Talk:Patient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] alternative illustration(s)

possible replacements for present illustration, i dont like the current one 'coz its difficult to see how consent can be obtained from a young child. use here is pretty much gratuitous - i think other images exist which can serve the need here. so let's see ... Doldrums 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Parental consent is sufficient for publication. The illustration below is great if someone would create a "History" section. Rklawton 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image alignment

Why the left side?

Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using {{TOCright}}. Since faces are not perfectly symmetrical it is generally inadvisable to use photo editing software to reverse a right-facing portrait image; however, some editors employ this controversial technique when it does not alter obvious non-symmetrical features (such as Mikhail Gorbachev’s birthmark) or make included text in the image unreadable.

Rklawton 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied the below from user:rklawton to continue the discussion here if necessary.

"quote"

"Moved picture as per style guide which expressly states that images should not be looking off page".

Can you please point me to where that is from, as from your edit review I do not see what you mean with it.

Also I wonder why you want to move the image to the left and the TOC to the right, when 99% of all articles have it reverse - and I feel uniformity is a good thing for these things. People expect it to be left, left is where the eye and the mouse will tend to be. We read from left to right, and all other 'control fields' of Wikipedia are to the left too. MadMaxDog 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style - I also left this information on the article's talk page. Rklawton 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I got your point and composed a reply here, which got lost now, because we had an edit conflict. Okay, I understand your point now. However, I find that this breaks the whole layout (especially the toc right!) for the sake of a minor point. I also disagree with the flipping argument in this case, especially seeing that there is no writing etc in the image at all.

MadMaxDog 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The flipping point is a bit more obscure. In this case, the electronic leads are not symetrical so flipping the image would be misleading. It might not matter to non-medical folks, but I think a somnologist would differ. Rklawton 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think it is better that the article look weird, than that some specialist, if he looked very closely, would find something wrong, but of no account? Excuse me, but I disagree with that weighing of importance. I am trying to find a way around the matter fulfilling the letter of the law, so to speak, but I consider this a wrong emphasis.

PS I'll also copy this discussion ove to the talk page as you originally suggested.MadMaxDog 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"unquote"

I have now added another applicable image. This allows the right-looking image to be placed lower down, where it does not diplace the toc and thus break up the flow. Ihope this is a satisfactory solution. MadMaxDog 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, so I believe accuracy is important. As a photographer who has worked with article and image layouts for many years, I can tell you that left aligned images are common and that off-page looking portraits are never acceptable. I do, however, like the new image you added to the article. Though some editors take issue with black and white photography, I do not. Rklawton 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)