This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
This page was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2017. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is a product called Offline Medical Wikipedia at Google Play offered by someone named Kmcpesh. It is nice that anyone would make an app which shares Wikipedia.
Here are some differences between this Kmcpesh's Offline Medical Wikipedia and the Wikimedia community's own Medical Wikipedia:
The product from the Wikimedia community is free of cost to use, whereas the other product requests money
The product from the Wikimedia community definitely does not violate any trademark, whereas Kmcpesh's product does not provide obvious proof of permission to use the "Wikipedia" trademark
The product from the Wikimedia community has endorsement from meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation and meta:Wikimedia CH, whereas the other product does not present proof of Wikimedia community review
I can add that this apps contains source code of Kiwix for Android without being itself open-source. The creator also refuses to answer my emails. Kelson (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Perfect User:AFlorence :-) Let me know if you need any help. We are encouraging people to translate the leads of the articles listed here [1] as all of them have been check for accuracy. Also please send the articles you have translated to User:Lucas559 so we can keep numbers. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
In List of Wikipedia mobile applicationsUser:Doc James and User:Kelson keep inserting that the app WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia (link) is open source. However to date they could not provide a link to the source code of WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia, neither could I find it in a search. Only Kiwix - a separate entry in that list, upon which WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia is based, is open source. The 2 users keep reverting my removal of the {{yes}} tag in the table without further explanation in the edit summary. As a programmer and person highly interested in open source software I very well know what open source software is and as neither editing the article nor discussing this with them on my talk page helped I'm asking for help here.
Fixuture seems to be struggling to understand that the Kiwix source code (open source, at https://github.com/kiwix/) and the WikiMed content (http://download.kiwix.org/portable/wikipedia_en_medicine.zip) come in two separate 'bundles' from two separate locations. They think there's a single repository which has Kiwix and the WikiMed content in the same place, when that's not the case. It doesn't actually alter the fact that the software and the content (obviously, in the case of the content) is open source and to claim otherwise is slightly bizarre, frankly. I'd question just how competent Fixuture is if they're so unable to understand how to find the source code, to review the code and to determine how it all works - certainly not competent enough to be starting dispute resolution threads complaining about something they evidently don't understand. I've had nothing to do with the WikiMed offline tool and in 30 minutes I've got up to speed with the dispute, found the source code, the ZIM tool, and where to locate the WikiMed ZIM file. I've read the README file and if I wanted to, could have everything up and running 30 minutes from now (give or take some downloading time).
I know it might be annoying to you but I really just want the best for the public. It's not a hard thing to do: just put up a freaking readme with instructions on how to fetch and build the source code if the code is openly accessible already. I don't care who gets it done without any instructions - if I can't do it most of the public can't do either. Nor do they even know that it's open source. The readme contains no info on this - I couldn't even find any info on "the two coming in two seperate 'bundles' from two separate locations".
@Doc James: No - at least as of right now I am not. I'm just speaking for the public / other potential developers here. Maybe your idea is that anyone interested in developing this app (or a fork of it) should message you so that you can help them get started? (This is not how open source works and it preempts further development / potential developers.) Why are you making a problem here? Truly open source it already! --Fixuture (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
It does not matter if theoretically "it's out there". If it's somehow possible to get and build the source code by following a readme on pastebin nobody can find it's not truly "out there" - people actually need to get started practically. And I do not know why you have such a problem with that. Where is the readme that tells me how get the source code for WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia - not Kiwix - and build it? --Fixuture (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Kelson: And I already told you that this is the readme for Kiwix which is not the same asWikiMed Medical Encyclopedia. If one has to follow these instructions to get it going (btw. I could not find any hint for that anywhere aside of your recent comments so that iswas a problem already) please add/comment instructions on how to go on from there to get WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia up and running. (This only requires 1 more comment - I'm not sure why you haven't done so so already but instead seemingly prefer to make things complicated) --Fixuture (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
