Jump to content

Template talk:Medicine navs/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 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)

RfC - Post-closure discussions

The RfC #5 Roundtable discussion on legibiltity and usability of medical navs is closed. The outcome will be implemented. Any new or reopened discussion can follow here. 15:40, 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:
  1.  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
  2.  Done Closing the RfC topics (for some reason the archive is only applying to a little bit at the top)
  3.  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:
  1. I will update the link on the documentation page
  2. 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)

Removal of Gray's Anatomy numbers from Anatomy templates

Consensus here and at the same thread on WPANATOMY to remove the GA numbers from navboxes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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:

  1. It's confusing for readers to see both and leads to long template names, that are a little confronting (see above).
  2. It's confusing to have two overlapping sets of classification
  3. 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)
  • 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)

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)

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.

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)


General discussion

Preliminary discussions

OK as a general note, I think that there are a few different types of problems we'll be discussing:

  • Merging templates with a small scope
  • Renaming templates to accurately reflect their scope
  • Renaming templates to either lay terms or the current standard scientific terms
  • Standardising template names

After the navs are deployed, we can start discussing and looking at these problems. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably smart to keep the 37 medicine navs apart for the renaming process. Keeps this neighborhood clean, and they have been reviewed already.
I get from PM's notes here that there are also merges in sight. And content changes (plain edits). All connected. Given that there are thousand? "medicine templates" (at least 600 for sure using a medicine navs subtemplate), I strongly advise to pick & keep some organisation. (attack a small and coherent group/tree/net of these templates, say 40 max). Also there could be general new layout guidelines needed/chosen (eg, Gray out, TA above not in title, away with the colors). Again, this requires discipline.
Did I tell you that I wanted to take more time off in January? -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeh, to be clear (for other users) these are just plans, nothing is set in stone. I will probably spend less time editing in the next few days too. I agree with what you say DePiep, we will probably need to have another discussion about these sort of things (Although we certainly have the groundwork laid) before we begin. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Done: some templates had a slash (/) in their name. I changed that into "and", by a page move e.g. Template:Bone/cartilage physiology → Template:Bone and cartilage physiology. (a slash would make it a subtemplate page of Template:Bone, which is not needed). The slashed-name is a redirect, and some pages do link to that. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
With template names, I think we can split up the discussion to smaller discussions. One will be straightforward moves (spelling mistakes, slashes, etc.). One will be individual discussions of mergers; another individual discussions of renames to reflect current scope or outdated terms; and discussions of groups of templates to standardise terminology (eg the "upper extremity / upper limb / arm" difference that occurs). I also strongly reiterate that I agree with what you say above about selecting defined groups of templates to work on when we are actually making the changes. Lastly, depending on how the Wikidata transition goes, some other discussions we should have before we start include: concluding the discussion about colouring; what to do with the TA/GA data (perhaps it can automatically be stripped by a bot and replaced with an 'above=Identifiers:' display that is slightly less prominent); removing the parent topics included in navigation names (for example whether such names as "Bone and cartilage: facial skeleton - neurocranium" could be renamed to "Bones of the neurocranium")... any other topics that should be discussed before we start editing? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe this approach could work fine, for all 600 med navigation templates. PizzaMan likes to edit everything everywhere, as we know. Why not agree: "1. Within a template content edits can be done Boldly." Others can follow that in a RecentChanges list. "2. Interaction be proposed here first". That is: template move (name change), merge, adding new structures. 3. A completely separate road (new thread here) should concern the overall layout and format issues (colors, TA, keep them look alike). One problem: other editors might join in the editing too, triggering manyfold discussions. -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with what you say above, there is simply too much to do to discuss edits within templates, but we should collaborate when doing template moves and what not. Am happy if other editors participate, so long as they don't want to do an about face on change course just after weeks of discussion =P. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Edited to correctly indent
