Template talk:Medicine navs/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

New subnavs

 Done Addressed

It might be necessary to create one or two new subnavs. The problem is relating the subnav to a medical specialty or system, rather than a 'process'. Two subnavs I think we may need are:--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. One relating to development in general, that would contain things like {{Sex differentiation}}, {{Chromosomal abnormalities}}, {{Germ cell tumors}}, {{Embryology}} and quite a few others.
  2. One grand overview, something like "Index of medicine" which would link the overview templates {{Symptoms and signs}}, {{Medical specialities}}, {{Human arteries}}, {{Human veins}}, {{Antibiotics}}, {{Neoplasms}}, {{Human lymphatic vessels}} and so on.
    Edit: to clarify, my meaning is 'subnav', not 'template', so I've changed that in the above statement. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
     Not done In retrospect this is too general and I don't think it should be created. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. Lacking an overall topic: {{Human cell types derived primarily from endoderm}}, {{Human cell types derived primarily from ectoderm}} --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
     Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's often a general template on diseases of a certain system, and then some templates on specific types of disease. For example, in the index template Breast, there's congenital breast diseases, neoplasms and cancer and other. In this case the other template refers to a general Template:Disorders_of_the_breast. But this template does not include congenital and neoplastic disorders. That's why we named it "other" in the index template. Perhaps we should single out notable disease categories that in such "other" templates. for example "Other (mastitis, etc)" or "Other, Mastitis" or Other (such as mastitis) but none of those really feels right to me. The ultimate solution would be moving the mastitis part of the other template to it's own template, but for now: any thoughts on highlighting notable categories of disease in the other (diseases of a system) templates? PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Use of 'eponymous' for symptoms when no 'signs and symptoms' templates exist. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. CNS navs is getting very unwieldy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
     Not done no specific concern. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. There is an urgent need for a genetic diseases infobox (possibly related to one of the biochem ones). --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
     Not done Biochem ones fulfill this purpose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. {{Anatomy navs}} used eg here: {{Anatomical planes and lines}} could be incorporated here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
     Not done No suitable overall topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. {{Nutrition navs}} is currently mostly about vitamins and minerals (metals, co-factors). But it also has links to obesity. It should either include a bunch of links to proteins, carbs and lipids or those parts should be moved to another template. PizzaMan (♨♨) 01:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
     Done sugars + fats moved here. Proteins are covered in 'genetic medicine' because there are no nutrition-related protein templates that I've come across. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Biochemical families (navs)

To examine and improve: Template:Biochemical families(edit talk links history) Redirect now, see Template:Biochemical families navs(edit talk links history)

Looks like this is a navs template too: used same way was we use navs (indexes), in a parent template: [1]. Example parent tempalte: Template:Phospholipids. Used in ~900 articles. Todo: Check, and make into full "navs" template:

-DePiep (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

LT910001@ Tom, please take a look at the sandbox & the changes. Is this biochemistry medical enough? -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think so, DePiep. I wonder if we can combine this with the inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) template? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest idea about how these topics are the same. Isn't "biochemical" a bit far away from medicine? I propose to first declare this a full-blown "medicine navs" template (formatting, usage, listings, name move). Could you postpone such a merge for a future action, so we can set it up first? -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep sure. I will postpone any merge-like activity, although by 'combine' I mean "rearrange", I might divvy up some of the templates in the future if logic dictates, although I'll need some more time to think about this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • checkY. Content now in navs format (from the sandbox). For the move, need to ask permission. -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Moved to {{Biochemical families navs}}. -DePiep (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We must find something better for that bottom row (group name missing). -DePiep (talk)

@Christian75. Does this template actually provide useful navigational value? I think this should be converted from a 'metanav' embedded navbox to an actual navbox placed on actual articles (Alcohol, etc.) and removed as a metanav. In my mind every article on eg. alcohol metabolism doesn't actually need a link to the grand overview of biochemical families. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Scratch that. A better idea is to add these to the 'nutrition' template, to which many of these directly relate. This also will give the structure some standard formatting and provide some relevant links to readers. If there are no objections I'll go about this in the next week or so. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cell structure navs

→ Template:Cell navs(edit talk links history)

