Talk:List of Divers Alert Network publications

Attribution
This stand-alone list was derived from the article Divers Alert Network. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Publications
(copied discussion about the list of publications to the new article talk page where it applies)

There are accessibility reasons not to hide content, but the Publications section certainly looks over-long compared with the rest of the article and swamps the references. One solution would be to create a stand-alone list article. I've made a demo at Draft:List of DAN publications, derived from the current version of this article. That could replace the current section with a main template. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to splitting for this purpose, It seems like a good idea for the reasons you stated. I don't see much difficulty in establishing notability for a list of what will probably be more than 150 publications, many in notable journals. I will look at the draft and comment here. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the draft. I have already sorted the second part of the list by year, but am amenable to alternative arrangements if they help in finding what the user may need. Date was chosen mainly because it is easy - there may be much better options, but I have not thought of them. Any suggestions? If not, feel free to hijack the article any time to make the split, or let me know and I will do it. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (List of Divers Alert Network publications). The lead needs a bit of expansion, and the list is far from finished, but is now a separate article.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead of a stand-alone list doesn't require much - just the background and inclusion criteria are usually sufficient (and you don't need the inclusion criteria if they are obvious from the list title). I should have pointed out that I deliberately didn't break up the second list by year in the draft, because it makes a real mess for screen readers if you have loads of empty description lists breaking a list into multiple separate lists - see the "Never do this" example at the end of Help:Lists . You already have the list items sorted by date, so the pseudo-headers shouldn't be needed. If you really want to allow sorting/categorisation, then you'll need to switch to a table format. --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. How should one put in markers to help find the year? (particularly useful while creating the list) &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to emphasise the year, then you could put it first: etc. We aren't tied to any particular format for text (unlike references using CS1 templates), so you can pick to display content however you feel it best suits the readership (but try to make sure we don't exclude he visually impaired or colour-blind, etc.)
 * 1985: Wacholz, CJ; Bloch, K; Mebane, GY; Goad, R; Moon, RE; Piantadosi, CA; Camporesi, EM; Linaweaver Jr, PG; Kindwall, EP; Van Meter, KW; Myers, RAM; Bennett, PB; Review and analysis of DAN accident cases 1981-1984.
 * 1989: Wachholtz, CJ; Dovenbarger, JA; Fowler III, GP; Rust, JS; Thompson, LD; Comparison of accident data vs. survey data of uninjured divers of DAN membership June 1988.
 * 1989: Sheffield, PJ; Flying after Diving.

The other option would be to make a table:

etc. That would allow the reader to sort by whatever field they chose, although that's not a huge benefit in this case. --RexxS (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The main benefit I want at present is to make it easier to edit the list, so I have put in level 3 headers for each year, which can be converted to another system when the main work on the list is finished.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good solution, Peter. It allows screen readers to navigate directly to the year and, as you say, makes it easy for both readers and editors to find the publications for a given year. To stop the table of contents growing into something huge, I've put  at the end of the lead to restrict the ToC's display to only level 2 headers. Feel free to revert if you prefer the larger ToC. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good solution, Peter. It allows screen readers to navigate directly to the year and, as you say, makes it easy for both readers and editors to find the publications for a given year. To stop the table of contents growing into something huge, I've put  at the end of the lead to restrict the ToC's display to only level 2 headers. Feel free to revert if you prefer the larger ToC. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks fine as it is, thanks. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)