Talk:Hematoma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Google images link
Ed, I find your addition to hematoma rather unhelpful. External links are already hugely over- and misused, and adding a Google search instruction with a silly warning does not in any way enhance the page. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Jfdwolff. Thanks for your feedback. I originally thought about adding an image to the article itself, and performed the Google search as part of finding an appropriate one, but after realising how many were available, couldn't decide on any one in particular, so thought the best thing may be to have a link, allowing people to effectively browse examples. As many of the examples were quite likely to shock some people, I considered a warning of some sort to be appropriate, but I wasn't entirely sure of the best way to word it. I hope you were able to word it better! --Rebroad 18:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I simply disapprove of this kind of link. Everyone can search Google without having to be told by Wikipedia to do so, and if they are looking for shoking images they will certainly find them. Furthermore, the information obtained in the way you present it would be amorphous, without any explanation or context. In other words, please don't put it back. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- Ah, yes, everyone can search anywhere without being pointed in a direction to do so. So perhaps we should unwikify everything, and let people use their intelligence instead? Or perhaps not - I suspect Wikipedia is here to help people find information. If a link to google images does that, we should include it. Many people (including me) are visually orientated, and words simply cannot convey information as efficiently as images can. Please do not remove the link, but instead, perhaps include an images that you consider is a good example of a hematoma. Thanks, --Rebroad 18:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ed, your approach is a violation of the External Links policy. If you revert again, you will find yourself in a request for comment. Just stop trolling, for heaven's sake. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If I might add my comment, and from a purely practical point of view, I think that Jfdwolff has a point: the pictures, as given by Google, are not very helpful, usually not representative, and dramatically lack explanations. It would certainly be an improvement to add pictures to the article, but not this way. Rama 20:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- I would be glad to, but I am unsure of the result. I'll try and let you know the result. Cheers ! Rama 11:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
Rebroad: it is hardly a problem of policy, it is one of common sense. I asked you to stop trolling above. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rebroad, please, it is now trivial that a majority of users do not want the Google link to be featured. Don't waste your time with this ! Also, I will make a photograph of an hematoma when I see a good one (or perhaps someone else will beat me to that), so eventually the article will be illustrated. There's no hurry, no necessity to put links in haste. Rama 13:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How is a hematoma different from a regular old bruise?