This template needs abbreviations replaced. Develop in Template:Cell structure navs/sandbox(edit talk links history). -DePiep (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont think it does so. The new template:Biochemical families is way to big, and for example in template:Amino acids its nearly 50 percent of the template (I removed it from template:Alcohols because its give no sense that half the template space is used for some related templates. I think you should bring it up at WP:MEDICINE, WP:PHARM and WP:MCB Christian75 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you have brought it up, because nearly all templates are changed. I think its a shame because it looks like there are two templates in one. Before it was a "hidden" one liner in the buttom. If I remember correct it against consensus to link to templates from templates. Christian75 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't follow, Christian75. And what you describe is an undiscussed removal. This is about {{Cell structure navs}}, right? Last December, in the navs templates we carefully changed all abbreviations into words (from this, you can agree?). This one should follow IMO. The abbreviations used now are not even jargon, they were invented to 'save space' (which is a bad design guideline). So I suggest we change the abbr's. -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I cant find the consensus from "last December" unless its two people talking. But I oppose the change with the reason given above. Its take up to much space, and should instead be converted to list articles or categories. Christian75 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to test this out on a sandbox too. Sorry for the confusion about what we are talking about Christian75. To summarise what we talked about was that numbers have no navigational value because (a) nobody knows what they mean and (b) they are very difficult to click because they are so small. Hence we agreed to expand them. We also talked about 'what if' there were too many links somewhere along the way, but it wasn't as relevant as there we no templates with as many links as this. I agree with you that it would take up too much space to expand. I would be for simply removing the entire list of links and redirecting everything to a "List of" article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to retain some content, we could retain the point headings such as "Amino acid - XXX - YYY" and link each individual heading to a position in the 'list of' article or the parent article. A third option would be to split up into several index templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Whether Christian75 found it or not, the consensus is there: replace abbreviations words meaningful words. In general, "words makes it too big" is not enough an argument, one can't say "words are forbidden". Anyway, we are here to arrive at a better wording, and maybe structure, for the template. Chris75 could suggest a setup that is less large but has the same information. -DePiep (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Enzyme navs

See Template:Enzyme navs(edit talk links history).

Used in some 60 parent templates: [2], and 1700 articles.

When treated as navs:

  • See {{Enzyme navs/sandbox}} for formatting into navs navbox (child).
  • Add to Medicine navs page & list & categories &tc.
  • The number codes better have a name too
  • Is this medicine enough? Category:Biology templates opens a other area.

-DePiep (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The sandbox is not OK yet. Don't know exactly how we should spelll the number codes. Would be too big? -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree these numbers are particularly unhelpful, but I think this may be on the border of what is here, and I don't really know about this subject area, so I am reticent to touch it. I do however agree with you that spelling these out would be a big improvement. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The numbers are part of the content (ie, enzymes are organised by these numbers). So they better stay. It's just, the template will triple in size. Make this full-blown med navs anyway? -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest replacing all the links (in {{Enzyme navs}}) to templates with a link to the article List of EC numbers Christian75 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It could be added with 

 | below =
; Related topics:
: [[List of EC numbers]]

Christian75 (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Not yet, I'd say. Linking to that article would make the index go 1-deep only (instead of linking to 3-deep (eg, enzyme navs now links to 1.10 = {{Diphenol family oxidoreductases}} which has more detailed links. I'm trying to say: as it is now, it the overview reaches deeper in the number hierarchy, and with links.
We could consider expanding article List of EC numbers with those deeper sublists. First think: put all those templates in the article, to expand the list and with links at that. Second action: then remove the "navbox" structure from it, because navboxes are not content. The list could become indented lines or so. (Is this clear enough? ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Christian75 as above and per what you say, what about just removing this pointless and unusable metanav, and making it an actual navbox transcluded on the parent articles (ie about each class of enzymes)? I am not sure what navigational value this has other than to demonstrate WP has all these enzyme classes in our purview --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Or we could link to the more specific list article listed in the top of List of EC numbers, e.g. List of EC numbers (EC 2)
Not a bad idea - my point is that navboxes should not have links to templates, and if they have, they should not be a central part of the template (e.g. not like Template:Compound structures of skull). Im pretty sure that all the templates at Template:Medicine navs would fail a WP:TfD... Christian75 (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
No way, as a reader / editor the medicine templates are very useful because I can easily switch from anatomy to disease and then treatment. These templates have a very logical link and IMO readers will probably be interested in related subjects (eg if disease, then treatment, if anatomy, then disease), so these templates are very useful. I'm not so sure about the biochem ones though--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Targets better not be templates, but then they should be replaced with equivalent article pages. So we need articles that has the template as content.... Before we have this, the medicine navigation job is way more important that wikilawyering "don't link to templates". -20:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC) (this was me, -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC))
Shall we make it into a full Medicine navs? -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not sure. I think if it is retained, it definitely needs to be expanded so that readers can understand and access the contents. On the other hand I am not sure what content we would integrate into it in terms of 'disease' and 'treatment', and once expanded the template will be very long. So in summary, I don't think we should make it into a medical template, but we should expand it anyway. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Into Medicine navs, now

