Talk:Laboratory information management system/Archives/2012

Removal of reference

At 0819 hours on 2010-05-04 a Wikipedian [removed] (without explanation) a citation from the article, thus leaving unsourced the claim that LIMS systems can include n-tier architectures. I propose that we restore the citation in the interests of verifiability. -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggest removing this page entirely

I would propose that this page be removed entirely. The information is not cited and has turned into a marketing and promotion page for LIMS vendors with links to their sites and links to marketing sites like LIMS.com.

The definition of LIMS is not even correct with respect to the acronym. The article is grossly misleading and serves to confuse the reader. signed: --Lablynx (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) lablynx on April 25, 2011

_{Subscript text{| class="wikitable" |[[Media:--59.99.161.134 (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Example.ogg[Insert non-formatted text here][[''Link title''#REDIRECT [[<s>Target page name</s>^{Superscript text}]]]]]] |}}

Adding sources and removing marketing-related material

I'm slowly adding references and citations while cleaning up the text of this article. I ultimately would like to see the removal of the Unreferenced template from this article and have it mostly free of marketing bias. The nature of the LIMS business is such that it's highly competitive, making it quite difficult to find relatively neutral or legitimate sources for information. Much of the information I've been finding is directly marketed by a vendor, with little quality unbiased information available to the public about the subject of a LIMS.

Note that I removed the section that solely listed links to LIMS vendors. This will be considered controversial by some, but unless it can be positively demonstrated that a list of vendors' websites lends legitimacy to this article, I don't see a reason to include them. It sets a precedent for all vendors to advertise in this article.

Additional sources that are neutral or not terribly biased greatly appreciated. This is a work in progress; I still plan on bettering this article and expanding on topics where necessary. Lostraven (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I wish to avoid an edit war so I'm working with user Limsmaster to resolve the issue regarding the vendor list. Here is what I sent via that user's Talk page...

With the idea of avoiding Edit warring, I'm writing to explain my reasoning behind the removal of the vendors links. You accuse me of "play[ing] God" when all I seek to do is ensure that Wikipedia's standards are followed.

As I stated before, Wikipedia has a policy on link spamming. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming

Verbatim: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."

That's indeed what is going on with this vendor list, and that's why it's being removed.

There is a compromise, however. Please look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_vendors#ERP_vendors

Note how ALL of the vendor links lead to Wikipedia pages. We can include a list of example vendors, but only if they link to a Wikipedia page. Two of the vendors on the list you insist on reinstating do this.

I'm willing to reinstate the list, but only include those with Wikipedia links. If this continues to get abused by other LIMS providers trying to promote themselves, then I see no choice but to do away with it entirely.

Regards,

Lostraven (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully we can sort this out.

Lostraven (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I reinstated a modified version of the vendor list. Of those previously listed, I looked for existing Wikipedia pages, adding them. Those which do not have a Wikipedia page were removed. I added a comment in the wiki code for that section that non-Wikipedia links will be removed. I'll monitor this for abuse.

Regards, Lostraven (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi Lostraven,

Thank you for your proposal. The first one regarding list of ERP vendors... I like the idea but LIMS is not ERP. It's not CRM, and etc... If there is a dedicated LIMS product and vendor page, that will be nice. As you will be able to find, there are neutral and informational out there, but Wikipedia is the best resource on the web to share such an information. If we can do what you suggested but for LIMS only, that would be great. Otherwise, what you currently have works as well. But too bad that it is a short list.

Limsmaster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

Removal of "Unreferenced" template.

After doing some extensive work to this article to remove marketing slant and add sources and citations, I believe it's deserving of the removal of the "Unreferenced" template. I'm going to remove it as now most sections have been cited. There's still one area that I marked as "citation needed" under the "Instrument and application integration" section, and I will continue to look for an appropriate source.

I'm happy to discuss additional citations/references with a Wikipedia editor as needed. But for now, I believe the article is properly cited and underserving of the "Unreferenced" template.

Lostraven (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm having a hard time sorting out the difference between these two articles Laboratory information management system Laboratory information system - there is a ton of overlap. They should just be merged. --KarlB (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a good public discussion on this topic on the LIMSforum on Linkedin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.95.33 (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a section to this article about the further blending of LIMS and LIS. I'm still not convinced they should be merged just yet, even though vendors are taking steps to merge the two systems' functionalities. I think it would be rash to merge the two articles just yet. I do agree the LIS article deserves a cleanup, however, including citations. I'll look into this. Lostraven (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)