Talk:John Emery (paediatrician)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Scope creep in topic BMJ URL
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
BMJ URL edit
Can you explain this edit? The bmj.com URL for me goes to a landing page which has a "PDF" button which doesn't download a PDF. If I remove the URL, the link goes to PubMed Central which presents me with the full text immediately, both as individual images and as complete PDF. Nemo 20:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Nemo bis: On the other article, the doi takes you to a page, where it is a £157 to get the pdf, even though now the article is public domain. The empty URL would indicate the page has moved on the BMJ site. The reason I put the URL in originally, is because the BMJ wants to charge for the articles, where the URLs that were present, points to the old articles on NCBI, which are clearly visible and easily read by the use. If you can make that happen. Excellent. In the third entry, on the James Spence Medal, you forgot to take out the access-date property, leaving the ref looking broken. I always revert in that instance, if the job isn't done properly. If you can make all points to the articles, without the doi's going to a BMJ looking for payment, good on you. Thanks for coming back to me. scope_creepTalk 23:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis: I you want to do on, we can test it to see if it works. scope_creepTalk 23:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying but I don't understand what you're talking about. Please consider that what you are seeing on the BMJ website may be altogether different from what other people are seeing. I confirm that at the URL you restored I don't see anything useful: there is a "Subscribe from £157" and "Access this article for 1 day for: £30 / $37 / €33" box at the bottom, and a PDF link at the top which doesn't go anywhere.
- On the other hand, PMC is reliable in that I'm pretty sure you can download their PDF from the main record, just as I can, and everyone else can as well. So the URL is clearly superior, and displays the same content you presumably wanted people to find.
- There is never a good reason to hardcode specific BMJ URLs in the citations because they are not permanent, and even if they were there's no telling what content they actually serve. Please only use permanent identifiers. Nemo 06:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yip, I think we are in agreement. What is a permanent identifier? Yip, I see it now. Coolio. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)