Talk:De novo

Untitled

Since this article is just a definition of the words "de novo" it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The options are to delete it and move it to wiktionary or make it a redirect to "Trial de novo".

You can add content to Trial de novo explaining where the words "de novo" come from but dictionary definitions do not belong in Wikipedia.

- Texture 23:07, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. And a list of phrases that include "de novo" is not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

I came to the De Novo disambiguation page looking for current information on the FDA De Novo process. Finding none, I created an entry that points to an FDA PDF file on the subject. More on that below...

Seems like since disambiguation pages are intended to provide links to further information on the thing being disambiguated... is that a word? :-) ... and since "De Novo" means many different things that go beyond the simple dictionary definition of the term "de novo", it's appropriate for a disambiguation page.

Now, on the entry I put in the De Novo disambiguation page earlier today... it was "De Novo Classification Process (FDA), a means by which the FDA may reclassify a low- or moderate-risk Class III medical device to Class II or I when no predicate device exists". Since there is currently no Wikipedia page that discusses this (yes, I could write one, and probably will when I get time), and since I got chastised last time I added something to a Wikipedia disambiguation page without providing a reference, I provided a reference to the FDA's Guidance on the topic, as a PDF file.

A short time ago, someone emailed me objecting to the reference being there in a disambiguation page (at least I think that's what the objection was), and I see now that the reference I provided has been removed. Since there is currently no Wikipedia article on the topic, and since disambiguation pages are supposed to provide links to help people rapidly find the topic of interest, I think the link was appropriate and its removal was inappropriate.

So, in one instance I get chastised for not providing a link, and in another case for providing one... hard to know what to do. Ericp-nh (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ericp-nh DABs (disambiguation pages) are for disambiguating Wikipedia. Think navigation for subjects on Wikipedia, short and succinct. Anything else should be covered in the article it links to. Lists can have links and references but dabs should not. This is a quick little 5 point tip on what should and shouldn't go on dabs. See WP:DDD. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well... my entry to the DAB isn't useful without the link, so if you're going to disallow the only thing that makes it useful, you may as well remove the whole entry, and I'll reconsider making such contributions in the future. Ericp-nh (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ericp-nh You're more than welcome to add it to the appropriate FDA article and then link to that per MOS:DAB but DABs are not for explaining in great detail, they're for getting you to the appropriate place that does. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that was the intent. There is no such page on Wikipedia, or if there is it's well hidden. When I'm finished working 60-80 hours a week I'll write one, but meanwhile the external link was intended specifically "for getting you to the appropriate place that does". Ericp-nh (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ericp-nh An external link would take you off of Wikipedia and DABs are for disambiguating Wikipedia. We're also all volunteers here and I'm pretty sure the FDA has an article that you could add relevant information about the FDA to... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]