Template talk:Medicine navs/Archive 1

Displaying identifiers in navboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many templates have identifiers in the navbox title. I don't think that's ideal, as it's pretty hard to read. That said retaining the identifiers is useful for categorisation purposes and perhaps some future use relating to Wikidata. So, how should these be displayed? As a separate line in the box? Move to metadata and not display? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a separate discussion above about the specific use of the Gray's Anatomy identifier. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roundtable discussion on legibiltity and usability of medical navs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background

A number of users have expressed that the current naming system is incomprehensible and unusable:

From above:

Agradman: "I imagine that you are going to get a lot of people who want to lengthen the abbrevations. I doubt that everyone will be comfortable seeing abbreviations employed so aggressively"

Arcadian: " I agree with most of your concerns. Template:Infection navs is unwieldy..."

Taylornate: "This is incomprehensible."

From a discussion at WT:MED May 2013: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_34#Edit_requests_on_medical_templates

EJM86: "It's completely insane to use unintelligible abbreviations when there are plenty of electrons for actual English words. "

Espresso Addict: "...that the current version is pretty unintelligible and could do with a rethink"

Some examples of how these and other navs are difficult to use: {{Peripheral nervous system navs}} {{Vascular navs}} {{Gram-positive firmicutes diseases}} {{Virus navs}}

There are a number of reasons why:

• Abbreviations are incomprehensible
• Abbreviations are non-standard (eg "hiva" for "HIV/AIDS", "zost" for zoster)
• Abbreviations are not widely known (eg systems of numbers for drug classes)
• Titles are difficult to understand for lay readers
• Dominance given to classification systems obscures the navboxes' titles
• Single-letter abbreviations can barely be clicked with a mouse, let alone used on a mobile setting
• Use of colours leads to messy templates when applied: (See here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Human_systems_and_organs&oldid=632998856)

RfC

{{rfc|sci|rfcid=931F1C2}}

Closed. Follow up is at #RfC - Post-closure discussions

This isn't relating to a dispute, but I am requesting comments on: How could the current set of medical templates be improved?

Any ideas are welcome, clearly a lot of work has gone in to the current system and it is very comprehensive, but at the same time it could also be improved. Any ideas? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary ideas for discussion setup

First step: spell out all the abbreviations. Change jargon words or use brackets for any secondary helpful word/abbr. (after that, read more here). Don't mind space for now. Make sure everything you might need is in there. (reducing is easier that adding). Then use newlines and lists and brackets and other text layouts to support any structure that is in there. Forget about colors, use one or two max (navbox blocks). If this is still unclear to the Reader, use more text (headsers, rowheaders). (I agree it is intimidating). -DePiep (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Hmm. I have been thinking. Why not just move the links here into an actual navbox, and replace it with some general links? (eg "M:VASCULAR . Anatomy . Physiology . Disease" or simply just a link to the parent navbox/article). It seems these templates are all trying to be the "parent" navbox... and that would probably be better off as a full navbox, rather than in its abbreviated form. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Isn't Template:Medicine navs the Grand box that has them all? Anyway, yes bring them central (in a single /sandbox) for this development. Once the total is OK, we can start thinking about cutting them out in subtemplates/childtemplates etc. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC) {{Medicine_navs/sandbox}} now has the source code from all 34 templates. For us to play. I see that all these links are to templates. That is bad style in article space (from articles, a reader should not be lead to template space for content). The current list of templates as it is now, is only needed in documentation of these templates (for editors help & overview). So this is my proposal: create an article called Draft:Medicine overview of systems (or something else). It has all these 34 navbox contents (in 34 sections). Then, all those individual navboxes can link (|above= ?) to "Draft:Medicine overview of systems#Bones and cartilage" for in-content overview. (I'm popping ideas by the hour. See where it ends ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Below I have created subthreads per topic. SHould be fine as long as they are independent. -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC response

Collapsed, not because unimportant but because most of this is implemented or discussed in detail sections. (Fun quote: "Let's remove ♂ and ♀ from male/female reproductive system. We also don't put a <3 in front of the cardiac system. :-) ). -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:PizzaMan first batch of contributions

