Talk:Vancouver system

Untitled

This is a first attempt for a guide towards describing a standard referencing system in the medical professions, and some other sciences. MacAuslan 08:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation in Citations and Usage section does not conform to URM?!

The examples do not seem to conform to the very reference given here http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html. According to this document, there is always a period after the Journal name. Can somebody please verify this before I change this in the Usage section? Cheers, 216.165.126.18 14:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The current 2007 ICMJE version, at para IV.A.9.b. Reference Style and Format, refers to the detailled style guide at the NLM's Citing medicine. Several versions of the Uniform requirements were published, including the 1991 BMJ publication (PMID 2001512 PMC 1669007), the 1995 CMAJ publication (PMID 7728695 PMC 1337910) and the 1997 Annals of Internal Medicine publication (PMID 8992922). Journals were asked to cite the 1997 JAMA version (PMID 9062335) when reprinting the Uniform requirements. As of 2004, the editors of Haematologia "invite" their authors to visit www.icmje.org (PMID 15020262) for the 2003 revision of the Uniform requirements.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect example

One of the examples in Vancouver system#Journal articles is produced using {{cite journal}}. — Miym (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. A careless editor upgraded the article's references using cite journal last June, and accidentally changed one of the examples too.--Srleffler (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Adnan J. Al-Fartosy, Nadhum A, Amel H. Mohammed. Intelectin-1 and Endocrinological Parameters in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Effect of Insulin Resistance. Ewha Med J. 2020; 43(1):1-11. doi:10.12771/emj.2020.43.1.1 151.236.178.130 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Author-date or author-number?

The first sentence of the article says that there are two systems: Vancouver=author-number, and Harvard=author-date. The second paragraph then explains that Vancouver describes a group of author-date systems. There is a contradiction here. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the error. Clearly I had a brain blip earlier. Fixed now. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Over-specific statement in example usage

“Author names are abbreviated to at most two initials.” can only be true of some specific system; my own journals allow three, and separation differs. So this statement needs to be prefaced with something like “The format of author names and initials also differs between variants. For example, in <whichever system>, author names are abbreviated to at most two initials.” SLR Ellison (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ethics rules in Vancouver guidelines / Vancouver Convention

Vancouver guidelines redirects here to Vancouver system, but entail also ethical guidelines, not just citation rules as the title of the recommendations indicates: ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. So I have briefly mentioned the Vancouver guidelines for publication ethics, already referenced in for example the Jon Sudbø article. Hansmuller (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

copypaste in "General Rules for Author"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vancouver_system&diff=975599341&oldid=971464895 removed a copypaste, that lost all formatting and links. The source was indicated by a reference. What's the point of duplicating content that can be accessed (with better formatting, authority and context) elsewhere with a more free licence? It risks becoming outdated.

The source asks for attribution in its "Terms and Conditions" section. The page only provided a reference, but didn't mention its complete lack of originality (same examples, same reference to an "Appendix F") compared to the "Citing Medicine" page.

This page is referenced in "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book", which makes me believe its characterisation as 'Low-importance' might be true for the science subproject, but not when considering the en.wikipedia project. 37.175.115.212 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)