Talk:John S. Duncan

Caution re name confusion

This is John S Duncan, epileptologist based at UCL Institute of Neurology, London. There is another Prof John Duncan, a psychologist and FRS. He is based in Oxford and Cambridge. Editors should be careful not to confuse the two as happened here with the FRS. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 06:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Website

@Mike Peel and RexxS: |website= now has a duplicate value; it didn't before and the code present in this article suggests that it shouldn't now. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Nikki, and thank you for spotting the problem that an update Mike made produced a duplicate value when the {{url}} template is supplied locally. I've removed the update and made a revised fix in the template's sandbox, so that the issue can be fully tested without disturbing any mainspace articles. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I forgot to remove the old code when I added the new. Now fixed. Sorry about that, all of the arguments going on have rather distracted me. :-( Mike Peel (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Not a single source is reachable at present, and the lack of inline sources makes verification near impossible. The 'Alma mater' field should not appear in the infobox until it is reliably sourced. --RexxS (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the lack of inline sources makes verification near impossible." Utter bullshit. The world doesn't stop an enwiki and Wikidata, you know. Verification of things like his alma mater wa sa piece of cake. And if information shouldn't appear in an infobox, then it shouldn't appear in the article either. This is all a very weak excuse to reintroduce your Wikidata infnobox (you know, the one that cauysed the duplicate website which you introduced in this article by readding the Wikidata infobox).

The only reasons why you removed "alma mater" from the infobox (and not, say, the equally unsourced FMedSci) is that a) it gave you an excuse to revert to your Wikidate version, and b) I added this specific bit of information to the infobox (but not to the artlcle). Please find some other article (or preferably someother website) to play with. Fram (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie. The reason that {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} removed alma mater was that it was unsourced. It was not a decision on my part. I've restored the local values of the two items (occupation and alma mater) that can now be sourced from Wikidata, while we discuss this.

I will strongly maintain that infobox fields which are liable to change are well suited to drawing their information from a central source, in the same way that we draw images from Commons. In this case: (1) alma mater is unlikely to change, although a younger person may go on to do further study and add a value there; but (2) Duncan may change employer at any time, or even retire. You have no argument at all for replacing the Wikidata-aware infobox that Mike Peel added, and I'll remind you that you are edit-warring against two editors in good standing, without any rationale beyond your personal animosity.

don't criticize What you can't understand Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is rapidly aging Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand Cause the times they are a-changing
— Bob Dylan

You need to take your own advice and go find another hobby, because you're clearly not suited to this one. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikidata is a waste of space but, hey, did anyone pay any attention to the first post on this page re: alma mater / confusing two different people? There might be a problem there. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added sources for his alma mater, and corrected some things on the article at the same time. The article is about this one Fram (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll remind you that you are edit-warring against two editors in good standing, without any rationale beyond your personal animosity." You mean reverting Nikkimaria and (repeatedly) reverting me? You are the only one who has been reverting against two editors in good standing here. Physician, heal thyself.

"That's a lie. The reason that {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} removed alma mater was that it was unsourced. It was not a decision on my part. " So you didn't make this, this or this edit? It is "the infobox" removing local parameters now, and not you? Either that infobox is so out of control that it starts removing local parameters now as well, and then it urgently needs to be stopped; or you don't know what you are doing (the third possibility, that you do know what you are doing but are simply lying, is of course unthinkable). Fram (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other possibility is that I remove unsourced crud from infoboxes as a matter of course. If I hadn't complained about the lack of sourcing, it would still be in a pitiable state. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that that possibility doesn't match the facts. Oh well... Fram (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should look better now - I've added references to the info on Wikidata, including alma mater. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The date of birth wasn't referenced, though, so I've removed it both from this article and Wikidata. No objections to it being added back if accompanied by a reference, though! Mike Peel (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a good reference for it, so removing it was the right thing to do. I removed the category about it as well, and the FRS infobox (he isn't a FRS), and the years he obtained his degrees (two sources give different years). I added a second employer to the infobox. This tough little article is starting to look better, thanks. Fram (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]