Talk:Phineas Gage

Odd citation style

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"? ~Styyx^Talk? 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)

[Solved] Bug Report: The ran callout links are inactive on mobile site.

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:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage?useskin=Vector2022
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
3. 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)

Headnote

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 car stagecoach 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 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)

MOS:SANDWICH

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)