Talk:Phineas Gage
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phineas Gage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | Phineas Gage was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Odd citation style
[edit]Is there a reasoning behind the strange citation style of this article? Why are some references demarcated by their "difficulty" while the others are listed as usual? Besides this, surely the letter system does not work as well as a normal style, as you cannot click the citation in the References section to see where a source appears in the main body? Medarduss (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- All I know is this is EEng's child. – The Grid (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I assume that defaults to "not going to be changed"? ~StyyxTalk? 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- More accurately, it means "will be changed if the editors who actually care about the article reach a consensus that some other approach will better serve the reader's understanding, but won't be changed just because some drive-by editor thinks all articles should look the same." As to the original question:
- The For general readers section, the For younger readers section, and the For researchers and specialists section identify sources which will be particularly useful to readers in those groups who want to learn more about the article topic. The Other sources cited section lists sources which, well, will not be particularly useful to those who want to learn more.
- The {{ran}}/{{rma}} referencing system allows sources to be organized in logical, useful ways instead of the chaotic, random mish-mash seen in most articles.
- Where a source appears in the main body is trivially found simply by text-searching for e.g. [M].
- Quite substantial discussions (found primarily in Talk:Phineas_Gage/Archive_2) led to the decision to do things the way they're done. Any other questions? EEng 09:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- More accurately, it means "will be changed if the editors who actually care about the article reach a consensus that some other approach will better serve the reader's understanding, but won't be changed just because some drive-by editor thinks all articles should look the same." As to the original question:
- I assume that defaults to "not going to be changed"? ~StyyxTalk? 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
[Solved] Bug Report: The ran callout links are inactive on mobile site.
[edit]I first encountered {{ran}} on this page and see more discussion of it here than on the template page.
The template which creates the manual superscript has a bug on the Minerva theme used by the mobile site. You can see it if you use these links:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage?useskin=Vector2022
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage?useskin=Minerva
In each link try clicking the superscript callout links. In the first link, the desktop site has a tooltip and a functional link to References. The second and third links show the bug.
On the second link, the mobile site callouts for {{ran}} do nothing when clicked. The superscript callouts created by {{r}} and {{refn}} on this page will cause a popup with the reference. The popup is the expected behavior. The links from < ref >, {{efn}}, and {{sfn}} all create popups. The {{citeref}} template is slightly different and works on mobile the same way that it works on the desktop site (visible in the Notes section on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_mouse ); the superscript works as an in-page anchor link with {{citeref}}.
In the third link, the mobile skin (Minerva) is used on the desktop site. The tooltip still works, but something in Minerva breaks the link regardless of the desktop or mobile version.
I hope that this helps and that it is not a strange place to post a bug report. Rjjiii (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is above my pay grade. I suggest you post this at WP:VPT. EEng 04:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Rjjiii (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just updating this thread. The rma/ran references now function on mobile. To implement a workaround, I needed to add "CITEREF" to the handwritten links on this article's references. As an unplanned bonus, those links now create the popup reference on desktop themes/browsers.Rjjiii (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- A belated thanks for taking care of this. EEng 01:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Headnote
[edit]Should the headnote read
This article is about the man who survived an iron bar passing through his head
as EEng has reverted it back to and is the status quo, or should it read
This article is about the brain injury survivor
as I would prefer it. I believe the current version is strangely long and detailed. The succinct descriptor used in the short description is more than adequate to quickly describe the person before moving on to the next sentence For the UK musical band, see Phinius Gage.
Any extra text than is needed is just clutter before you get to the real point of the header. Since I have been reverted and it seems clear we won't agree on this, I'm looking for anyone else's opinion on the subject so we can reach a consensus. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I said in my edit summary, the purpose of the headnote is to help readers determine quickly whether they've arrived at the right page. In my (very extensive, sadly) experience discussing Gage with all kinds of people, I can say with confidence that laymen think of Gage (whom they remember from Psychology 101) as "that guy who had the thing go through his head", not "that guy with a brain injury". Obviously, after a moment's thought one realizes that they're probably the same person, but the point is to use a description most people will recognize immediately without having to think about it.