I have made Template:Enzyme navs(edit talk links history) into a complete MED navs template now. That is, categorising and all that. The template itself could be improved. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom LT, in {{Medicine navs}} it now is placed at the bottom. Could be better? -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

new Category:Medicine navs templates

I have created Category:Medicine navs templates as a central point for all (see its subcategories). Former category Category:Pages that use a Medicine navs subtemplate now is abandoned. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DePiep, these categories are very useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Since there are much changes since 30 December, and when issue of {{Enzyme navs}} is solved (in or out of Med navs?), we could make another cross check list: "template A uses template B, but B does not mention template A". -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How about in a few months? I am not feeling up to another such mammoth endeavour at the moment! --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
A year then. Me too. -DePiep (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey. We cover 28,000 MED articles. -DePiep (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that is a heck of a lot. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes great. So 41 MED navs are in used in 841 templates (see Category:Templates that use a Medicine navs subtemplate‎), and these are in 28,000 articles!
Allow me to say that today {{Enzyme navs}} is in dispute, up for improvement (seriously). I pushed it into this list, recently, but we should be careful. -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Articles that use a Medicine navs subtemplate

Category:Articles that use a Medicine navs subtemplate has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. (just notifying, NOT nominated by me): -DePiep (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Template:Infestation_navs

Deletion has been proposed for {{Infestation navs}} with a stated view to deleting the entire set. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Template:Infestation_navs--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hematological symptoms and signs

Almost all the content needs to be moved to either Template:Myeloid blood tests or Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for blood

I'll also point out the headings and format needs to be standardised and simplified for all three templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Some questionable templates

There are some questionable templates that come up again and again:

and

I am wondering if these templates are extremely broad. The first template can conceivably hold almost any sort of article relating to pain anywhere, and the second can hold any medical test that can be conducted. What would the navigational value of these be? i suggest we trim them back to relate just to general topics, not specific types of pain or tests. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Add: and:

Another pointlessly large template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Eponymous signs

Is there a basis for separating signs on two templates, one for eponymous signs and another for signs not named after people? This may hinder navigation and my feeling is that they should be merged at some point, I doubt readers/editors get a benefit for having signs and symptoms divided in two templates for each specialty. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Tilifa Ocaufa thanks for bringing this up. I agree that this is an arbitrary separation, and I think we should merge them. I think there may also be some users who agree with us, I remember a conversation somewhere on WPMED.
Some categories don't actually have a normal 'signs and symptoms' template, they just have an 'eponymous' one. Should we start by moving those? --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, they should be the easiest to move. I'm still somewhat unfamiliar with the template move proposal process (it looks more complicated than moving articles), so expect me working more on the actual moving/merging if there is consensus to do that. What is the next step now, bringing this up on WP:MED or starting a move request? --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Which templates are we talking about? -DePiep (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Templates like this one {{Eponymous medical signs for nervous system}}. About 2/3 of our templates have these 'eponymous signs and symptoms for [a] system' templates --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tilifa Ocaufa it strikes me that most of the eponymous templates are for signs whereas the other templates are for symptoms. Perhaps we'd be better off just creating a 'symptoms' and 'signs' template for each system? It seems a more logical division than currently. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
(Sorry for the late reply.) Eponymous signs templates are restricted to signs by definition, but '(general) symptoms and signs' templates include both. Separating signs and symptoms in two different templates is much more logical, but I'm afraid that (at least where I live) most people not involved in healthcare don't know the difference between signs and symptoms. I think there is a benefit in having both together and the merging process shouldn't be very time consuming, there aren't too many of these templates. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tilifa Ocaufa update:
{{Obstetric signs and symptoms}} moved from Eponymous signs and symptoms (or something like that)
Merge proposed between {{Eponymous medical signs for urinary system}} and {{Urinary system symptoms and signs}}
Please have a look at the list of templates and we can work through any more articles. Unfortunately my internet is still very slow but by next week I'll be able to help out more. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Great, I've posted a support comment on the proposal and added a list here so we can keep track more easily. We may have a problem regarding musculoskeletal and nervous system templates. There is a 'general' template which is used by CNS, PNS, muscle, bone and joint index navs, and each index template may or may not have its own 'eponymous' template. I feel that we should leave them alone until we have finished merging the rest, and figure out whether they should have separate templates (at least one for CNS/PNS and another for muscle/bone/joints). Something similar happens with the heart/vascular and myeloid navs. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Having had a quick look I can see this is going to be a difficult one. From my quick look I think there are a few additional things we need to do while merging (in no particular order):
  1. Firstly, split the template scopes so that they match the navs, where possible (e.g. eye/ear). It doesn't look like we'll be splitting all the templates either -- orthopedic eponyms is simply too big, and some (e.g. cardiovascular) make a lot of sense being grouped together.
  2. Secondly, expand the templates so that they do actually contain the major symptoms of each condition, not just the current potpourri There are some major omissions here.
  3. Thirdly, move template content where applicable. Many templates contain more than just 'signs' -- e.g. respiratory contains things noted on imaging (not exam), others contain indexes or scores or tests, which probably would be best included on other templates.
  4. Fourthly, general edits to wikify and standardize the template set, which hasn't received much attention over the last couple of years.
That said if we work slowly and steadily we should be able to get this done in a month or so. I agree with you that we should leave difficult things to last, by which time we may have a better idea of what we want to do. Would you be up to start in a few days? My internet is very slow so I've but some section breaks in to make replying easier. I hope that's OK. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tilifa Ocaufa we're just left with a more tricky set of templates, can you lend me a hand with these ones? The main problem is that many of the template sets are just too complicated. I also wonder if the "Orthopedic Eponyms" template could be converted to a list page instead of a huge navbox list? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the musculoskeletal set is that its layout is more complicated than necessary. For example, {{Nervous and musculoskeletal system symptoms and signs}} has 4 sections: 'Primarily nervous, primarily muscular, primarily skeletal and primarily joint'. What I think we should do:
Having taken a look, Musculoskeletal navs look complicated mainly because of the size of their sections. There aren't too many articles actually. If you agree I'll start experimenting with the layout in a sandbox, especially with the (currently non-existent) neurology nav which looks the trickiest. The orthopedic eponyms should definitely be made into a list or category. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

List of templates

Signs and symptoms navs that are  Done

Both general and eponymous

More template cleanup

Per RockMagnetist may of our templates are in need of a cleanup. I've identified several sets during an earlier cleanup that are in my opinion in the most need of cleanup:

@RockMagnetist is this what you had in mind? I am happy to start breaking this task down and getting back to cleaning up these templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@LT910001: These cleanup lists have quite a variety of problems, many of which I doubt I can be much help with. I am mainly focussing on template creep. So the obvious place for me to start would be the eponymous templates. It appears that there is no merging to be done because the eponyms are multiple levels down the hierarchy in the templates, so all that remains is to unlink the templates. And it also appears that the templates are mainly linked through index boxes. So if we want to avoid a lot of unnecessary work, it would be simplest to deal with the index boxes first. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Eponymous signs redux

Above, there was a discussion of merging eponymous navs with non-eponymous navs, and these merges were checked off as "done". Yet most of them still remain and are heavily used:

So what exactly was done? And shouldn't these be deleted? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes as is helpfully documented above there are also a number of boxes not merged. This is because they require more thought and time than I can expend at the moment. This is mainly because the boxes often lump together tests, diagnostic signs, and signs and symptoms on examination, or because the box has a large scope and may need to be split or divided. You are welcome to join me in this but please don't delete them, they serve a useful navigational role when merged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist while I am swinging by this page, would you have a spare moment to help me merge some of the smaller templates above into the main "medical signs and symptoms" templates? This is another way we can help reduce the amount of unnecessary templates and links floating about. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Medicine_navs/Archive_5&oldid=900705258"