Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner

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

Continued discussion[edit]

This app sounds like a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "We have an offline version of our healthcare content"
    This should like to an explanation of what specific content can be stored offline, or an explanation of the option. "All heathcare content" might be a bit large? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "This should like to an explanation " means User talk:SmokeyJoe? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should link to an explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors at the MfD have been commenting about the issue of putting the banner at the tops of articles, and I have a suggestion. I agree with the criticism that it tends to go against WP:NOTADVERT, and just does not look Wikipedia-like. So I suggest, for article pages (as opposed to article talk pages or pages outside of article space), that a comparatively small, clickable, button or the like could be created. It should be no larger than a typical userbox, probably smaller, but easy to see. It should say something like "Read this on Android" (that wording could probably be improved upon). When a reader clicks on it, they are taken to something like the banner. It would have the same effect as the banner itself, but it would be easy enough to put it at the top of medical pages without it being intrusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the app, when investigated, is WMF branded, the banner is not. I see it as begging for other app creators to add their banners to their favourite pages. Size is an issue though not big to me, but I think WMF branding is more important. Eventually, I see this going to a link amongst the tools, but before that it might need to be advertising, as it being done now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes placing links to Wikimedia Foundation apps among the tools along with PDFs is a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Links to approved apps in the sidebar seems like a better idea, though you may miss getting them to mobile users if they are over there. — xaosflux Talk 01:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a strong opposer of the current banner - I would only be a 'leaning oppose' to something like the {{commons}} box perhaps near the bottom of the page - linked to a project page (which could then have this or other banners) — xaosflux Talk 02:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Xaosflux said. A page-bottom message approximately the size of the Commons template would satisfy me. A page-top banner probably never will (even if dismissible). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hum a commons like template is not a bad idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was independently thinking of suggesting exactly this (changing the presentation to a box like {{commons}}, which goes in the "see also" or "external links" sections), and came here to suggest it. The suggestion already having been made, I strongly endorse it. :) {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We still want this banner for other purposes. But yes for article space a change to a commons like box would be fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on another talk page[edit]

From the Department of Herding Cats (my fault, sorry) I started a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/App#A conundrum about visibility just prior to this talk page turning blue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last might be the best place, and suggest merging this page to there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much care which of the second or third the discussion is at (but not at WT:MED, the first of the three, because there needs to be a dedicated talk page), but I agree that it should be centralized somewhere. Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App#Banner needs to direct editors to the correct place. It points here now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should we try to consolidate it here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely consolidate. As for here or there, it doesn't really matter, so I'd suggest that whoever wants to "be bold" should just go ahead and pick one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable banner advertising[edit]

I just started a discussion about the excessive promotion of Android via this banner and in the description of this app. Wnt (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The android icon has been changed to a phone icon. Hopefully that addresses the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The prior discussion did somewhat stall - regarding not using this large banner on articles and replacement with a smaller box - is anyone able to make this box so this conversion can be completed? — xaosflux Talk 15:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there ever was consensus to make the box smaller — and doing so would make the text fall under our minimum text-size requirements for legibility… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The plan is to make another box to go at the bottom of articles. Once I get home on a proper computer I will get to it. Give me 3 to 4 weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile only?[edit]

Following the regrettable (in my view) result of the discussion it seems evident this banner has little use in main-space. One solutions that was raised was making the banner mobile-only. This is possible with a few minor interfaces changes (hopefully non-controversial: a single line patch to MediaWiki:Common.css & MediaWiki:Mobile.css respectively). The other alternative to make the banner dismiss-able is not possible without changes to the server software (I consider this unreasonable for now). I just want to hear peoples view on this before I draft and suggest any such change. Pinging those involved in the RfC:

This is partly to gauge the opposition against such a use. I don't want to spend time pushing for this to discover that there are many who are opposed to it entirely. Feel free to give a nuanced rationale, a mere "yes" or "no" isn't very useful for garnering support for an interface change. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People are using the banner on their talk pages. Thus I think it should be viewable on both desktop and mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can quite easily make it so that it only shows on mobile on article-space, and for everyone on other pages (with the minor patches I was talking about above). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to discussion. I remain opposed to any banner which is not dismissible by all readers. I reaffirm that we should not be advertising an external service, particularly when it goes through Google or other proprietary app stores, and when it is permanently intrusive in articles. This goes for mobile just as much as desktop. While hiding on desktop would stop some experienced editors from complaining, it doesn't solve the problem.
If a software change were made by which it would be possible to make the banner dismissible, I would be more open to a new community discussion to determine whether it should be used, and if so an appropriate wording and scope of use for it. BethNaught (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BethNaught — This is really unlikely because it will have to rely on cookies, not allowed per the privacy policy. To implement it would be a huge undertaking, and very unlikely to succeed. It is possible to make a gadget that auto-disables it for all logged in users, even on mobile but I don't agree that is necessary, and is also considerably more work.
Also, we no longer directly link Google-Play through either banner or sidebar. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe CF suggestion is a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank CF for asking about this. My position is that the banner should be restricted to talk space and project space, and never used in article space, and that is regardless of the platform. I can certainly see good reasons to target the information to mobile users, but perhaps there is a better way to do that than using the banner. (Maybe make the sidebox display larger on mobile???) That's worth discussing further. I remain in favor of using the sidebox on articles, lower on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish — the issue is that there is currently no way to force that section to stay open in mobile. The "External links" section defaults to collapsed, so even if we show the sidebar on all pages the people who actually see the sidebar will be very few. If this were to work I agree it would be a good solution, but it would mean rewriting the entire mobile interface, which needless to say isn't happening either. I'm really looking for the best possible outcome here, and I many of the suggestions here are good, but just not feasible. To be really frank, if the banner is only used in talk space and project space it is entirely useless, it just doesn't serve any intended purpose, because those who we want to target won't see it, and those who see it are unlikely to use it... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(No need to ping, I'm watching.) I got an (edit conflict) from your comment revision. Here is what I said before: Hmm, I didn't know that, and it's a very good point. Perhaps we can get consensus to put the sidebox in a non-collapsing section, but just not at the top. I've never used mobile. Are see-also or references non-collapsing? Now, adding this after the (edit conflict), I still oppose the banner in article space, and I'm willing to see the banner MfD'ed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still generally opposed to including project banners in advance of encyclopedic content. I'm not not opposed to a project box such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar (assuming it survives its current MfD which is mostly a general discussion and not strictly about deleting the box) if it were placed at or near the the end of the encyclopedic content. — xaosflux Talk 01:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've slept on this issue, and it occurs to me that this discussion may be a moot point, with respect to drawing attention to the app in the mobile interface. Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/App#A conundrum about visibility. Information online about the app is available to users whose internet access is intermittent. But if someone is already reading a Wikipedia page on mobile, they already have access via mobile, and don't need the advertising. The only users who will be reached via mobile are those who already have the app, I think. Am I missing something? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. So the situation is (1) you live in the developing world (2) you visit a large city and access the Internet (3) you notice well reading Wikipedia that there is an offline version (4) you download the offline version (5) you go back home where you DO NOT have internet (6) you can now access WP's medical content because you have downloaded the offline app.
    • Another situation is (1) you live in a country were electricity is intermittent and when the power goes down so does cell service (2) you are reading WP during one of those times when the stars align and the internet works (3) you notice there is an offline app and download it (4) when the power goes out later and the Internet no longer functions you can still access WP as you have the app
    • Another situation (1) you live in Syria and work in a hospital (2) internet works one day and you notice WP has an offline app and you download (3) ISIS launches an offensive and blows up your communication towers well jamming the airwaves (4) the wounded start rolling in and you are trying to remember some long forgotten anatomy (5) you look it up on the offline app User:Tryptofish not sure what the conundrum is? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess the first conundrum is why your ping to me did not work. But to reply seriously, you have described three very credible situations. In all three, the user finds out about the mobile app and downloads it while online. They use it, of course, while offline. So there's the point: in not one of those cases was it useful for the user to be told about the app while offline. The thread here is about having a way to tell users about the app while offline. But under the present system, telling users about it while offline makes no sense, because we need to tell them about it while online. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay I misunderstood. Yes information about its availability while offline spreads by word of mouth. We are also looking at posters in libraries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be quite simple to strip the banner from all offline articles in the *.zims. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the question here was about making the sidebox, not the banner, easier to see in mobile. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that too, but it was primarily about whether it would be permissible to show the banner to mobile users only, while hiding it on desktop browsers. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, my mistake, sorry. But if I understand you correctly, here you are talking about removing ("strip") the banner from mobile, as opposed to displaying it. Wait, do you mean: display it on mobile, and strip it from online? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, from offline – because as you so eloquently put it: there is no point in showing the banner to people who have the app. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I think, then, that we are at the stage where the banner is not going to be used in articles in any interface, and it probably would be a waste of effort to pursue the issue any further. But using the sidebox in articles is still very much on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then we are at an impass, because the sidebar serves no purpose whatsoever in mobile view — because less than 5% of viewers actually go down to the external links sections. I am willing to rerun the RfC, in part because the decision seems flawed, and the discussion is similarly weak — especially as it took 2 months to close the thing. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realize there may be another solution here, will write proposal... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to negotiate placement higher on the page than the ELs, but probably not at the top. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/App/Banner&oldid=818381330"