Template talk:Medicine navs/Archive 3
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 4 | Archive 5 |
Feedback after roundtable changes
perhaps add "QRS" complex in the Arrhythmia "other/ungrouped" category to further information for the reader, as I see you have included the Hexagonal reference system for the purpose of further information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback Ozzie. I think this actually relates to the template itself rather than the changes we've made here, but I'll still have a look. What template are you looking at? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- the one on the talk page main wikiproject med it just seems like a good bit of added info, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for editing. Former bottom lines of the templates were cryptic. Now it's style is very easy to understand to me. Thanks a lot.--Was a bee (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- We saved an old version for history: {{Bone and cartilage navs/old}}. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
An improvement in my opinion. The previous abbreviated links were a bit esoteric. Only concern is that some of the templates are now getting quite long.
A specific concern about a template itself: Template:Symptoms involving head and neck. This is poorly organized in my opinion... Furthermore, there are 100s of symptoms involving head and neck which are not included. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Matthew. I've added it to the list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Matthew, 'quite long' indeed. See these two demos that show the effect of writing abbr in long (from 1 to 4 rows). However, apart from being unusual to regular visitors like you, that it is not that bad. I have discovered that the people who do the grand page design (at mediawiki, or enwiki), are favouring whitespace all around (whitespace as in margins, between text lines, around a box or an image: whitespace not lines or tight text). Their philosophy is about pleasant reading, and pleasant glancing. The human eye is very good with glancing at a page, looking for info, without actually reading. A good page design helps this. So more space for these tables is not bad, and the navbox-structured blocks we made (three rows with a header) also support that glace-capability.
- To compare whitespace usage: a modern infobox versus an old table-with-lines: Silver, Ammonia. Once you and your eyes are used to it, you'll want more of this (it's the upper part of these templates that is restless, and needs more space!). -DePiep (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wish to thank Tom LT910001 and PizzaMan for their cooperation in this makeover. Sure some energy was spilled along the way, but it all was worth the improvement and a cooperation it was. -DePiep (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I too wish to thank LT910001 and DePiep for the great collaboration. It was quite satisfying to ask a colleague to name a random medicine/anatomy related topic. She picked a pretty rare Köhler disease yet there it was: the template index smiling at us at the bottom of the page :-)
- It seems, as we anticipated, that a lot of the feedback here is about individual templates and not our index templates. Perhaps we should refer that feedback to the talk pages of those templates? Or to another general wp:med talk place. Then again i started a general list here ;-) PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we can just add them to the hodge-podge list below. Doesn't seem like we're about to be overwhelmed by responses as I initially feared =P. And I better thank DePiep and Pizzaman for being great collaborators too. It has been quite satisfying, particularly where we are able to reach a mutual point of consensus on many issues.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. Let's keep the little feedback we get collected centrally here. Hutspot it is and i like that ;-) - PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we can just add them to the hodge-podge list below. Doesn't seem like we're about to be overwhelmed by responses as I initially feared =P. And I better thank DePiep and Pizzaman for being great collaborators too. It has been quite satisfying, particularly where we are able to reach a mutual point of consensus on many issues.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
RfC - Post-closure discussions
- Not good: When navs are stacked, the margin below (2px whitespace between the navs) does not show, they are glued. See Template:Eponymous medical signs for nervous system. (Does not happen when using
|listn=
three times. Not advised yet, all templates use|below=
now). -DePiep (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Related: the navs are all {{navbox child}} boxes. So the bg color is a lighter shade of blue (not as the lefthand-col color, but as the the 2nd column in standard navboxes) -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Next update: give those used in template space their own category (~600 templates now). These are the parent templates. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Post-closure discussion notes:
- Thanks for implementing this, DePiep, you've done a lot of work. Some things that I'll be doing this morning:
- Done Notifying WPMED [1], WPPHARM Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Notification_--_many_pharmacological_navboxes_have_changed, WPANATOMY Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Notification_--_anatomy_navboxes_have_changed
- Done Closing the RfC topics (for some reason the archive is only applying to a little bit at the top)
- Done Reviewing the 'documentation' page ({{Bone and cartilage navs/doc}}) and leaving some notes there
- I've updated {{Bone and cartilage navs/doc}}. When you deploy Draft:Overview of medical systems:
- I will update the link on the documentation page
- I will move the documentation page so that it's in a central location.
Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Last updated: --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: The WP:RfC closures are odd to me because they are closed by people involved in the WP:RfCs. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:RFC#Ending RfCs:--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
...if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable
- Huh? Another feedback thread? In top & before the topic? -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. Well I saw the thread "Feedback" but that's several years old so I think it should be closed so that feedback isn't erroneously lumped together. But if it's closed and there's not a thread called "feedback" then users might think I closed it in error and reopen it... hence the new thread. OK, I'm off to celebrate NY. Happy NY! --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, DePiep, I already knew what WP:RFC#Ending RfCs states; that doesn't take away from the fact that I usually see WP:RfCs closed by people who are not involved in the WP:RfCs; that's what my eyes are significantly more used to regarding WP:RfC closures. In other words, that's why I called the closures odd. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- My post here was about Tom, who created a second section for Feedback on the RfC. It was not about you (none here by me was). -DePiep (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, DePiep, I already knew what WP:RFC#Ending RfCs states; that doesn't take away from the fact that I usually see WP:RfCs closed by people who are not involved in the WP:RfCs; that's what my eyes are significantly more used to regarding WP:RfC closures. In other words, that's why I called the closures odd. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Removal of Gray's Anatomy numbers from Anatomy templates
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.
I propose that we remove the Gray's Anatomy numbers from the anatomy series of templates. An example template is here:
The template has both a Gray's Anatomy number and a Terminologica Anatomica number. First I'd like to start by acknowledging the stellar job of making these templates, it's amazing to have such a thorough catalogue of the human body. I'd like to propose thought that we remove the GA numbers and retain the TA numbers. I propose this because:
- It's confusing for readers to see both and leads to long template names, that are a little confronting (see above).
- It's confusing to have two overlapping sets of classification
- TA is a widely used and acknowledged classification, whereas (at least in my knowledge), the classification system used by Gray's Anatomy is only used here.
I think just one classification system (TA) used on templates is enough. To be clear I'm referring to removing the "(GA x-y)" on the template headings. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortuanately, the same discussion evolves here too, below a mere notification. -DePiep (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I posted reason at Anatomy project page[2] --Was a bee (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Question I have no !vote, it is not in my league. But why delete completely? If it has some real life professional meaning or use, it better be mentioned & maintained here. In the other thread about this, someone even ask for Wikidata to handle it. OTOH, if people out there are using bad or confusing or misleading data, isn't that noted about this GA somewhere?