Summoned by bot for an RfC. A slightly odd way to draw attention to this, but ok. I have expertise on medicine, but i don't know much about nav boxes. To be honest, i couldn't find a way to display the actual navboxes, as they are displayed on WP pages, on a single overview page. The Template:Medicine_navs page looks like a mess. I agree that the abbreviations and background colors should be removed, human doesn't need to be mentioned and we should use lay equivalents wherever possible. Although, i can asssure you, English laymen use professional terms way more than Dutch patients, where every anatomical structure and disease has some kind of euphemistic medieval lay name that physicians have to use not to sound snobby to patients (ok, personal frustration). The whole non-congenital seems odd to me. In cases where it's really important, perhaps mention acquired disease? Or the specific transfer mechanism. Personally, i think the navboxes should provide all the links users need and the TA/TH/Gray's codes should be made obsolete by the quality of the articles and the navboxes. I guess my main question is: how can i contribute. This page doesn't seem very active so please ping me by inserting User:PizzaMan in a reply. Also, let's close the RfC here before we get accused of abusing it. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC) OK. We are working & developing in page Draft:Medicine overview of systems. It has all 36 medical 'subsystems'. Each of these subsystems is used in navboxes as in Template:Cardiovascular physiology (bottom block). When we agree on this central page, we can spread the new blocks over the navboxes. Yes they are hard to find, it needs some clicking around. I hope that fdraft page gives a good homebase. Proposal is, first of all, to get rid of the abbreviations: spell them out. That alone is a solution. Secondary improvements discussed here are different layouts (demos are in the draft page). There is no need to close this RfC, there is time. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC) On the risk of sounding stupid, but if i understand correctly, there is a subtemplate for the bottom bit of infoboxes on topics related to human anatomy and medicine. In their current state these are near unusable, because it's all abbreviations. On Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems we're drafting improved versions. Is that correct? Are we just discussing layout or also contents? Would it be helpful/appreciated if i made some bold edits, such as write out the medicine categories and change everything to upper case first letters? And maybe add or remove a link or two if i felt the urge. I'm sorry if i'm asking the obvious, but i'm trying to understand the context here. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC) 1. Nothing stupid, all correct indeed. Let me give an extensive example: for section Draft:#Respiratory system. As a building block, it is template {{Respiratory system navs}}, which is never used stand-alone. It sits in multiple navigation templates (='navboxes' or 'navs', list: [1]), like in {{Respiratory pathology}} and {{Chest trauma}}, bottom block/row. Next, those navigation templates are actually used in articles, like Pontiac fever and Pulmonary laceration. There are 36 of these building blocks (for 36 medical systems) as listed in this draft page, and they are in scores of medical template navboxes (see Category:Medicine templates). They may end up in thousand+ articles ("content space", where our Reader is). 2. Now what are the issues here? First, we should get rid of the abbr abbreviations. These are not common medical abbreviations even, so the Reader is not helped at all (more like WP:OR). The draft page has them expanded into words; you are invited to check & improve those. Then putting this from draft into the live templates would be an improvement already! (this RfC is towards a conclusion for this). Next, we might want to improve the content (e.g. remove anatomy details?, as is discussed above). Also, we I proposed to get rid of the background colors, back to navbox-blues. That is, for these 36 blocks only. And we might change the layout from 4 columns into something else (see Drat:#Layout variants). Also I have proposed (an hour ago) to make an article with this overview, to give the Reader the overview (the overview you missed too). 3. I think we should limit out first step target to these topics. We should not include: remove colors from all those templates, of change anythin Gray/TA numbers in this RfC (there is another tread & outcome for that already, see above). Also, major changes in the 36 system setup we have, we should do in a later, separate discussion (would complicate matters, while we are waiting for the simplification). 4. So I suggest you take a professional look at the current wording & layout proposals in the draft (I am not a medical). We absolutely need good quality words, first. As you noted, this RfC is a bit sleepy, but not dead. I am thinking about a concluding proposal within a few days. Tell us what you think. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your attention, PizzaMan. I agree with DePiep that we should try and keep the scope of this RfC narrow and if possible work step by step (#3). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Ok, i made a first edit. To start off, i just looked at the drugs bits. I'd like to name the template "Template:Agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system" as "Agents acting on the RAAS". Same with GORD, GI. Is there a way to do that? I left it in the broken state now to show what i mean. I left out the "drugs" introduction and rewrote the names of some groups of drugs so they themselves show it's about drugs. I did this in some templates where i felt it was better. I think some templates should be renamed. For example "Drugs used in benign prostatic hypertrophy" should be "Drugs used in benign prostatic hyperplasia" and "Oxytocics" should be "Oxytocins". I changed how the names are displayed in the templates, but i don't know how to go about renaming templates. The "Inborn error of metabolism" template was especially messy, it didn't contain a link to the template for A16 (other gi/metabolism drugs) and it had a list of info topics that didn't belong there and was a duplicate of the second column. But not an exact duplicate, so i moved it there to be merged. I consistently use the word drugs, where the words drugs/medication/agents/etc were randomly used. Exception for the two skin related infoboxes (see next point) and the mouth medication, because that medication is mostly used topically. I'm hesitant on antibiotics, antivirals and antifungals especially as those are also often used topically. I think "Integumentary system, superficial fascia, and loose connective tissue" and "Skin appendage" should be merged by combining all links and deleting duplicates. In some cases, i named a category "parkinson drugs" for example, rather than "anti-parkinson drugs" because i think the anti- part is obvious. I removed the links to ATC codes, i don't see the need to promote that system in infoboxes. I didn't change much about capital letters, but there is currently much inconsistency also sometimes it says "drugs (drug1, drug1)" and sometimes "drugs: drug1, drug2". Which do we prefer? Coffee should be mentioned under olfactory drugs ;-) Ok, i shouldn't joke around. To my opinion, in the current state, the templates are near useless and put wikipedia to shame, and while i can see the point of taking careful and small steps, i would consider this the kind of emergency that warrants rapidly pushing out at least semi-usable templates. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Wordings: I cannot say anything on correctness of wordings. I would take them as an improvement (to stay) blindly. 'worst case': wiki can always receive improvements. Renaming categories and templates: not in this RfC, to keep the overview (such a discussion would really make things foggy here). Please propose those changes in a new thread. When such a move is done correctly, all these template links will be changed/redirect all right in the pages templates (we don't have to worry about that). Remove ATC codes and write them in words: Great! Yes! About removal of title-like use of "drug": does not matter in this old way. In the new layout proposals we do use that title, I guess it clarifies (please take a look, Pizzaman). Capital letters should be by standard navbox style: capitalize, except when in brackets (is ** in list). I'll write a proposal to move this forward. -DePiep (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks, i'm removing "drugs" from most treatment sections then. Also, i'm moving lab tests to diseases where appliccable. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Ok, i did a lot of cleaning up. Changed all / to , for consistency, fixed all the question marks, various fixes. As for the new layout templates, i have a slight preference for 1B, but here also, to my opinion they're all way better than how it was, so i'm in favor of picking one on a short term to be pushed live and then discussing if there is no consensus. Can you easily put the content in the improved template? PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Never mind, DePiep, i see you're already working on it. Should we also insert the v/t/e (view/discuss/edit) bit? In fact, on second thought, i'd be in favor of leaving out the "medical systems" bit from 1b, but including the v/t/e bit. Unless that's made obsolete by the v/t/e at the top of the template. I'll stop editing for now, so there won't be edit conflicts. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Speedy reply ((edit conflict): no, don't remove "drugs". See how it looks in the new layout. I have just converted the top three now. Look at the 3 subheaders we have: "Description, Diseases, Treatment". We need the word 'drugs'. -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC) wrt the v-t-e edit links: I plan to have them in template space (so you can click to edit that block), but don't show in article space. See demo in bones (top) section for more demo links. Later more on the "Med sys:" link I have added. I am doing the capitalisation too. Later more, first some more layout conversions. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Enough for today. no 1-8 of 36 into some new layout (still not definitive). Within a list changes are welcome (the *- and **-lists). Pls leave the navbox structure intact, to have them similar. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your help, PizzaMan, the links are looking very good, and thanks for rewording the drug codes. I think you can propose moves as you note them, or at least leave a list here so we can move them all later. We're also havign a discussion below about how to present the "systems" or if we need it. Ah, I see, DePiep, the VTE links like that are useful. I feel we are making solid progress. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC) My pleasure, once i noticed the current state of the template, it became like a thorn in my eye (Dutch expression). @DePiep, thank you too, it's looking very good so far. I think the "treatment" header makes it obsolete in most cases to list as "Procedures, Drugs (drug1, drug2)" and this can be replaced by a flatter structure "Procedures, Drug1, Drug2". In case of the "Pathogenic bacteria" template, i think it would make sense to just name the category "antibiotics" in stead of "treatment". Since there are no therapeutics for the olfactory and gustatory (taste) system, we could perhaps just leave out the treatment section in stead of a "-". I also put trauma next to diseases, before signs&symptoms, eponyms, etc. I'm not too sure about the ♂ and ♀ signs for male/female reproductive system. We also don't put a <3 in front of the cardiac system. And again various small fixes. I can't believe such an important part of wikipedia was in such a... diseased condition. List off-topic. Moved to new section below. -DePiep (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Again, to keep this topic sane: do not discuss template moves in here. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, but Tom asked me to. And it ties into the issue of how to deal with distinguishing the general disease templates from specific tumor/infection/congenital/etc disease templates. But if you'd prefer me to report this elsewhere, please tell me where. I'd like to keep an overview and have a discussion in one place before the official requests are made on specific talk pages. PizzaMan (♨♨) 01:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Some replies I wrote in the issue sections here. (eg re drug )(drug1, drug2). -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) ：OK well I'm calling it a day today, and taking tomorrow off, Merry Christmas for tomorrow folks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - Deployment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Have created a new section relating to testing this on different templates... hopefully we can get this working soon) --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolved tests

Zooming out: the blocks in parent templates & articles

About how the block appears in parent templates, incl. block 'header' like "Bones and cartilage". Useful links:

Draft:Medicine overview of systems#Layout variants (Demo-1, Demo-1B, Demo 1C)

{{Bone and cartilage navs}}

{{Bone and cartilage navs/sandbox}}

{{Cranium}}

-DePiep (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

About deployment effects, now in core draft code

About removing/relinking "Medicine systems:" in the header: see # above. Currently showing: demo-1B, proposed improvement: Demo-1C. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I have made all 36 showing the Demo-1C (header row with v-t-e box). No link to article "List of" for now. -DePiep (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC) That looks great. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Great work! PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC) After your editing, a lot of errors came to light in structuring. For example, "eye physiology" was now a subgroup of "visual pathways". But "visual pathways" should be a subgroup of eye anatomy, which should be named "Anatomy", not "Eye". I fixed the ones i saw at first glance and cleaned up the )()'s. I probably won't be ably to contribute much the following days, so a merry christmas to you both! PizzaMan (♨♨) 01:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, that is the intended way to improve the blocks (I did an automated mass-edit, hence the weird bracket orders but you got it). Do keep checking & editing. We can't skip or overspeed steps though. -DePiep (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC) I have gone through all of the boxes and, except for IEM, are happy with their layout and think any minor issues can be addressed after they are deployed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC) I think we made the best we could of the inborn errors of metabolism template.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Use 'below'?

keep "|below=" usage in parent template

Question: as you say, using 'below' is problematic. Yet we've created some pretty nice-looking alternatives. How would they be included in other navboxes? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Let me see. I've put the first one (Bones & cart's) in its sandbox and further in {{Cranium/sandbox}}. I kept code | belowstyle = background: transparent; padding: 0px; | below = {{Bone and cartilage navs/sandbox}} which shows good so that's good news: we don't need editing there!!, we can just put the new form into the block's subtemplate. (Also writing | group7 = {{Bone and cartilage navs/sandbox}} shows good but requires editing all those templates. Better not!) I think my remark about "below" should be revisited. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC) No edits in the calling parent templates (like {{Cranium/sandbox}}), keep existing code: | below = {{Bone and cartilage navs}} -DePiep (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Stacked blocks in a template

We need to take a look at this:

{{Eponymous medical signs for nervous system}} -- old look

{{Eponymous medical signs for nervous system/sandbox}} -- new look

OK. Even three-stacked subtemplate blocks are not a disruption.

