Talk:Protocol

Irrelevant links
I reverted edit by 62.134.124.42(03:02, 4 Dec 2003) because most of the links made weren't relevant to the topic. See Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. And it would have been difficult to revert once others started making revisions to it. (which is what is happening to Java programming language edited by the same user with the intention of providing more interwiki links.) Jay 14:14, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Other meanings for "protocol"
Sometimes I think I'm parodying computer-science types' word usages when I break the news to them that some words begin with lower-case letters or tell them that the English language existed before computers, or that they didn't invent everything that was used in ancient Greece or the 17th century (many of them do literally think that mathematical induction originated in computer science!), but when I see what pages link to this one, and some of the things this page has said in its various former edits, I really think they do literally think the word protocol was first invented in the field of computer science and that that is the main way in which the word is used. It's hard to make fun of them sometimes. Michael Hardy 21:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, for this page and others on files and records and documents etc. I need information about paper files and document protocols and all I find are references to programming, which is a very new subject area. LC

Page rename planned
I am currently doing the incredibly painful job of actually looking at all the (long list) of pages which link to this article and finding all the links to protocol (some pages have more than one), and evaluating which protocol page they should actually link to. (Needless to say, a lot are wrong.)

I only want to do this once.

Look, I sympathize with the complaint above, that people seem to think that the term protocol was invented for computers. At the same time, a lot of pages are (incorrectly) linked here, basically because people who wrote articles were too lazy to clink on all their links and check to make sure that they go to the right place.

Human nature being what it is, we can expect this to continue, and to hope otherwise is more than foolish.

In other words, in the future they are going to create a ton more pages which link here incorrectly.

So that in the future, when I correct the next batch of erroneous links, I won't have to go back through the (reasonably long) list of pages which do properly link here (in order to find the bogons), I am going to rename this page (to something like "protocol (non-computer)" - although now that I look at it, it might be best to have "protocol (etiquette)" and "protocol (treaty)", separately), and turn protocol into a disambiguation page (so that all links to it are known, a priori, to be incorrect).

Anyone who has a problem with this is going to be on the hook for fixing all the bad links I haven't yet fixed (there are tons, looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Protocol) themselves - in other words, because I'm doing the work, I strongly maintain that I get to make the call on renaming the page. Noel (talk) 16:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I strongly disagree with this last sentiment; it seems very un-Wikipedia-like to me. Don't get me wrong, it's great that you've put in the effort to make incoming links more specific, thanks! However, your worthy efforts do not give you any special priority to dicate which disambiguation scheme should be used here, nor does a disagreement with your idea imply any kind of responsibility or obligation. Having said that, I do agree with your scheme: this page (protocol) should be a disambiguation page. &mdash; Matt 17:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, rather than argue the point (I do feel that people who are putting in work get more of a say than people who are just standing around), let me just put it a different way you cannot possibly disagree with: unless we do make some change so that future links to the page are basically guaranteed to be incorrect, I won't do the work this time around! :-) I can't see anything problematic with that! (After all, you can't make me do it any more than I can make you, right? :-)


 * Anyway, thanks for the support, and an important question: where should we move the content? I'm leaning toward separating it into "protocol (etiquette)" and "protocol (treaty)", but if you have a better idea, I'm not stuck on that particular scheme. Noel (talk) 20:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds a reasonable scheme to me, although perhaps there's not enough to make protocol (etiquette) anything more than a dic-def, and perhaps the disambig page should simply point to etiquette for this sense? &mdash; Matt 18:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Gentlepeople, I sense the consensus is to make this a disambiguation page, with the original (pre-computing) definitions appearing first.  Vonkje 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good call! I had planned on doing this, just never got to it. Noel (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Confusingly similar articles
Please comment at Talk:Communications protocol. Noel (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

į

Medical Protocols vs Guidelines
I think we should keep the medical protocol and guideline pages separate, lathough we may want to mention the other in each page. When something is referred to as a medical protocol, the implication is of a much more rigid application then a simple guideline. Guidelines are (often research-based) recommendations, such as the Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines published by the American Heart Association, which are meant to recommend the order of medication and treatment delivery that might be best for a patient. Protocols are often developed by agencies or leadership and may even have the force of law, although they usually contain guidelines for how to deviate from the listed treatments properly. An example of those would be paramedic protocols, such as those found at http://miemss.umaryland.edu/Protocols2002.pdf, which were determined by the Maryland state legislature until recently (within the last 10 years). --catseyes 11:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's
protocol \pro-te-kol, -kol, -kal, -kel\ noun [MF prothocole, fr. ML protocollum, fr. LGk protokollon first sheet of a papyrus roll bearing data of manufacture, fr. Gk prot- prot- + kollan to glue together, fr. kolla glue; perh. akin to MD helen to glue] (1541)  1:   an original draft, minute, or record of a document or transaction 2:  a: a preliminary memorandum often formulated and signed by diplomatic negotiators as a basis for a final convention or treaty b: the records or minutes of a diplomatic conference or congress that show officially the agreements arrived at by the negotiators 3:  a: a code prescribing strict adherence to correct etiquette and precedence (as in diplomatic exchange and in the military services) b: a set of conventions governing the treatment and esp. the formatting of data in an electronic communications system 4:  a detailed plan of a scientific or medical experiment, treatment, or procedure (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

This Disambiguation Page is so outrageously ORIGINAL that I thought it necessary to include a complete QUOTE from a STANDARD DICTIONARY at THE TOP OF THIS PAGE --Ludvikus 14:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzyA (talk • contribs)

Editing Protocol (section)
Updateing Protocol (natural sciences) to better reflect the updates made to the actual page. The numbering as a defining feature seemed strange and limited in terms of natural sciences as a whole. Further comments, edits etc, in this category can go in this section.

--My wan 08:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Move from article
I've moved the following 'Police' section from the article, pending someone knowing what it means: Kaid100 18:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * == Police==
 * Protocol, NSW POLICE FORCE PROTOCOL has a unit specifically charged with enforcing the NSW Police Force ceremonial and protocol duties.