- So my question is, in general: keep the data somewhere, or delete this GA everywhere? In this sandbox I made a crude demo of putting it elsewhere (todo: it should flow more nicely with the other below data. Boy/girl, you doctors use a lot of codes & abbreviations. You even scare off the software programmers!). -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since Gray is supported in, for example, {{Infobox bone}} and in Mandibular foramen, I think this data fact better be kept in the navbox. But not in the header. Given the WP:NAVBOX intentions & purposes, I come to my proposal, below. -DePiep (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's a navbox, don't forget. I can think of two big reasons to remove GA completely: 1. does not belong directly to the navbox' topic or 2. something is awfully wrong with the (GA-)data (it's fishy, it smells, is outdated, unchecked, not in use since 1999, we cannot get it right at WP, &tc). Otherwise: keep it in there. In a navbox, as in an infobox, the association present is important ("I know the TA, but what was its GA again?"). I repeat I don't know the topic professionally or scolarly. But it occurs to me that it is up to you, so to speak, to prove that the GA is irrelevant here. Be prepared to face our future Readers who will expect it here & miss it here! ;-) -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hah, now that's an image! Well let me put it this way. Gray's Anatomy is a textbook for Anatomy. It's not free. We don't regularly advertise what relevant chapters there are in textbooks relating to other areas (eg in medicine, history, or any other discipline), and I don't think here is a good place to start. In addition we have the international standard TA. We should not be treating them with equal weight. In addition, there is little benefit other than for wikignomes to knowing how the contents of a navbox were classified. A regular reader will use the title of the navbox to understand the contents. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to you all to find an outcome. -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support Gray's anatomy is actually free, because the version we use here on WP is from 1918. As such it can be used for public domain anatomy pictures. But Gray's anatomy is definitely not a standardized or recognized system or classification of any kind. To be honest, in my opinion, wikipedia is sufficiently interlinked through hyperlinks that the GA images only have a purpose on individual articles. And even then only when we don't have anything better, such as a more clearly drawn picture or a color picture. With all due respect for the editors who put a lot of effort in adding the GA "system" to wikipedia, but the GA "system" and pages such as List_of_subjects_in_Gray's_Anatomy:_IX._Neurology are imho obsolete and should be removed from WP entirely. It's not an existing system, making it WP:ORIGINAL. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are 615 templates to be checked. See #List below: A and B union is the most complete set. Plus new templates made after 30 Dec. Ask me if unclear. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Gray's anatomy is actually free, because the version we use here on WP is from 1918. As such it can be used for public domain anatomy pictures. But Gray's anatomy is definitely not a standardized or recognized system or classification of any kind. To be honest, in my opinion, wikipedia is sufficiently interlinked through hyperlinks that the GA images only have a purpose on individual articles. And even then only when we don't have anything better, such as a more clearly drawn picture or a color picture. With all due respect for the editors who put a lot of effort in adding the GA "system" to wikipedia, but the GA "system" and pages such as List_of_subjects_in_Gray's_Anatomy:_IX._Neurology are imho obsolete and should be removed from WP entirely. It's not an existing system, making it WP:ORIGINAL. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to you all to find an outcome. -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hah, now that's an image! Well let me put it this way. Gray's Anatomy is a textbook for Anatomy. It's not free. We don't regularly advertise what relevant chapters there are in textbooks relating to other areas (eg in medicine, history, or any other discipline), and I don't think here is a good place to start. In addition we have the international standard TA. We should not be treating them with equal weight. In addition, there is little benefit other than for wikignomes to knowing how the contents of a navbox were classified. A regular reader will use the title of the navbox to understand the contents. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's a navbox, don't forget. I can think of two big reasons to remove GA completely: 1. does not belong directly to the navbox' topic or 2. something is awfully wrong with the (GA-)data (it's fishy, it smells, is outdated, unchecked, not in use since 1999, we cannot get it right at WP, &tc). Otherwise: keep it in there. In a navbox, as in an infobox, the association present is important ("I know the TA, but what was its GA again?"). I repeat I don't know the topic professionally or scolarly. But it occurs to me that it is up to you, so to speak, to prove that the GA is irrelevant here. Be prepared to face our future Readers who will expect it here & miss it here! ;-) -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm lost and confused. LT910001 Tom here proposes to add GA1918 to wikidata. Good enough for d:, but not in a navigation?
- I don't know about med, so I left this topic. But I do know about navigation, and now it appears that GA1918 is being removed from navigation for the wrong reasons. Simple: either it is useful & used, or not. -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks DePiep. Yes -- we should remove them from wiki navboxes AND store them in wikidata! My thinking here goes like this: I personally do not think the numbers are useful, for reasons that I've detailed above. Ont he other hand, I hate to remove any information once it's recorded. In particular, if future users wish to revisit the use of the numbers* *The only use I can think of would be for sourcing of currently unmarked text by some future wiki-archaeologist, I would like it to be stored somewhere. Wikidata aims to be such a repository of data, so it seems a logical first step for this data to be stored there. Hence although I do not personally believe it is useful, I do believe that before we stop using it here, we store it in Wikidata first. There's no harm to storing it there, and there's no rule that states once stored we must make that data visible here.
- You also make reference to the GA data's navigational value. That is exactly my point, and the point of users above too. There is no navigational utility for the GA numbers because no user browses navboxes according to how they are numbered, and even if they did, no 2015 user would do this based on an off-the-cuff familiarity with 1918 Gray's Anatomy subject indexation. That said, there may be other (as yet unspecified) future uses which I think warrant storing the GA numbers somewhere before they are removed from the navboxes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. 600+ navboxes is quite a job, but i think we both very well summed up why the GA "system" should be removed. Saving it in wikidata first sounds like a great plan too. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think I get it. Probably ask a wikidata-specialised bot then, that also does the removal from template? -DePiep (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. 600+ navboxes is quite a job, but i think we both very well summed up why the GA "system" should be removed. Saving it in wikidata first sounds like a great plan too. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The navbox data GA has been transferred to wikidata [3]. I would like to close this thread, and considering here and feedback @ WPANATOMY, mark this as consensus to remove the GA numbers from navboxes entirely. Any objections? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Template cleanup
Preliminary discussions
Moved from discussion above. Separate topic. -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea to move. This isn't related to plans for the embedded navboxes but is something that needs fixing too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for moving it DePiep. It's very slightly related, Tom, because while making (improving) the navboxes, we run into issues of navboxes overlapping. But it should definitely be a separate disussion. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thx. The place for a template move is with the template itself (-talkpage). Any navbox (like this one) should only follow such moves, not initiate. -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind me using this talk page for keeping track before we bring it to the template talk pages. I don't want to loose any, but i want to think about it for a bit, before mass-proposing these renames. that will be a pretty huge project and it's not the highest priority atm, we should try to fix the navboxes with what we currently got, before renaming and merging. Also, sometimes it may be enough to rename how we call the template in these navboxes, rather than renaming the template.PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, for tracking & oversight discussion this is very good (central talking similar issues). However, any WP:MEDICINE editor would go crazy (silently or violently) when changes appear without any hint of a talkpage link. I would too. So, at some moment you'll have to go to connect with them. I myself am very loyal to discussions (I will implement conclusions that go against my opinion), but only when editors do actively work to get a good discussion. To be clear: the 36-navs RfC discussion, above, is going great. -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind me using this talk page for keeping track before we bring it to the template talk pages. I don't want to loose any, but i want to think about it for a bit, before mass-proposing these renames. that will be a pretty huge project and it's not the highest priority atm, we should try to fix the navboxes with what we currently got, before renaming and merging. Also, sometimes it may be enough to rename how we call the template in these navboxes, rather than renaming the template.PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thx. The place for a template move is with the template itself (-talkpage). Any navbox (like this one) should only follow such moves, not initiate. -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
General discussion
Preliminary discussions
|
---|
OK as a general note, I think that there are a few different types of problems we'll be discussing:
After the navs are deployed, we can start discussing and looking at these problems. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Done have split the 'todo' list into subsections above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Cleanup list
Medicine
I have moved items relating to cleanup of medical templates to WP:MED, with the exception of the two below. Permalink [6] --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{Lymphatic organ disease}} should be renamed to "Template:Other lymphatic organ disease" to distinguish it from congenital and tumor lymphatic disease.