It starts with "Android Custom App are single-content Kiwix-android clones. Those app are tied to a single content and CAN NOT open other zim file. As well, bundled zim files are not readable by the regular Kiwix app. Custom App have specific branding." not sure what you think WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia is Fixuture? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's mandarin, correct. The app is combined some of the contribution from Simplified Chinese editors, so even there are large amount of content using traditional Chinese, there are some simplified characters in the text. --Liang (WMTW) (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi there and thanks to @EvMsmile:, I think the logo set ups are fine to describe the difference among them. About the idea to put mandarin, after a deeper research I found mandarin Chinese is for categorized speaking/listening rather then reading/writing, so I would suggest use "standard Chinese" to clarify it's not any other versions of Chinese Wikipedia . --Liang (WMTW) (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, as noted we've been translating this content to Slovene ([2]), but I'd wish for Slovene to occur among the languages listed in the section 'Other language download links'. How should we go about this? --Eleassarmy talk08:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Can we please replace the British flag in the English logo with the word "English" in the logo section (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/App#Logos)? Mainly because it confuses country with language. This has been debated extensively on all sorts of blogs and pages, see e.g. Putting the question into Google “Why you should not use a flag as a symbol of language” yields nearly 9 Mio hits!:
[3]
For the German logo it's been done correctly, i.e. not putting the German flag (German is also spoken in e.g. Austria and Switzerland) - the same should be done for the English logo. - The logo as it currently stands would make me think we are providing offline medical content that is specific to the health issues in one country: Great Britain. So it's completely misleading like this. EvMsmile (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'd rather the person who made the previous one modified it (if enough people agree with my reasoning? Opinions anyone? I would say the general consensus is pretty clear, see the link I gave above to where this has been discussed on the internet).EvMsmile (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad you like it :) I don't have the skills to do it, though. Perhaps someone else would be interested in taking up that? ~★ nmaiad18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Given the manual out there, it won't be hard but It would be much better if WMCH people do it as true owners of the product so the account represents WMCH instead of some random guy. If WMCH is too busy, I'll give it a shot. :)Ladsgroupoverleg20:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I came to this talk page by way of the MfD discussion about the banner. In this talk section, I want to point out something that seems paradoxical to me. When I look at the diabetes page where the banner is being tested, I can see that the banner is intended to help potential readers of our medical pages gain access to the pages when they do not have access via a conventional web browser. But – the only way someone is going to see that banner at the top of the page is to use a Wikipedia-compatible web browser! Catch-22. It seems to me that you are getting the message to the people who do not need it, and failing to get the message to the people who do need it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
In much of the developing world Internet access is intermittent or only avaliable is certain locations. This is partly due to rolling blackouts and also occurs as people may have internet access when they visit a large city but not when they are working in rural or smaller cities. Additionally we have seen a fair number of downloads from Syria where the different armies take out communication services. Yet people still need health care and healthcare providers still need information.
We have seen 100K + downloads of the apps and great appreciation from those who live in areas of the world where this is a day to day reality. One of Wikipedia's strength is that we are often more useful than anyone else globally in much of the developing world. So no Catch-22. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I support what User:Doc James said. In developing countries, people do have internet access but often not 24/7 like we do in developed countries. E.g. they have it when they visit the capital city or when they go to an internet café but not when they go on field trips into rural areas etc. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to alert people to the existence of this App for offline use when they browse online.EvMsmile (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both for your very good replies. Yes, I hadn't thought of intermittent access. A big part of why I raised the issue is that I think that there needs to be thought put into implementing the banner in article-space, and I want to anticipate objections that the community will raise. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if this is a stupid question (I am still relatively new here), but what does this mean: "implementing the banner in article-space"? EvMsmile (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh, no problem, and welcome to Wikipedia! It's certainly a bit of Wiki-speak. The concept of the "space" language is explained at Wikipedia:Namespace. But basically, it's a way of distinguishing between article pages, talk pages, user pages, noticeboards, etc. So translating what I said into plain English: "putting the banner at the top of articles" (or somewhere in articles) – as opposed to article talk pages or WikiProject pages or user talk pages. In articles, there's the issue of how to balance the good idea of informing readers about the app, versus the bad idea of making uninterested readers look at something that resembles advertising or spam. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago48 comments8 people in discussion
I stumbled across your banner at Diabetes mellitus type 2, and it is completely unacceptable to me -- it registers in my mind as an out and out commercial banner ad for Google/Android, with other minor characteristics. Having an irrelevant trademarked image on a page (the Android logo) crosses a thick red line for me. I am not posting to the banner talk page in particular because when I click through to the App page, what I see is not better -- you have a lead paragraph that talks about Android and the Google Store at length, then incidentally mention two other OSes lower down in a small section for all things non-Android.
At this point I have two main ways to go - I can do several edits to put things in a way I find proper, or I can take the whole idea to a larger community discussion; it's been there before. I'm not a member of this project but keeping formal ads off Wikipedia is a universal responsibility.
In a revised version I plan to make Kiwix the first/main thing mentioned, as all versions apparently depend on that offline browser. Even pushing that is potentially fraught (see Gibraltarpedia), but it is specifically intended for Wikipedia, free and open source, and likely would be favored as an allied organization. A community discussion might still be needed about it, but I would expect it to be favorable. Thus the Android logo would be replaced with the Kiwix logo, and the text would emphasize that users can/must download the Kiwix offline browser and ZIM files, also available as mobile phone apps. The text here likewise would start by describing Kiwix, then go through any instructions for specific implementations in a neutral list. Wnt (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, interesting point. I'll see if we can find a more appropriate image to use instead. It has to resonate with people that we offer the app for android though. Carl Fredrik 💌📧17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
CFCF "It has to resonate with people that we offer the app for android though" - does it really? A premise behind that assertion would be that mobile device users on Android devices are conscious of using Android devices, or that seeing the logo would make them more interested in participating. Even though the phones say "Android" at the boot screen I am not sure that there is compelling brand awareness of what Android is, even among people who have used Android devices for years. For people who want to know more, clicking through seems like a fair ask to show whatever app stores (perhaps apple in the future) are offering the app.
Any sort of logo might be acceptable, including one of a phone, or of Kiwix, or even no logo. I concur with Wnt that avoiding brand advertising is a Wiki community value. I would rather avoid contesting that point. Blue Rasberry (talk)20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
The earlier discussions just sort of petered out, but I still share the concern that article space should not contain anything remotely like advertising, and this goes to way more than the issue of which logo to use. Many editors, including me, feel that a big banner just does not belong at the top of articles. There was talk about, instead, making a new template that is the approximate size of a typical userbox. I strongly urge that this downsizing be followed up on, lest a community consensus emerge to do away with the template entirely (and I say this as someone who likes the idea of helping people use the app). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense - the size, and perhaps placement, should be the same as the WikiProject links. After all, the little link to Wikimedia Commons often contains much more of interest.
But I'm seeing a bigger conceptual problem here. I downloaded the portable Windows version of Kiwix, and it works. (The download from the built in index doesn't work - it jams in a perpetual loop of "script became unresponsive", citing a chrome:// link, which totally does not make me think there is Google advertising involved, but I digress) When I download a ZIM file from the directory on the Kiwix site and open it with Kiwix, it does work. But ... it only works if I look through the directory for the en-med file. Though the index download didn't work for me, it similarly had a long list.
This means that all your banners send readers on an odyssey to download Kiwix, then find a relevant file on their directory. If you download all of Wikipedia that's no great problem ... but the Kiwix users on their cell phones are going to be hard pressed to download all those gigabytes. Which means that there will have to be subsections of Wikipedia in different files, but the more of them there are, the harder they are to find. So you need links DIRECTLY to the ZIM download page. And ... why is the ZIM download page on Kiwix at all? Beyond proof-of-concept, can they afford all that bandwidth? If it catches on, the files should probably be on Commons, which will need to be persuaded to carry ZIM files. Then you can link there.
So the overall point of the box is going to be that a particular ZIM file includes this, and maybe mention you can download a reader. Wnt (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
A few details:
The android medical versions of the app (of which their are 10 language versions) have been downloaded more than 100,000 times. About 80% of downloads have been from the developing world (were the internet / phones may work a couple of hours a day if you are lucky).
The android versions are one step to download from the google play store. The other versions are two steps and are less popular (but agree we do not need the android logo as it is possible but more complicated to download for other systems).
By "doesn't work" I mean if I go in the "library" section, sometime around when I say "get new files" it bogs down and starts saying "A script on this page is busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now..." The script is "chrome://global/content/bindings/richlistbox.xml:28". Last time the thing got so bogged that the red X stopped working and I had to open Task Manager and kill a process "xulrunner" - this time I stopped the script the first time it asked and I was at least able to quit the program. This is a rather annoying thing to have happen when I consider that Kiwix is an obvious Mozilla Firefox knock-off, complete with the frequent tendency to get into a mode after you close it where you can't open it again because it is "still running, but not responding". So why is there a chrome script? Hmmmm. Actually, I remain confused why this can't be done with regular ZIP files and regular Firefox as the reader - after all, I save so-called "complete web pages" now and then with that. Wnt (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Okay so to clarify this happens with the Kiwix app when you try to download a ZIM for Kiwix using a android browser? Not with the medical specific apps from google play? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't have an "android browser" (that I know of...) but it happens in Kiwix on a Windows system when I am in its "library" tab/section/whatever. The Firefox-like error messages are produced by Kiwix. Downloading the files externally with Firefox and opening them with Kiwix works fine. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
As for the downloads, that's impressive, but it is still a machine number that doesn't mean anything to me. For all I know one manufacturer loads Kiwix on its system just so it has more app icons at start-up. In any case, I'd be more impressed by how many people download this 1.1 GB file and stick with it till the end. There are people online who talk about getting throttled for the month for small numbers of GB to the point where they can't order an item of Ebay. But I'm no expert or even fan of "smart" phones, so I could be off here. Wnt (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes so to clarify 100,000 downloads not of Kiwix but of the combined medical WP app at 1.2 Gb. And of those 100K, ~60K have kept it installed until today / still have it installed today. The En version of the medical app has actually has more active installs via the play store than the kiwix android version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sure so Google gives stats. Here is the En version[4] which lower on the page you will notice 100K to 500K installs. Lots of positive public feedback aswell. The rest of the stats are here. I think you need special permission to view though. I can send you screen shots if you are interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
No, 100.000+ downloads of the app which includes the .zim baked in. The app is independant of the Kiwix install, and while Kiwix has been installed more than 100.000 times, I agree that that isn't really relevant... Carl Fredrik 💌📧18:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for doing this! About the background color, I think (not entirely sure) that you can add the "style=" parameter to the template, and then use a CSS definition of a background color. (Personally, I think that it looks fine as it is.)
It is my opinion that the banner should be deprecated for article-space, in preference to the sidebar placed in the EL section. No problem using the banner on talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would be happy to see this sidebar rolled out to all medical articles, but I still believe the banner serves an important purpose. I'll try to do something to fix the issues with the sidebar. Carl Fredrik 💌📧09:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't like having the download link point to a Google store, for the usual reasons. There are multiple ways to download this app, and I did so for my laptop without going near Google. Why is that company getting credit for a modified Firefox app (the Kiwix project) loaded with Wikipedia content? Wnt (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I keep feeling the connotation that by "at this point in time" you mean "until the stars are dust". After all, the Coprophagia Festival is coming up this spring and they don't take American Express! I know, I know, Google is everywhere we want to be. They own the Internet, we use it at their pleasure. But if you were to plan for an open-source Wikipedia project that doesn't strictly benefit Google as an added feature, wouldn't you want a download page that acknowledges other operating systems and distribution mechanisms and reports on the progress toward this all-important "one-step" download? (Not that downloading Kiwix and then downloading the compressed file afterward is really that much different. I know, it's "two steps", but do I really care?) And I mean, in theory if users want to use an offline reader, aren't they going to want to have all sorts of different content topics they can download, not just what Wiki Project Med Foundation is interested in? Wnt (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
We link to both the other options and to the one step option. Most people in the developing world are using android. And many more people have downloaded the app via the one step process than the two step process. So well one would think two steps would not make a difference the data shows otherwise.
Also, the logo is based on File:Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg, which is a "proposed logo" for the independent non-profit corporation Wiki Project Med Foundation. If it is or will be a trademark I think it doesn't belong in random places around Wikipedia, unless WMF and Wikipedia officially have the right to use it as they see fit. We can't have a situation where a private party has some kind of "right" to influence wiki content. Wnt (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's Wikipedia's logo. As I said, if Wiki Project Med Foundation were to sign over some kind of right to WMF to use their trademark as they see fit, then I could be OK with this - it would be like using a Wikisource logo or whatever. But I don't want to have any possibility that WMF or Wikipedia users are at risk of action from a private outside company for "demeaning" or "confusing" the trademark, etc. Most private trademarks on Wikipedia are restricted to being used for identification of companies in the articles about them. Wnt (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
As long as it is under an open license (which it is) I am not aware of the rule which you mention. The logo was created by a community member. And we at WPMEDF have NOT trademarked it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
James is right, there are no specific rules. Yes, you can't use this mark to suggest you're associated with WPMEDF when you're not — but the app is associated with WPMEDF — and in lieu of excessive bureaucracy I don't think we need a written/signed statement, especially as you're talking to two members of the board right now... No bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, it has to serve a purpose… Carl Fredrik 💌📧18:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
@CFCF: Well, two of you are here but neither of you is actually giving permission. For example, if some editors want to make up an alternative medicine-heavy version of the "offline medical" archive, including putting your tag on Magnetic Bracelet, well, I think sooner or later we're going to hear that this is not a Wikipedia editors' decision, it's a trademark decision because putting it on that article would demean your brand. And of course at the back end, only you'll have access to your special Google Play dissemination so including it in the file will also be your decision, not a Wikipedia editor decision. So you're part of the Wikipedia movement kind of like how the guy with the whip is part of a gang of slaves. The only ones above you are, of course, Google Itself, which has supreme knowledge and control over all, tracking how long editors keep their offline collection ... wonder if Google knows what editors use it for.