- Notice that the WP:SHORTDESC, which serves a different purpose, is appropriately
American brain injury survivor (1823–1860)
. EEng 20:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- As a fan of the article: the current note could be more succinct, but the proposed one isn't ideal to me. When I hear "brain injury", I don't think "iron bar through head", I think
carstagecoach crash or a bad fall or something else not involving a hole in the skull. I'm not sure, but maybe "head trauma" sounds better? It seems tough to come up with a more descriptive short phrase that isn't somewhat crass. Matma Rex talk 21:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)- I agree with EEng that this page is about a person who had something very distinctive happen to him, as opposed to being about a patient who went through a particular medical experience. So "the man who survived an iron bar passing through his head" matches with the page contents just fine for me, and the alternatives that have been suggested seem inferior to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that a brief description of the incident is more distinctive, and therefore better as a distinguisher, than "head injury survivor". But "the man who survived an iron bar passing through his head" does seem a bit long. We could possibly shorten it a little, to "the survivor of an iron bar through the head". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with EEng that this page is about a person who had something very distinctive happen to him, as opposed to being about a patient who went through a particular medical experience. So "the man who survived an iron bar passing through his head" matches with the page contents just fine for me, and the alternatives that have been suggested seem inferior to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't feel too strongly, as long as we retain the key ideas of bar-through-head. However, I can't help pointing out that DE's suggestion just above cuts a mere 2 words from the current wording, but at the same time is distinctly less vivid and direct -- kind of medical sounding [4]. EEng 06:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's merely a hatnote. Its job should be to let readers figure out quickly whether they are in the right place and if not to redirect them. Brevity helps. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't feel strongly as long as bar-through-head is in there. EEng 09:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am fine with "the survivor of an iron bar through the head" as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't feel strongly as long as bar-through-head is in there. EEng 09:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
MOS:SANDWICH
[edit]A recent edit to resolve MOS:SANDWICH issues[5] causes confusing placement on widescreen monitors. For example, it pushes the "Distinguished Arrivals" newspaper clipping (about a living Gage) down into the section where his skull is exhumed. And so in fixing one MOS issue, it causes a new one (MOS:SECTIONLOC). Wikipedia:Image use policy says, "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.
" Sandwich concerns probably have to be waved on image-heavy articles like this to ensure the relevance of the image is clear to the reader. Rjjiii (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Rjjiii, you took the words right out of my mouth. ActivelyDisinterested: re your edit summary here [6], I wrote SANDWICH so I don't need to "see" it, and the article's had this exact same layout for at least 5 years, and very much the same layout for 10 years, and you're the first person to claim there's an actual problem. If you'll specifify at what platform, resolution, and zoom level you're seeing the issue, and describe it more precisely, then maybe we can solve it. But the current layout it looks fine on laptops (with two different browsers), on WP's mobile simulator, on my own tiny-screen Iphone, and on a friend's Android just now. We're not going to mess that all up because you preceive the text column as narrow on one particular configuration you haven't specified. EEng 19:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC) P.S. I appreciate your fixes to the cite formats!
- Not really, as I said spacing Eth images out would likely be the best option. But I'm not invested enough to stand in the way if you want to go another route. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Spacing the images out seems likely the best option until you actually read the article and see why the images are where they are, at which point you realize that blindly spacing everything out in obeisance to a cookie-cutter guideline meant to be applied with common sense solves a trivial problem seen by, apparently, one person in ten years, but introduces a serious problem for everyone else. Unfortunately there's no route to go in if you won't tell us what you're seeing, on what platform. EEng 01:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
the article's had this exact same layout for at least 5 years, and very much the same layout for 10 years, and you're the first person to claim there's an actual problem
- I think that the sandwich has become thinner recently despite no changes to the article, with the deployment of Vector 2022, and then the deployment of increased font size on it very recently. For example, here are two screenshots taken on a 1920x1080 screen, which is still the most common desktop resolution according to [7], as a logged-out user with all default settings (I tried to find the most sandwiched parts of the article):
- I agree that just moving all images to the right side is not a good solution, for the reasons you said. Perhaps you might come up with a better one, though. I would consider moving some of the wider images to galleries, or making the images and pull quotes centered, instead of having them float around text. Matma Rex talk 22:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, MOS:SANDWICH should be understood as a guideline but not a policy, because that's what it is. For this particular page, there are a lot of images, but they all serve good encyclopedic purposes. And they don't really lend themselves to being grouped into galleries. (Perhaps, there might be a few places where Template:Multiple image could be used to good effect.) But I don't think this is an urgent problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not really, as I said spacing Eth images out would likely be the best option. But I'm not invested enough to stand in the way if you want to go another route. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- B-Class society and medicine articles
- Mid-importance society and medicine articles
- Society and medicine task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class neuroscience articles
- Low-importance neuroscience articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class New Hampshire articles
- Mid-importance New Hampshire articles
- WikiProject New Hampshire articles
- New Hampshire articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class rail transport articles
- Low-importance rail transport articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists