The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep, but not to be inserted into articles without obtaining consensus to do so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inappropriate use of cleanup metatemplate, projectspace, and wikiproject subpage. Reminds me of the Slavic-language Wikipedias with links to Facebook, Twitter, and Vkontacte in their sitenotices. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• reopened, see wp:MfD talk (permalink). Given only less than a day passed I presume there is no need to relist. - Nabla (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it does or does not belong in articles is not a reason to delete it. It is a useful banner that is also used for projectspace. The talk page is the appropriate place to discuss if the banner can be used in certain articles. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should only be used in projectspace and userspace. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the future it will be on every single page on Wikipedia. Apps are useful. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will? Can you provide a link to where the community approved that? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prior discuss was about putting in on a couple of medical articles. Maybe once we can add a banner to just medical articles we will look at doing that for a brief period of time (maybe world health day each year). But not WP wide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, yes it will. The WMF does not require consensus. They can put it at the left side under "Tools" or wherever they like. QuackGuru (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I basically agree with QuackGuru. I don't see any genuine harm that the banner does to anything, and I think that it provides useful information for projectspace and on user talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following up after reading further comments, I do agree with other editors that the banner is problematic at the top of articles. I get it, that this isn't just any app, but rather a way to provide access to Wikipedia where other ways of access are unavailable, but it does indeed come across as spammy and contrary to WP:NOTADVERT and WP:ELNO when used in article space. Maybe there is a better way to display this kind of notification to readers of articles. But deleting the banner is not the solution. I strongly urge the editors who want to delete it to, instead, start an RfC in which the community could determine the proper (and improper) ways to make readers aware of the existence of the app. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have very little ability to target these messages. Only want them on medical articles and more so for people in the developing world. We do not have that ability yet but from what I understand the WMF is working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading comments by other editors, I also agree that we should Restrict from article space, at least in its present form. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep User:KATMAKROFAN is becoming disruptive. They have broken 3RR on nominating this template for deletion. It has already been closed twice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is a template, shouldn't it be discussed at TfD?
  It does look to be a complicated blurring of NOTADVERTISING. If I make a better app, can I advertise it too? And the wording conflicts with he notion that Wikipedia should never be considered a reliable source. Has there ever been a discussion establishing a cosensus for this sort of advertising? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that you do, and it abides by the general open licenses, non-commercial nature of Wikipedia, and has a strong support base — absolutely. However, you won't. This app is over 5 years in the making, and has several independent support teams from within Wikipedia, from Kiwix, and from the WMF. It is not something you could likely replicate. We could discuss hosting the package file on Wikimedia-servers and to avoid Google in that way, but so far that discussion hasn't even been raised.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup the app was developed by the Wikimedia community. If you wanted to make a better version would love to work with you User:SmokeyJoe. We are looking for more volunteer programmers. Not sure what language it is written in but happy to connect you with the others who are working on further improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that the app is: (1) Free; (2) non profit; (3) WMF sponsored; (4) WMF branded. These things are good. Not good is that it is not clear that: (5) everything is open source; (6) information is easily found here, on Wikipedia, or Meta; (7) the banner app takes the reader offsite immediately; (8) there is no opt-out of seeing it; (9) the app documentation over-implies the reliability of information on Wikipedia. I would think that this banner should not be addable (or removable) on mainspace pages by any editor, but should be boilerplated like other WMF notices. I still can't find where this should be centrally discussed and explained. I don't think MfD is the right place for this. Can this be continued elsewhere? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Yes everything is open source (6) "We have an offline version of our healthcare content" means that all information can be found on Wikipedia (if the internet is working in you area of the world which of course is often not the case in much of the world) (7) We could have the banner redirect to a WP page first (8) okay sure but it is only on one page (9) how does it over imply reliability of WP? In fact it says "Please keep in mind that this is volunteer generated content. While we try our best to make it as accurate as possible it is not perfect. Thus we request that you use common sense." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds good. I can see myself using it. I'd like to follow what's happening. I think it should be documented. Where? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MED/App is mostly were the on WP development takes place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far the application to articles has been minor and more or less a trial (I was not aware of it). With more support and given some time, the proper venue may be the VP. As you say this is probably the wrong venue to discuss it, so we can hopefully close this MfD soon and prepare for wide-spread discussion. I'm happy to look into the issues you raise, potentially building a landing page on-wiki that can direct users to the download page and to detail how they can get involved. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Apps are new for Wikipedia. In the future there could be a section at the left side column for apps. Below "Print/export" the WMF can add the links for useful apps across all Wikipedia languages. This can be done very easily by the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous rationales. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, distracting large banner that I apparently can't turn off. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this is at all a rationale for deletion. I'm unable to turn off your userpage, yet that is not grounds to delete it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As banners come it is actually very small. And much less distracting than many. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: if you don't want to see my user page, then you don't click on the link? there is a difference between article-space and user-space. @Doc James: it makes no sense that I have to look at after I have seen it dozens of times. add a class to the banner so I can turn it off in my personal css. for example, change the class="plainlinks" to class="plainlinks advert" or whatever. just something that I can use as a key for controlling the appearance in my personal css. I never thought I would see a day when WP would have banner ads that couldn't be turned off. Frietjes (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure User:Frietjes done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, this works now. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is transcluded to approximately 15 pages, one of which is an article. In regard to its use in the mainspace: Displaying a maintenance-esque banner template that serves as an advertisement at the top of articles is basically unprecedented to my knowledge and seemingly lacking community consensus. Furthermore, it is a violation of WP:ELNO numbers 5, 8, and possibly 12, and the general spirit of WP:EL (i.e. "All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions.") — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says "We have an offline version of our healthcare content." Readers can now use an app to read healthcare content. This is amazing. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at "5", the app does not sell anything and the app contains no adverting. "8" it does not require any plugins "12" does not apply either as the app is not an open wiki. This appears a little like argueing that "Download as PDF" and "create a book" fail the spirit of WP:EL. They simply do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In regard to 5: chiefly the similar apps to the right and the google chrome advertisement at the top (at least for me as I'm not using chrome), and even the links to the left to a certain point, are advertisements. In regard to 8: The app is an external application, and rich media is mentioned which states "Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser." In regard to 12: the app is likely a mirror or fork of Wikipedia. Even with the older wording, before the usage of app became what it has, they still clearly apply. Furthermore, the banner is generally inappropriate for the mainspace per WP:NOTADVERT (especially without explicit consensus for it), as is mentioned above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Doc James: My objection basically boils down to this: If this banner is to be displayed at the top of articles or article talk pages, the community needs to approve it. I agree with SmokeyJoe above that I see a lot of positive things in regard to the app. I also think the mention by CFCF of hosting the app download locally would be preferable. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have an apk separate from the app store that can be side loaded. This can all be downloaded from the Kiwix website (so could probably also come from Commons). The problem with side loading is that on android phones one needs to by pass a bunch of warnings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I think that both SmokeyJoe and Godsy are making very helpful observations here. It seems increasingly to me that the real issue is not one of deletion, and I continue to favor a consensus of "keep" in this MfD. Instead, the issues are about revising and improving the banner, and about determining its optimal use. What I see at Diabetes mellitus type 2 is commendable in terms of intent, and offensive (to me at least) in terms of looking very WP:NOT. I think that eventually there will have to be a community-wide discussion to determine the proper implementation in article space, but it would be premature to do so now. Instead, it seems to me that there is a lot of need for wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/App. I strongly encourage editors to discuss these non-deletion issues there now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per QuackGuru and Tryptofish--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought a discussion like this would happen soon. I think that it is useful, as Doc James has argued above and from looking at the reviews on Google Play. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - This whole WikiProject Medicine is pretty unique and very amazing, actually. Within a few short years the medical content of Wikipedia has improved so much that it is benefiting thousands (millions?) of people worldwide. Now there is even an offline App for it which is also totally awesome. As this is a unique effort and a great achievement, I think we should be open to allowing this "exception" of having this kind of banner on some of the articles (and if possible even on all health articles for one day of the year, like User:Doc James suggested). If folks don't like the size or appearance of the banner, then be all means suggest a viable alternative. But until then, I strongly vote for keep. EvMsmile (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restrict from article space I think slapping this advertisement on top of articles like Toilet is a poor presentation of encyclopedic content to readers. No issue using it on talk pages, project pages, etc. If the community wants to advertise something a dismiss-able banner for readers would be better, after seeking a consensus. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is dismissible now per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doc James It appears that a hack can be put in for a logged in user to hide it, but that is far from dismissible. For example, I just opened a private browser instance to Toilet to see the page as a random reader - I see the advertisement, but no way to dismiss it. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will ask some technical folks about other options. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This banner appears to have some image issues as well, it includes images that require attribution, however the description is being forcibly redirected to an external commercial website. Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Links and attribution says Links should not be suppressed for any image that requires attribution. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restrict from article namespace - Lack of reasonable dismissability is a concern, but a secondary one. It has been shown above that this banner doesn't comply with several policies and guidelines. This makes community approval at a venue with wide visibility and participation, such as the village pump, neccesary if this is to be used within the article namespace.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.