It has three blocks stacked. This looks bad when they have header-bars. Ideas? -DePiep (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC) The sandbox version has a non-working red link at the bottom. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC) They are there now. Please take a good look, this has big effects. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Agree. Now that we've made these templates readable, they stretch on and on. A single page might have a few medical templates. Would it be better to include them as collapsed so that they don't get too cluttered? (We may be breaking another rule here!). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC) I recognise that optimism, but don't expect good edits after deployment. For example, I might log off for a while. It is today only that we can play this freely with all 36. DePiep (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Whatever the cost & delay: we will not change those hundred parent templates. We are here to write in long the abbreviations - and we'll do. "too long" is relative. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC) See, for example, Bone. It's not uncommon for a medical or anatomical article to have 3-4 navboxes. If each navbox has 3-4 embedded navboxes like that in the link, they will double to triple in size, and there'll be (as in "Bone") a large amount of duplication. I guess you're right in stating that we can make them more readable and then it's up to editors to determine how navboxes are used. If we were to included our embedded sections as collapsible that would also make a difference. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Checked Bone: none of these template has more then one of these blocks. There is no issue (re this; the navboxes are a horror for other reasons). The issue of stacked templates is still best shown in {{Eponymous medical signs for nervous system/sandbox}} (three blocks in one parent). Do you want anything else than a go-ahead? -DePiep (talk) You make a good point, not many templates include 3+ embedded navboxes, so the point about length is somewhat mute (I reply in more length below). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Recap. This is about an important change (proposed) that affects what the reader sees. There are three changes in play. First, we have added a header (title) row in each block, instead of the four unheaded columns. So when a parent template has multiple blocks, there are three headers added (see the linked sandbox). That might be too much. A better result could be having one header only, and somehow make three subgroups (with the three header texts in a lefthand column, regular navbox style). This would require extra block codings, and require edits in the parent template. (note: we don't know which or how many there are having multipole blocks). However, it is not wrong tho have three subheaders; the information is presented correct. It is also OK to have the blocks shown in a different structure as the upper part of the navbox has, because it is another approach of the navigated topic. Another change is that each block data simply takes three rows by structure. Including the header, the minimum is four rows per block, whereas the old format had one row (so far not counting line wraps for longer texts). However, since we decided that abbreviations should be spelled out, a single line text cannot be expected even in the old format. In the old column structure, expanded abbreviations would yield multiple rows (rough counting: old set of 36 had 3163 characters, new one has 10700: expansion is factor of 3.5). That says that old column style would easily expand into three rows by wrapping. For this reason, a lot of the extra space occupied is not caused by the new structure, but by abbr expansion. My opinion is that we can keep the separate headers as presented. As a structure it is OK, and perceived usage is largely required by an other cause (writing abbr in full). -DePiep (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your bigger picture summar and I think you make a a number of good points. Firstly as you state above, multiple navboxes are not used that commonly. Secondly, when multiple navboxes are present they are collapsed, so users will only see the "Index of..." when they select a navbox -- so my worry about visible length is not founded. Lastly, as you state it is the abbreviations rather than the header row which is the cause of the size, and the header row is quite useful to make this area visually distinct. And any changes we make will compromise the design choices we've made thus far, which are good choices. So I concede here, and think we can deploy first and see what users think. If there is an uproar about them being confusing or not distinct or some other facet (this being WP and all) we can adjust accordingly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Yes. (thanks for reading the long stuff carefully; great conclusions). -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Looks good to me, i don't see an issue with three blocks stacked below each other. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Category for maintenance?

Added in new code

Would it be useful to have a maintenance category that lists all pages (template and articles) that uses any of these 36 block subtemplates? -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC) I can't say, but I use daily your very useful recent chances lists in Anatomy, and I'm sure other users use the Medical ones. A super list, as you propose here, may be useful for vandalism-fighters and other types. Although I would probably still stick to a more focused list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC) I'll add that cat for myself at least. I am missing it today in this RfC for overview, checks. (How many templates use them? How many articles?). Can search that manually, but not feasible for 36 templates. Also, it is useful with the WP:AWB half-bot (do you use it?). We should expect a lot of activity after the change (especially with the v-t-e links available). Not vandals primarily (this change invites GF edits). About those RC links I added to this RfC, below: I may make another update, but dunno about long term. For now, it they serve well. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC) It is Category:Pages that use a Medicine navs subtemplate. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC) That's empty. It would be a list of thousands of articles when accurate.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC) It will be filled when the new content is live. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• See Category:Pages that use a Medicine navs subtemplate. Shows templates and articles. -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Deployment process

I suggest:

1. Fix issues to be solved

• Create maint category done
• Solve level² level³ issue

Would this be part of the issue? I changed skull anatomy to ... (see discussion section)

• Check all subthread discussions for being closed gently

2. Formal proposal to "Make draft version [x] into live"

Does this need a time window for comments? -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC) no.

3. Go decision T=Go

4. Closing & freezing. Fix the whole RfC into {{Archive top}}...{{Archive bottom}} T=0

5. Open new thread for new comments T=0

6. DePiep turns drafts into live code T=0

7. Follow & check effects, recent changes, ...

8. Do post-change edits as needed

-DePiep (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

For #2 and onwards, I suggest we just implement. We've already had one round of comments which I published on WPMED's talk page, interested users participated, there's evidence users are not happy with the existing set. So even if we implement now I think we have a fair amount of backing that it won't even be "bold" to implement. We can then iron out the creases in live mode. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, no #2. time window (do fasten seatbelt for comments & edits).

re 4.: {{Archive bottom}} should be right above the "RfC - post-deployment" main section I think.

re 3: I will also declare frozen the draft version (36x) too when they are to be deployed.

I am working on this all, but need time for quality. Could be I ask for a 20h pause (for that, could we date for tomorrow 22hUTC or earlier?; I want you to be online when we move it). -DePiep (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

OK I'll be here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing a read-through of all the template to fix any minor issues that i see.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, perhaps it would be nice if each of us pushed 1/3 of the templates live as we all worked hard on it and in celebration of the great collaboration :-).PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Prefer to do that by myself, to keep final technical checks the same. -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Which technical checks? Don't we do all the technical checks on the draft page? PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Code in templates must be correct & consistent. Draft is for content. -DePiep (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not make it correct and consistent on the draf page? - PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For example, you wouldn't want 36 pages of documentation in there. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

.

.

Did a lot of edits, but i didn't finish yet. I'll try to finish today, but i propose we wait with pushing live until i did a full check. And we find a moment to be online together so we can each push 1/3 of the templates live. We could coordinate that over e-mail or some kind of chat. I live in the europe time zone (and i'll be on a holiday from 31-12). PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes if you need more time we postpone. Quality checks we need, we will not hurry. And no better not split the live copying bc of consistency checks needed. -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to be ready before the proposed 22:00 UTC tomorrow. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, DePiep and Tom (LT), i'm done reading through them. I think we have four open issues "actively being discussed" in the wording part: put third level in italics, inverse: add a common Latin word, tumor/neoplasia, signs and symptoms/eponyms. Then there's one issue, just above, to make a good plan of how to push it live, which technical checks and if there's a way we can share in the credits when going live. I hope we can quickly reach consensus, close them and then push the templates live.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you two both give an OK for a single same version that's a go; that version is frozen then. (I myself will only interfere when layout & struct issues are unconvincing). -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. I don't feel we have any issues that will "block" deployment. I will stop editing the navs now and make any additional changes after deployment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, per the 'level 4' comments above I've made one edit. Won't be making any more until deployment, & feel free to revert that edit if you don't think it's an improvement. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for PizzaMan to say OK. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

PizzaMan, current status is: we have two Go's for current version. If you confirm OK too for this same version, we have consensus to publish it (edits will break this status, so only edit for crucial changes please). -DePiep (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No go for me yet. A lot of errors were introduced recently, i'll try to fix them now. I'm really not ok with tumors (discussion above). And my question about what final technical details above hasn't been answered. I think the templates should be ready to the point where they can be directly copy-pasted in the live template. All the checks should be done on the draft page. - PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's open then. Improve as you think needed, note whne you are satisfied. As for tech details, they are not content/layout and are not done in the draft. -DePiep (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A lot of corrections i made were reverted to reintroduce errors. Please discuss above. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OK done for today. PizzaMan what's the latest or earliest time (in the day) that you'll be online? I suspect we have a large time difference, I will try and login early (or late) so we can have some easier simultaneous discussions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• As for process, we could do this: 1. put live what we have today/tomorrow, and 2. Continue editing this central way into a version 3.0 re-starting next week. It takes out time pressure to compromise on quality. If you both feel better that way, it's worth it. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Send me an email, DePiep. We're working through the templates at the moment. I agree we should deploy once there are no systemic issues, and iron out the flaws later. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

1. wikikmail issue, will try (now ortomorrow). Note: given timelimit by PM (6 days off), we could publish as-they-0are (wrats & all) for now; and restart this process in a week (three of us picking up again). -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Pizzaman and I will review as far as we can today, when he goes offline then we can start deploying... in the meantime we will still be going for another hour or two. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm off. Drop a note here on what we should do. I'll read all today's new posts here, see if not too much damage exists. I expect we need to restart this next year. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

OK we are both satisfied with the templates. There are some minor changes to be made but feel free to start deploying them, we both agree there's nothing systemic preventing deployment. We'll run over items 1.19 through 1.38 at a later date, and try and get you on a google hangout too. So to be clear, we're both clear for deployment to start (even for the templates 1.19 through 1.38 that haven't been thoroughly reviewed). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

With this, I conclude consensus for this version 01:35 UTC, 30 December 2014. As Tom(LT) notes, possible improvements can follow and do not prevent this deployment. Discussions can be started or reopened in #RfC - Post-closure discussions. All earlier RfC threads will be archived (frozen). -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC is closed. Follow up is at #RfC - Post-closure discussions -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages of each template

Tempalte talkpages notified

I've put a reminder on talk pages of all individual templates. On a few of them someone already left a remark along the lines of "what is going on with this template". I pinged those people. I'm sorry if there wasn't consensus for this, but this is a major change, and in my humble opinion, we can't push such a drastic change to the templates live without first leaving a note on the talk pages. We should have thought about it earlier, but we don't need to delay imho. There doesn't need to be a substantial time between the notification on the talk pages and pushing the templates live, as there have been plenty attempts to get anyone interested involved here. And the first person noticing this neede fixing was years ago. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Yep, I agree with notification but I did post @ WPMED and this issue has been raised by multiple other people, so I think we should go ahead with this and then people can comment as we deploy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Development here is serious and an improvement. People can ask questions, but there are no reasons that would forbid the moves, as if we are trespassing. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Yep, and once deployed I will leave a note @ WPMED, WPANAT and WPPHARM. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too much difficult for me

I think it is so hard to understand all this stuff... I don't know, I think its weird an can be a problem to get for a lot of people. --Catalaalatac (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Abbreviations written in full. -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The abbreviations are unintelligible, serve no encyclopedic purpose, are easily replaced with actual English words, and therefore should go

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Edit requests on medical templates. EJM86 (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Abbreviations written in full. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Layout

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Useful links: Draft:Medicine overview of systems (edit central)

With consensus/outdated

Background colors

Removed from these 36 blocks (only)

What do the 16 colors (in the lefthand column) mean, and is this grouping stable or arbitrary? -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Appear to be trying to arrange by topic. I'm all for getting rid of them: there's too many and it's difficult to maintain, difficult to standardise, and doesn't really convey much information. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Colors can go then. I still think a sensible grouping is possible. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC) These colors are used almost everywhere, like in Template:Arteries of lower limbs. There too they are useless. For this topic (the 36 overview child-navboxes) we can ignore that. These templates themselves can have regular (blue) navbox colors. I'll propose in the draft. -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I agree, we recently had ａ similar discussion about the anatomy infobox. I suspect the colours originally come from arteries and veins (naturally red and blue), but the question then becomes what about the other 30 topics, and with each having a separate colour it ends up like a kalaeidoscope. And also difficult to edit and maintain to boot. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Yes. And for the reader it is useless because the overview (a.k.a. key) is nowhere near (a graph that shows color-per-bodypart). It is distracting even. However, for now I want to keep these colors (untouched) outside of this topic (= those elsewhere in the templates can stay for now). Would be too complicated; solve the abbreviations first. -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Anatomical subdivisions

Anatomical subdivisions should be retained

Question. Do we need every box to state all the anatomical subsections? ("Anatomy (x, y, z)")? In most templates, the word "Anatomy" links to a separate template... so could we move the subsections there? It would save a lot of space, for one thing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Space does not matter now. Best is Navbox rule #1: does it have to be one click away from the article page it is on? Then there is problem 2: we should not link to a template itself, but to an article (Example as it is now: Joint; anatomy (Template:Joints of head and neck, y, z)). Approach I propose: A. let's get the words-for-abbreviations right and push them into live, as that's an improvement in any way. B. Keep those (x, y, z) links if they (B1) link to an article, and (B2) the list is not impractically long to be complete (max 5 to 7?). This implements right away that it it does not have an content article/category, it is not important enough for a navbox. -DePiep (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I'm still not so sure. By making everything small abbreviations, it is like we are trying to compress what is in a full template into a tiny bottom template. I don't think every article needs a link to every template in the series. Looking at the example above, WP:PNS, I think instead of "anat (h / r / t / c / b / l / s / a) " we should just have "anat" and either redirect to a central index point like here, or to a central anatomy template for PNS which holds that data. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) No link shall lead to a template (this must change, but there is no hurry for us). It's complicated. For example Template:Arteries of head and neck. You say article Superior laryngeal artery having this tempalte, should not have these neighbouring anatomy topics linked (uncle topics: the one level up grouping). I need to think about this, these templates have many levels. -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Is there a necessity that the links don't link to other navboxes? I think it is very useful that these meta navboxes link to other navboxes, hence their meta nature. If they were easier to use, it'd be very handy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC) "don't link to templates": I drop this topic for now. It makes this RfC too complicated. I don't propose to change them (just noting: it is bad because it leads the Reader outside of Content space = article space, into our engine room. In other words: if it's that important, it should have an article). But links still may be removed for other reasons. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Trying to get my head around this original question let's remove subsections x,y,z, from 'Anatomy (x, y, z)'. Of course, from now on they are spelled out. So in, for example, for Joints we'd have this sub-navbox {{Bone and cartilage navs}} to be spread around in these navboxes, with content being: Joints Anatomy (cranium, facial, skull, foramina, upper extremity, torso, pelvis, lower extremity), physiology, development, cell Diseases: ... Treatments: ... The proposal is to remove those eight ()-bracketed subsections of Anatomy. DePiep (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Usage. 1. The sub-nav box (row) is used on pages like Facial skeleton, almost the anatomy subtopic #1. From such a page, it is easy to think that a Reader would want to click to a sibling topic: from Anatomy of the Head to Anatomy of the Torso. A very reasonable navigation quest. Exactly for this click, they should be there (say, a "horizontal" connection, or "sibling topic" from that article). 2. And also, the sub-nav box is present on these more detailed (individual) bone pages like Pharyngeal tubercle and Basilar part of occipital bone. It is very unlikely that an editor wants to click right away from that detail page to the torso anatomy. Because, it is a level or two away (not horizontal, not a sibling but uncle topic). For this reason, these sub-divisions better be gone. DePiep (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC) (later more) Hmm, what about? Index of Joints Overview: Joints Anatomy: (cranium, facial, skull, foramina, upper extremity, torso, pelvis, lower extremity), physiology, development, cell Diseases: ... Treatments: ... Just some ideas. Firstly is to make clear that this is an index of the topic area (explaining why it'll redirect to templates). Second is to make it smaller / collapsible, or some way of making it distinct that it's a separate area and won't link to articles. If we use the format you've proposed, we don't have to remove the possibly useful links to anatomy article groupings and what not, too.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC) You are reintroducing a topic I have dropped. Do you have a question for me? -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC) You did not response to a single word I wrote. You are going off-topic from letter 1 (read the first sentence, the topic one you wrote). You are restarting about "link to templates" after I said: doesn't matter. And, new but not helpful: you are reasoning from the layout to what should it contain. About that: bad reasoning. The content text is decided by the information need, not by space or layout ideas. Once information reasoning is clear (in/out; major/minor, sub, ...), there will be a layout to follow. Not the other way around. Last note: could you take care of more expansions? Some five boxes are still carrying abbreviations. I don't know enough, and everything needs a smart check anyway. -DePiep (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry DePiep, the last thing I want to do is come across as rude. This is what I mean about this format not being entirely suited to long discussions. I was responding to this line "Trying to get my head around this original question..." and probably should have started by saying that I like that alternative layout you presented and perhaps we don't need to get rid of the internal (x, y, z) links, we could tweak it to make it more obvious that it's an index somehow, what is your opinion about enclosing your example box in a collapse box and making the text smaller? With the text provided as an index like in your example, there's no reason to get rid of the (x, y, z) links, and it could in fact be quite helpful if we include it with a clear demarcation. Sorry that my reasoning wasn't clear; I hope that my response makes more sense in terms of your original statements now! Will have a look at the expansions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC) In response to "And, new but not helpful: you are reasoning from the layout to what should it contain"? I am not so sure about this, because I think it is very dependent on what layout we are choosing as to how much space we have to contain the data. I think it definitely would be handy to have a full index on every article, but only useful if the index is presented in a reasonable and accessible manner, viz. one that a user can actually read. If we only have a single line, then I would argue that there's not enough space for the (x, y, z) links and they're not as useful as the parent links. There are benefits and negatives to both sides of the coin here. In summary it is very reasonable to state "form should follow function". I think the function of the navs should be to provide an indexed list of relevant links for each system, so I think the form should reflect that if possible. I've created a subtopic below for this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC) OK, glad you picked up I was disappointed ;-) , but not that disappointed to chase you away completely ;-). Later more. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Now that we've got a nice layout, I'm happy to leave the anatomical substructure links be, and drop this discussion about including or not including anatomical substructures. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Given how it starts to look (in new layout), I am pleased with their presence. Looks like we can show them correct & helpful not confusingly. I met one new argument to keep: if we would remove them, template {{Cranium/sandbox}} would not be showing the topic cranium itself! Good navigation design then might say: then that template does not belong on that article page. -DePiep (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC) (Maybe fold/label this subthread as decided?) I also agree, it's a good service to WP users and there's enough structure that it's not disruptive. Collapsing. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Preferred layout

Outdated

Thanks for creating those layouts, DePiep. My preferred alternate layout is Draft 1. Do you have a preferred layout? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC) I like Demo-1B (=demo-1 with article link added) -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) OK that looks good too.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Just playing, but I'd like to have that List-link someway somewhere. Demo-1 if fine too. Needed to change caption "anatomy", which was used wring that way given toe list items. DePiep (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Collapsing, a bit outdated by now. -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Navbox structure options

OK, and we've moved further already

In the draft, I have added some variant structures for this sub-navigation box (child navbox). I have returned to the basic navbox layout: rowheader plus several rows/sub-groups. I don't see any advantage in the current column structure. Colors there are default navbox colors (blues). -DePiep (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Oh boy! I really like Draft 1. Eminently readable. I feel we need some way to make it visually distinct that this is a meta-navbox, rather than a part of every template (otherwise it will look fairly confusing). Do you have any ideas? Some ideas would be background colours (uniform for all) or font size (not idea, will impact on readability), or maybe a title of some sort. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, distinction is needed. Using |below= is problematic, because that is just a full row basically (not the subgrouping & lines without a more difficult template construct.) But look at this: as long as the rest of the navbox has these weird 16 background colors, this default navbox blue nicely stands out as distinct :-). Example: in Template:Cardiovascular physiology a blue-colored bottom block would look OK. (The issue of being distinct will be back on our agenda when we want to change these strange 16 colors in those navs completely). So I propose to stick with the blues. -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Added: Demo-1B (=demo-1 with article link added) -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Demo 1 and 1-B are bigger, so there's not really a need to link to a page with links on it. We made the list of systems article because the templates were too small to hold everything, right? So now that the templates are bigger, we don't necessarily need the list of systems article at all, because all the links can be held in the template. If we are to include a link, I feel it should point to an article, such as circulatory system. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC) See my 20:23 responses in #Needed:_article_"List_of_medical_systems" too for this. I add here: You first sentence I don't understand (or I do understand, but then you are talking different links). Simple: we should provide an overview of the 36 topics. "Bones and cartilage" is just one, but one from what? How can a reader grasp that there are more? That is what we need the 36-overview for (and however big our new blocks are: these other 35 are not in there, nor is a hint to them). There is another thing. We might decide that we remove the bracketed anatomy lists (you mentioned; it is still open I guess). If we do so, or if others do so six months from now, these sublistings are removed completely, nowhere to be found. That might be OK for a template, for the overview that is not needed. A list article can nicely keep that sublists, presented with enough space too (it won't be just the templates). Notes: in the link I wrote about article/template diff. And in Demo-1C I propose an other format for this link. -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC) OK I have replied in the thread above, so that we don't have two parallel conversations about the same topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Very good. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Making clear these navbars link to templates

Prefix "Index of ..." added to headers, nothing else

Should we insert something like: "Index of..." in the titles, or do something else to make them distinct? Otherwise I am not sure readers will understand that these navboxes are linking to templates. Readers may just think that these are just another row in the template linking to articles --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Yes let's do that. (for the record, to keep my standing as navbox editor high ;-): I must say again that linking to templates from content space is not good!). -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Just did this by mass-edit. Does it read nice now, or am I missing a word, at the end? Should use a lowercase for "bones". -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ...or should it read: "Index of bones and cartilage topics"? "Index of bones and cartilage medical topics"? (my choice now would be the first one). -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC) I think it must be "Index of bones and cartilage medical topics". Because, a block might end up in article Cranium, which is not medical (strange that it the navbox is not in that article today). -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "Index of the respiratory system medical system" is not good enoug. Better: "Index of the respiratory medical system". OK? -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks for applying this. I'm not in favour of adding "medical system" to each of the navbars. I am ideologically opposed to considering things like anatomy and physiology as under the purview of medicine :P (I consider them related, but independent to medicine). Also it looks confusing, is wordy, and leads to some strange results ("Index of the viral disease medical system"). Lastly we just went through a simplification ("Olfactory system --> Smell") and now we're going back a step. I think the "Index" makes it clear what this is and we don't necessarily need a "medical system" appended to each item.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC) quick reply: I'll loyally remove that when we here conclude otherwise, of course (anything before it is live). My background thinking is that a title should be fine reading (grammar), whatever it says. the other options mentioned do not make good reading (try: out loud). Going back one step - yes because you suggested adding "Index of ..."; adding that only makes bad reading. Later more, maybe. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Exactly what text (pattern) do you prefer? -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC) I think "Index of..." without "Medical system" is clearest (to me). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Please check all 36 headers for awkward language exceptions. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Reviewed and happy with all of them. Changed to plural or added 'the where appropriate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - Post-deployment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Todo:

• Check bad uses of {{Medicine navs}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)  Done
• Put somewhere (/doc?) the two RC links, now below in RfC - Useful links.  Done -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Documentation