- "Other" than what? Better a better name. -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that 'Other' is not ideal, and in fact I am happy with this title as it is. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Other" than what? Better a better name. -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{Diseases of meninges}} consider merge and rename to 'meningitis'. (Added:) or inclusion of other meningeal diseases, eg. cancer. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Physiology
I have moved items relating to cleanup of physiology templates to WP:PHYSIOLOGY, with the exception of the one below. Permalink [7] --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{Endocrinology physiology}} should be merged into Template:Hormones PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree here. I feel there's a distinction between the physiology of the endocrine system and the articles just on the hormones themselves. I think the physiology article could be expanded and that may alleviate your concerns. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- not moved per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree here. I feel there's a distinction between the physiology of the endocrine system and the articles just on the hormones themselves. I think the physiology article could be expanded and that may alleviate your concerns. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Dental
I have moved articles relating to cleanup of dentistry templates to WP:DENTISTRY. Permalink [8] --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Anatomy
I have moved articles relating to cleanup of anatomy templates to a page on WP:ANATOMY. I will do the same for physiology templates and medical templates at some point, too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Moves or titles
- Here's the moves i would propose for the navbox names:
- I think "Integumentary system, superficial fascia, and loose connective tissue" and "Skin appendage" should be merged to "Skin" by combining all links and deleting duplicates.
- The template "Template:Channel blockers" should be replaced by a new template "Template:Channel blocker antihypertensives", which just contains the channel blockers that are actually used as antihypertensives (just come Calcium blockers, the diuretics, diazoxide, and minoxidil that i know of).
- The templates of gastrointestinal diseases (Template:Digestive system diseases, Template:Digestive system neoplasia and Template:Congenital malformations and deformations of digestive system) aren't properly delineated. The congenital disorders from "Template:Digestive system diseases" should be moved to "Template:Congenital malformations and deformations of digestive system" and infectious GI diseases should get their own template, after which Template:Digestive_system_diseases should become a template for other (non-tumor, non-infectious, non-congenital) diseases.
- Same for Vascular, where Template:Vascular diseases should be "Template:Other vascular diseases (non-tumor, non-congenital, non-lymphatic, non-traumatic)" or something similar. For vascular disorders a separate infections template isn't called for, as opposed to GI.
- Same for the respiratory system. "Template:Respiratory pathology" should probably be split in infections and other (other than Congenital, Tumors, Injury, infections)
- Same for the mouth. Template:Oral pathology should be "other than congenital, jaw disease and tumors"
- A rename might be good, but please prevent naming it "Other ...". The "Other then what?" question should be prevented, that overview is not in sight. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- The template is currently already titled "Other hematological drugs". But if we want to clarify it would be "Template:Hematological drugs other than antithrombotics and antihemorrhagics" - PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- A rename might be good, but please prevent naming it "Other ...". The "Other then what?" question should be prevented, that overview is not in sight. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll go through the page once more when the other boxes have also been given a new layout, so then i'll probably add a few more points to this list.PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Myeloid could be renamed to "Bone marrow" or "Myeloid cell" or "Cells from the bone marrow". First it should be checked that the term "Myeloid" isn't used in both (differing) meanings, but for now i think "Cells from the bone marrow" is the best option.
- Mycosis to Fungal disease
- Olfaction to smell
- Infestation to "Parasites and pests"
- "Endocrine system" to "Hormones"
- "Muscle, deep fascia and dense regular connective tissue" could probably be renamed to just "Muscle", with the "deep fascia" and the "dense regular connective tissue" links moved to anatomy. I think the deep fascia and dense regular connective tissue are mostly accesory structures to the muscles. Perhaps in this context, dense regular connective tissue can be referred to as just "connective tissue".PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Relates to previous discussion
|
---|
|
WikiData
- Category:Drug templates ATC codes to move? --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Underway
- Template:Lymph immun and complement navs could be renamed to immune system. At least the immun typo should be fixed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 01:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep the "_navs" suffix, fits the set. That would be Template:Lymph immun system navs? -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @DePiep "immune" is missing an "e". Neither Pizza Man nor I have the administrative rights to move the template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- By WP:RM#Uncontroversial_technical_requests: see Template talk:Lymph immun and complement navs. (this page protection needed?) -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @DePiep "immune" is missing an "e". Neither Pizza Man nor I have the administrative rights to move the template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the "_navs" suffix, fits the set. That would be Template:Lymph immun system navs? -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{CEA navs}} to Protozoal infection navs. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Doing... --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)