sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I was leading is that we don't need to cite that the sky is blue, or that we have five fingers; or that there exist IP addresses for that matter. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comment only If we accept the first hook we will end up with thousands of hits, some quiet smiles and some who will continue to believe that DYK broke the rules. We're allowed to. This is not a massive occasion where we can save the whole project by breaking the rules. Its a trivial example of what some (not all) think may be a breach in the rules, with a small, but amusing, advantage. So I'm not asking the defenders of the rules to admit that this is not a breech ... I am suggesting that they might just concede that the harm done by allowing this hook might not offend anyone ... and it might please a few thousand. Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to break the rules. The observation that the notation looks a bit like an IP address is trivial and completely unrelated to broken toes. There are already perfectly good hooks above that work better. Nobody is saying don't use the numbers, just strike the bit about IP addresses. The originally proposed hook is not the work of comic genius and cleverness that some seem to think it is. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue here is that it's one of the core rules of DYK that hook facts must be mentioned in the article, ideally explicitly or at least implied by supporting information. The thing is that at the moment, IP addresses are not mentioned anywhere in the article, so the hooks using the IP address angle would be ineligible according to that criterion anyway. Even April Fools hooks, which tend to be misleading, are still generally based on hook facts that are mentioned in the respective articles. So if we can't even grant IAR exemptions for that criterion for AFD hooks, the one day of the year where our hooks tend to follow the rules most loosely, I can't see why such a request should be granted here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DrVogel: In the absence of consensus in favor of using the number angle, can hooks based on other facts be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to note that right now neither "88.5.3.2" nor "78.5.3.2" are mentioned in the respective articles (indeed, the only numeric codes mentioned in the articles are 88.1.2.2 and 78.1.1.1 respectively, so none of the currently proposed hooks are actually suitable given that the codes aren't mentioned at all in the articles (and they should be, per DYK rules). If revised hooks aren't proposed soon, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging previous nomination commenters @Whispyhistory, Philafrenzy, and HLHJ: for possible hook suggestions. The issue right now is even if we decided to IAR approve the IP addresses hook (which seems unlikely to happen given the articles make no mention of IP addresses at all), as mentioned above, the actual numeric codes used in the hook proposals aren't mentioned in the articles at all. Either the existing hooks need to be revised to use the mentioned codes, or hooks that use different angles (i.e. ones not about the codes) are proposed instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Meinberg, EG; Agel, J; Roberts, CS; Karam, MD; Kellam, JF (January 2018). "Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018" (PDF). Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 32 Suppl 1: S1–S170. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063. PMID 29256945.
  2. ^ Boothby, Erica J.; Cooney, Gus; Sandstrom, Gillian M.; Clark, Margaret S. (5 September 2018). "The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?" (PDF). Psychological Science. 29 (11): 1742–1756. doi:10.1177/0956797618783714. PMID 30183512. S2CID 52165115. Retrieved 8 June 2019.
.... clarified the clarify needed tag and added a bit more. I guess, someone else needs to review it now.
The main issues with the original hooks are that "IP addresses" are not mentioned anywhere in either article (and remember that hook facts must be supported by the article text), and the actual numbers presented in the original hooks are not actually in the respective articles, which present different numbers instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said earlier that 88.1.2.2 and 78.1.1.1 are, could these not be used in the hook? I do not understand why the nomination would be failed on this basis. jp×g 04:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the nomination should be failed, merely that the original hooks that mentioned 88.5.3.2 or 78.5.3.2 were unsuitable. Writing new hooks based on the originals but using 88.1.2.2 and 78.1.1.1 instead would at least partly solve that issue, although that wouldn't address the "they aren't IP addresses" hook fact not being in the article problem. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a possible option, here is a hook based on an earlier proposal, but with the numbers changed to reflect the ones actually mentioned in the article:
I was also considering suggesting a new hook based on ALT2 above which uses 88.1.2.2, but I don't know if the hook would remain accurate if it was that way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and tick ALT5a (although I will ping @JPxG, DrVogel, Whispyhistory, Szmenderowiecki, and Philafrenzy as a courtesy). I agree that explicitly making the IP address connection is tricky without it being explicitly mentioned in the source, but the numbers themselves are sourced and our readers can put together why it's interesting themselves. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nomination and hook was already approved, I think this is good to go. Promoting ALT5a to Prep 7, without the image. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wide firm shoes

[edit]

As discussed elsewhere (:D) the doctor I spoke to on the phone, advised me to use a shoe with a wide and firm toe box, to prevent compression and to protect against re-breaking.

I made a few layperson searches, and found similar mentions in these places. I'll leave it up to you whether they're suitable refs and how to summarize!

Cheers again for your creation here! Quiddity (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure about this?

[edit]

when you go to the toe article, the infobox contains many codes for identifying the specific part of the anatomy. why in the articles about fractures is that kind of data included in a paragraph instead? it should be on wikidata. 95.41.198.230 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medical resources would be a good start to figuring out how to resolve this 95.41.198.230 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broken_toe&oldid=1206445583"