Useful link: single doc page is {{Bone and cartilage navs/doc}}

• A short note to state, we will need to update the documentation to state clearly and loudly that we are linking templates, not articles. Otherwise, with the ability to edit these templates, there may be a constant battle. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

? Jee, we are founding RfC changes. If we support our edits like we do now, that 'battle' is easy to deflect. And always, always there is: everything is better that those OR abbr's. Let that so-called battle come. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone missed that point, we'll kindly explain and we've had a thorough discussion here. Anyone who wants to enter the battle will find a battlefield where the battle is mostly over already ;-) - PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Adjust central documentation page Template:Medicine navs/doc -DePiep (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there may be an explanation of why all these abbreviations were used, but that wasn't a good justification, so as far as i'm concerned we can start removing that already.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Central /doc page for all 36+1 is with the Bones navs. -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC is closed. Follow up is at #RfC - Post-closure discussions -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Needed: article "List of medical systems"

Article can be created. Will not have links from the 36 Medicine navs now

I propose to create article "List of medical systems". Basically it should contain the draft page's content, but not in navbox format. It can simply say: "In medicine, the next systems are approached as a whole for description, disagnosis and treatment: (+the list)". If there is a better name than "medical systems", please say so. That article will give the overview, currently not available (exccept for this unused(!) {{Medicine navs}}; a navbox is not exactly content). Also, each of the 36 navbox blocks (those we are discussing here) can have a linked text in the lefthand rowheader (text suggestion only): "Medical system: Bones and cartilage". -DePiep (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC) I have added a link "Medical system:" to the first demos; that target page now is Draft:List of medical systems. Why need a link at all? First, the block header (like "Bones and cartilage") is in a list of 36. But when a reader sees that block, they do not have a clue about those other 35. They are not mentioned or even hinted. An overview is not in sight in any way. (Even worse, the "bones and carlilage" topic as a whole does not even have a home article, clearly). So how can a reader find that overview? Answer: provide a link to the complete list of 36. Why must it be an article?, this page {{Medicine navs}} can give that overview? Well, {{Medicine navs}} is in template space, not content space; that is: in our engine room. We do not want readers to be lead outside of content (say, article+category) space. The inner workings of this wiki are not part of the encyclopedia. On top of this, it is a navigation box template (see WP:NAVBOX). That too is not content (it is a tool for the reader, only within the wiki). Also, we can not change that template to make a better presentation in this navs page. Put this way: if those 36 systems are worth mentioning, they must have an article (That article can be a WP:List article). The draft article must be edited a lot, but that can follow the box building we are doing right now. Why does the link to Medical system look this way? - I'm not happy with its layout yet. Last new suggestion: we can put it in a header. See Demo 1-C I just added. Better? -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Ah, I think I finally understand your proposal here. My responses are: Why do we need a link? We don't need a link to a grand overview. Firstly, most WP links work at the same level or down -- infoboxes and what not don't all point to "medicine" or "anatomy" or a parent subject. Users are not likely to be interested, even though the set of navboxes is quite impressive. I don't think that readers need to "grasp" there are more templates, if they are interested in those topics I think it is up to them to peruse them. Secondly, these navboxes are embedded in other navboxes. So a user sees them in the context of a template about drugs relating to bone. I think it is excessive to have every such template link to a grand overview of templates. Why must it be an article? Yes I agree here. If we are going to link to a list of templates, then it should be in article space. Even if we don't link directly, it would be a useful page to have to link to on other venues (eg in documentation, on the WPMED and WPANATOMY pages, and so forth). I agree with you that it is useful to have an article to catalogue all these templates for posterity, but I disagree we need to link to this list in every one of these embedded navboxes. Why does the link to medical system look this way? I agree with you here, too. If we are going to include the link, then presenting it in an elegant way will make all the difference. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC) First this, technical: if it becomes an article, the content will not be the set of navboxes (as {{Medicine_navs}} is today). The content will be formed into a List article (sections, bullets, indents). The navbox appearance (blue backgrounds) will be stripped. That will be edited later on, because first we want the texts & lists to be OK (that core Draft page we edit is the defining place, the rest will be copy/pastes). This template {{Medicine navs}} will be used in the green documentation only (below each of the 36 block templates). That's for us template editors. re Why link?: imo that sub-topic (block header) like 'bone and cartilage' appears not from the article it is used in, but it is added more or less from the outside. Like other navigation boxes have "Category:topic X" and "Portal:topic X" links at the bottom. That is: one link to parent and sibling topics. I will chew on your response some more. re Where to link? Well, we agree that the article should exist, so if we link we know where to. re Why the looks', agree, if we use it it better be in a (sub-)title-bar style (as Demo-C has). Earlier Demo-B style is bad for this. -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but would it be an idea to focus on this after the improved navboxes have gone live? We can add this later and i think fixing the ghastly current state of the navboxes should be priority. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Good point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Good point indeed. (If only TomLT gave in, accepting my proposal ;-) ). Expect this issue to return in future navs discussions, because it touches good nav design (it's worth dying for—but not today). -16:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC) {{System and organs}} And for when we do get into discussing this, we shouldn't forget the existense of the template (above) that is already in use.PizzaMan (♨♨) 01:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Edit: have moved the template above so that the page isn't indented along with the template. Thanks for pointing this out.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC) re PizzaMan: we already have a template doing this, and doing it better: {{Medicine navs}}. It's the template on whose talkpage we are writing here. My point is: it should not be a template but an article, and we should link to it in the 36 blocks. Actually, the current 'old' version does so. To get back to the point: PizzaMan, do you think we should add (=keep) a link to that higher overview, or not? In the template, it could be in the title like: "Index of bone and cartilage medical topics". -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Moved to 'post-deployment' as we've agreed to discuss it then. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Misunderstanding: "post-deployment" is for related things we have to do, but can only do after going live. Not for delayed topics (those simply should start anew later). -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.