![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Cite cleanup
@Þjarkur: Thanks for fixing the cite html. I looked at that earlier but could not work out how to handle the fact that some of the cites end up with two ref parameters. The problem can be seen by editing the whole article and showing a preview without making any changes. Two warnings are shown at the top. The problem currently is due to the repeated ref in Acupuncture#Bibliography, part of which follows.
*{{cite book | ref=Singh2008| ... |ref= {{harvid|Singh & Ernst|2008}}}} *{{cite journal | ref=Madsen2009 | ... | ref = {{harvid|Madsen|2009}} }}
I'm hoping someone here can fix this. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Þjarkur fixed that, thanks. I thought those anchors were needed but I can't where now. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq – My fault! I hadn't notice these already existing parameters, and no errors had shown up for me. I believe I have fixed it now (only the Harvard style ref was actually being used). If you are using some addon that shows extra warnings it would be good to know about it (though I had assumed I would be shown a normal duplicate parameters warning) – Þjarkur (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, I don't use anything extra. I edited the article and previewed it, and saw the warnings at the top. A couple of the duplicate ref link names that I checked were required as I found places the link was used (sorry, that was many hours ago and I have no idea of the details). However, your fixes seem to be good. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Removing URLs
Headbomb made an edit that removed over 120 URLs from citations. I suppose there is a guideline supporting trimming URLs but those links seem very useful to me. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Those URL were redundant with DOI/PMC/PMIDs and the like, so that's why I removed them. Also I count 11 removals, not 120. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Interesting scientific paper
Acupuncture, ACC and the Medicines Act by Daniel J Ryan
The New Zealand Medical Journal 1st December 2017, Volume 130 Number 1466
https://www.nzma.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/78733/Ryan-FINAL.pdf
The paper found that "The evidence presented in this report shows that New Zealand acupuncturists routinely claim much wider benefits for their practices than is justified by the evidence, or allowed by law." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- In other news, water found to be wet. But it is good to see this sort of systematic survey; do we have this type of information for any other jurisdictions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)