Talk:MD

Doctor of Medicine

A reference to the article Doctor of Medicine, abreviated M.D. should be added --Guillaume (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already there -- the first item under Miscellaneous. older ≠ wiser 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

md vs. cd - technical directions on paper

md means (I think: for "m... direction") the direction along with the production direction of paper on a roll. versus cd ("cross direction"?) rectangular to md.

See: http://www.neptun-onlineshop.de/shop/ProdukteDetails/NEPTUN%20SIL%201091%20KW.pdf and

http://www.neptun-onlineshop.de/shop/ProdukteDetails/NEPTUN%20SIL%202065%20GG.pdf with data about (siliconized) paper. --Helium4 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Language tagging

User:Widefox reverted my edits to add language tags to the non-English-language content on this page. While they cited MOS:DABICON this makes no mention of language tagging — it specifically mentions flag icons and seems to me to be a clear reference to templates that output visual content, such as infoboxes and navbars. (Clearly, this is my subjective reading of the rule, as Widefox presumably read the same rule differently, in good faith.)

Language tagging has many benefits, but I would suggest MOS:ACCESS (specifically WP:ATLANG) is a clearer indication of approval for the user of {{lang}} than MOS:DABICON — which is about "images and templates", rather than templates more generally — is a clear disapproval. I would strongly recommend the restoration of language tags to this content, particularly as it will make no visual difference to users.

(@Widefox: Apologies for the lack of discussion before reverting the revert; I had forgotten that WP:BRD has replaced WP:3RR as the general practice now.) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:OwenBlacker Technically correct that language templates are not mentioned. However, no specific template(s) are mentioned so it's a logical leap to assume any specific template is not covered by it (except, as you say, the context is "Icons and templates"). Per MOS:DABICON
==Images and templates== Including images and transcluding templates are discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question (emphasis own).
That you interpret the "template" to exclusively refer to image templates is an understandable interpretation of the non-specific wording, and the context. I can assure you the general practice (which MOS follows, not leads) is to use them sparingly with, iff it aids navigation. I think the wording should be made explicit, as it is seemingly very reasonable to add lang templates. I will take up at MOSDAB for us (later today).
Ship templates, for example, are always removed (and they are also not explicitly mentioned). So, as I do interpret DABICON as pertinent, use requires justification per that wording, which is not yet made. (AFAIK, 3RR hasn't been a practice or right/recommendation, but a brightline) Widefox; talk 12:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:OwenBlacker I assumed you'd looked in MOSDAB, my mistake, as it is explicitly broad... so no change is needed. See WP:DABPIPING templates are discouraged on disambiguation pages (see § Images and templates below). which contextualises "Images and templates" to explicitly cover all templates. Widefox; talk 12:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I still maintain that language templates which provide strong benefits, particularly for accessibility, as recommended at WP:ATLANG) provide sufficient benefit — and literally zero impact on the visual display of the page — that they are a sensible exception to a policy that is written about "images and templates". I fail to see how a single sentence in passing converts the meaning to "explicitly cover all templates" — particularly given that your example of Ship templates is easily replicated with wikisyntax; it is neither as simple nor desirable to replace language tags with wikisyntax. I'd suggest any amend to MOSDAB ought be to expand the text explicitly to permit the use to language tags.
In addition, to quote from the {{MoS guideline}} header: it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. To put it another way, Widefox, I can see a clear benefit (the accessibility stuff I've pointed to) and no clear harm. As such, I don't understand your objection; in what way is it harmful or undesirable? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, no point in wikilawering about the wording, it's crystal clear. Until there's a justification per that guideline (I'm repeating myself), this is just against consensus. I've been clear. Your disagreement is not specific to this dab page (it applies to all dab pages), so it is with MOSDAB in general so this is the wrong place to propose a change to MOSDAB. If you disagree, suggest you get further opinions. (further, when you click edit on a dab page, there's a little edit warning which encourages you to see MOSDAB, I recommend familiarising yourself with it before continuing) Widefox; talk 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

(after ec) FWIW, use of language templates on dab pages is not uncommon (and so not exactly against consensus). It's been discussed a number of times on dab-related talk pages, though I can't find any to reference at the moment (and it was not seen as necessitating any update to the guidance pages). General opinion was that the language templates helped for some editors to make it clear that something was a foreign language term and not a misspelling and it also apparently helps in some browsers to mark the term as being a foreign term. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Widefox is utterly wrong to revert you, and further is falsely relying (in an edit summary) on BRD to revert you a second time. Indeed, BRD says, (emboldening in original "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: As I mentioned in reply to your post on my Talk: page, there is nothing "crystal clear" here and I don't believe I'm "pushing through" anything, let alone "against consensus" — I don't believe any such consensus on the the use of language templates on Dab pages exists. I have read MOSDAB, thanks; there's no need to patronise a fellow long-time editor. Let's get back to discussing this in good faith, shall we? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) User:OwenBlacker OK. I am wrong, and stand corrected. Thanks Andy Mabbett (although I disagree that a reverted edit should be redone without D - nope think you're not right on that), User:Bkonrad for the quick correction. Sorry. Suggest we change MOSDAB, as it does make sense to be explicit that they are useful, or even should explicitly be added (I'm switching hats from following MOSDAB and what I incorrectly perceived as standard practice, to what I agree is the general usefulness technology wise sitewide, which of course nobody could deny). Widefox; talk 14:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it put my back up some when you posted on my Talk: as well and your apology is very much appreciated; sorry if I caused you any flashes of ire myself. I'm definitely a big fan of language tagging — not just for accessibility, but also because it allows user font selection, for example — and I'd very much appreciate a change in MOSDAB to explicitly permit {{lang}} (and possibly {{script}} if appropriate; my feelings there are less strong). Please don't hesitate to let me know (on my Talk: or with a {{ping}}) if you would like my assistance in any sense. Either way, have a good weekend :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you too for highlighting this, and if you called for more opinions, worked well. (no patronising meant BTW, as MOSDAB is explicit about justifying templates, it's just wrong by my interpretation. As I came to the dab to clean it, I prefer to revert recent incorrect edits so any editor is notified and can see wrong entries/style mistakes etc, rather than just edit their change away as a cleanup without notification. Pigsonthewing - I think that's important context, which I view as courtesy on dabs, rather than a BRD issue) My understanding of the status quo was wrong. I've thought for a long time that it was curious why we didn't add them, and we can be explicit in MOSDAB as they do aid navigation for accessibility etc. All the dabs I've edited in years don't have or have had them removed. I've added the lang templates back (needed merging with my cleaned up version). Widefox; talk 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad while we've got this consensus above, accessibility should work sitewide, trumping MOSDAB, so should be an explicit exception to any MOS discouraging template use generally (and as it can be argued that they fail the current wording as they aren't primarily "aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term" per se). By extension, a similar argument could be made about any improved markup, say math markup. My understanding is we don't use math markup (due to speed AFAIR), or is it more correct to say they are used only if aiding navigation? {{syntaxhighlight}}/<syntaxhighlight>/<code>/<tt>/<sup> Where's the cutoff for correct markup on dabs in general? Widefox; talk 15:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Using reversion to notify me with Echo certainly makes sense; I don't do much of the kind of cleanup you do, but I shall definitely bear that in mind for when I do. I didn't really call for more opinions per se — though I was beginning to think about setting up an RFC on MOSDAB's Talk: — but I did drop a note to Pigsonthewing, as I figured he'd have an opinion; I generally respect his thoughts on accessibility and Microformats. Thank you very much for adding them back in; that's saved me a task over the weekend ;o)
Fwiw, I'm in favour of anything that makes it easier for visitors to find their content quickly and digest the information they're looking for quickly — I'm a big fan of infoboxes for the same reason. So I'd definitely be in favour of syntax highlighting and markup enhancements on dabs in general. But I've never really spent much time thinking about them in any depth, so you guys in WP:WPDAB have almost certainly given this a lot more thought than I have :) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance: Including lang templates may mean heaving to check the source code of the articles when cleaning a dab. Do we want them to have more correct/better markup than the articles, improve the articles first, or just follow the style in the linked article? Levels of sophisticated markup means more chance of inconsistency. e.g. italics of Main droite is 1. dab: yes, 2. list article: no (nothing is) 3. articles linked from the list article: yes some. That's before we get to lang templates. Widefox; talk 23:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)