Template talk:Medicine navs/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Medicine navs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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
|
---|
|
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, i made a first edit. To start off, i just looked at the drugs bits.
PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:40, 23 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) |
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
|
---|
|
Use 'below'?
keep "|below=" usage in parent template
|
---|
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}} |
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)
|
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)
|
- 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 categorydone- 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)
- Why not make it correct and consistent on the draf page? - PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Code in templates must be correct & consistent. Draft is for content. -DePiep (talk) 16:20, 29 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)
- Prefer to do that by myself, to keep final technical checks the same. -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK I'll be here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:27, 28 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)
- .
- .
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- A lot of corrections i made were reverted to reintroduce errors. Please discuss above. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:43, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Waiting for PizzaMan to say OK. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 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)
- 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)
- 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. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
|
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)
|
---|
|
Anatomical subdivisions
Anatomical subdivisions should be retained
| ||
---|---|---|
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:
The proposal is to remove those eight ()-bracketed subsections of Anatomy. DePiep (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
|
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)
|
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)
|
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)
Exactly what text (pattern) do you prefer? -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
|
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)DonePut 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Moved to 'post-deployment' as we've agreed to discuss it then. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
|