I think there is a very clear right way for something to be pushed from within Wikipedia pages, and that is to have many ZIM files available from Commons and other sources (even Google Play...); let readers know, unobtrusively, when a page is part of a ZIM collection; have a help file that explains a) all the available ZIM readers ([5]) and b) under that, all the OSes for Kiwix. If you want to specifically promote Google Play and Wiki Med Inc with a single-purpose, apparently closed-source (reading above) reader, you can do that, but you should not be given the chance to do it on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I also agree with what Wnt says in principle — however the conclusions are built upon a few incorrect assumptions.
The app is not closed source, the mode of transmission is. This is because Google by default only allows users to run applications that have been downloaded through their store. This issue has been discussed numerous times, and is not something we can do anything about.
The selection of articles is made clear on this page, and is not ambiguous.
Kiwix is the only general purpose reader that is at all viable — it does not make sense at all to use the others for this purpose. Kiwix is also already partnered with several other Wikimedia organizations, the others aren't. It makes no sense to make others aware that there are other ZIM-readers if they are incompatible with the files provided.
I however agree that we could direct readers to a landing page before running them off to the download-page, but this is a very minor issue for me. This whole debacle seems to be letting perfect be the enemy of good. If we demand perfection in every implementation from the start we're going to end up with nothing. As for trademark issues, lets handle that if/when it arises. It is not a Wikipedia issue, and we can for now treat the logo as officially created by WPMF. Carl Fredrik 💌📧22:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is an encyclopedia to work on. If someone wants to make an "alternative medicine-heavy version" they are welcome to.
Anyone can create a google play account and distribute apps through it so I have no idea what "your special Google Play dissemination so including it in the file will also be your decision" means. The app takes all articles within a number of WikiProjects. I do not personally select them.
That isn't strictly true. Wikipedia doesn't really have a trade mark policy beyond what the law allows — and we can absolutely use logos and wordmarks (that are not copyrighted) to signify partnership. For loads of examples of this just take a look at meta.wikimedia.org I created this image with the phone, and I'm able to run the question by the board of WPMF, though I doubt that is necessary. However you bring up the valid point that it is a good idea to draft a trademark/logo policy for WPMF. Carl Fredrik 💌📧11:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know most of the trademarks I see on the front page of meta.wikimedia.org are WMF trademarks. It is true that I did find an exception: File:Wikimedia Phabricator logo.svg. Still, that may be called "Wikimedia Phabricator" for a reason -- and if not, it may also need further scrutiny. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Meta:UNESCO double-redirects me to WP:WikiProject United Nations, which does indeed use the UN emblem, which is not a trademark, and uses it for identification of their interest for collaborators on talk pages rather than pulling in readers from article pages. It may be part of a continuum but I don't think it's directly comparable. Wnt (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
People who are downloading know that the app is from "Wikipedia". For example we have comments like "The best medical app I'm looking for.Thanks Wikipedia."[6] and "Awesome and Excellent App ever seen in playstore.thanks for helping us offlinely 😉.you give complete Wikipedia offline just wow 😘.Easy to Use So I'm in love with Medical Wikipedia (Offline)."[7].
{| class="toccolours" border="0" cellpadding="4" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 0.8em 0.8em; width: 19.55em; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 87%; clear: right; line-height:1.3em; background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;"
|align="left"| [[File:Tango Phone medapp.svg|42px]]||[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App|Read Wikipedia's medical articles with the '''Offline Medical app''']].
|}
The idea would be to have a landing page in the form with the look and feel of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/App/beta before making this change. Doesn't have to be exactly this wording, but I think we benefit from having a landing page on-wiki or on meta instead of directing to Google Play through a single click.
I'd suggest a version like this. The links are leaner (i.e. take up less text), it follows the style of other external link boxes a bit better (e.g. Template:Commons), and it calls the app by its name (i.e. Medical Wikipedia).
{| class="toccolours" border="0" cellpadding="4" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 0.8em 0.8em; width: 19.55em; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 87%; clear: right; line-height:1.3em; background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;" | align="left" | [[File:Tango Phone medapp.svg|42px]]||Wikipedia's medical articles can be viewed [[offline]] with the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App|Medical Wikipedia]]''' app. |}
I'd also be happy with either Carl's second version or Godsy's version. It's bad design to use "click" when a very large proportion of our readers are not using a mouse but a touch-screen, and that's not to mention visually impaired visitors who may be following links via a keyboard. I do agree that it is preferable to have links that may appear in mainspace point to an internal page, although I'd actually recommend using meta to host the landing page for the link, as that would be a far more appropriate central repository, should the linking catch on in other language Wikipedias as well. Perhaps a subpage of meta:WikiProject Med would be a good place? --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