General question for DePiep. If we are going to do this to templates, do we have to list them at templates for discussion? If possible I would rather notify the relevant projects and continue discussion here, as I generally find on such venues as TfD I have to waste a lot of time with users who are very willing to offer a strong opinion but reticent to actually engage with the subject matter. Secondly, how does one mark templates for a merge? I have been trying to find the template that shows a little line above, but I'm having a lot of trouble locating it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No, no need to go to TfD for every edit or page move.
About content edits. First, content edits are the basic regular edits, in an individual (template) page. That is by Bold-Revert-Discuss as always. So once your edit is disputed/reverted/causing editwar/not clear, one should go to the talkpage and open a thread. (Do not try to centralise that for 600 pages. Prevent making it a wiki-wide discussion out of an edit/proposal at ~all costs). Good thing is that only interested editors will show up there, mostly. Editors with topical knowledge, about topical knowledge. My experience is that these threads can be quite productive, a bit like the detailed topics we did in the RfC here. Even if that Talkpage does not solve it into some consensus, TfD is not a solution. Better let it rest, instead of forcing an early decision. Note that this takes loads of time and patience; one can not speed up a conversation. Luckily you can spend waiting time in an other template :-).
About merges & moves. Undisputed moves can be done right away (or asked at WP:RM, if technically needed). I did that when changing "template:x/y" into "template:x and y" recently. Also plain errors in the name (knowlegde) are undisputed. Even then, someone can dispute it aftewerwards, and so you go to the template's talkpage.
Here is my big point: even disputable moves & merges better be pre-discussed on the talkpage, without RM tag and not at TfD. The same interested & knowing editors will show up, good. Once you have a sensible consensus there, the move is undisputed - voila. This prevents going to TfD, where each and every editor will come along, with or without helpful contribution. (My experience in this: within my pet project WT:ELEMENTS I've proposed dozens of moves & big changes to templates, even in bigger sets/schemes. Patience, and loyalty to a good discussion: when a well-performed discussion decides against me, I'll execute that edit loyally).
I add: it might be useful & safe to notify WT:MED, WT:ANAT for a merge discussion. link to that talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done [4] [5]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Deletions go to TfD, except when from a discussed move-&-reorder scheme.
(TfD technicality How to merge? you ask. If a merge can not be done by discuss & consensus on a nearby talkpage, you can go to TfD. The manual at WP:TfD has three steps. These steps have mixed the names for "delete a template" (like "tfd") and "merge templates" (like "tfm"). A bit a confusing manual this way, but the process is the same. Be sure to tag the templates involved).
IMO, do not centralize. Already PizzaMans opening list here has 10 or 100 topics, mostly unrelated. It will be chaos when each todo-note is turns into a discussion. Better: stay on the templates talkpage. And follow these pages as tight as you can. (maybe agree with PizzaMan beforehand that you'll first work on the eg Heart-templates only. See what box of latent reactions it opens). You should maybe advertise the actions at WT:MED and WT:ANAT (each and every TfD for sure), but again do not make each edit in 21500 articles templates a wikiwide issue. For some coordination, if required, you can use this page, or WT:MED or WT:ANAT itself why not.
Layout & format issues should be discussed central, could be here. But they are to be kept apart from content edits & moves. Maybe decide to leave them alone, or do all before, but not meanwhile? I dunno. I don't have much time. -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I think one of us should sort the list above in the proposed structure. I propose we allow one of us three to remove the signature from each individual point and sort/structure them. I think it's oficcially not allowed to do such things, but i hereby ok it if one of you wants to do it. Or i offer to do it if you're both ok. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I wrote the opposite: not from a central structure. I have the impression that PizzaMan prefers roaming around more freely, which can be served that way. I think indiv edits, and follow the list, can work. I won't do this structuring proposed. -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. What I and I think Pizzaman are proposing DePiep is not discussing ever article here, but just keeping a list of what needs doing and marking it as we go, so that we can keep track of things. Pizzaman I'm happy for you to do that with my entries... I created the threads @ the bottom of the page for this reason, too.--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Umm. I am in, I think, agreement also with most of what you say, DePiep, ie individual templates shouldn't be discussed in a centralised fashion, but as stated I do think we should keep track so that we can keep and mark-off a 'todo' list of templates that need attention. We must centralise for some things though. Two small example issues are down below and more will follow. It is beyond my capacity as an editor to keep on track with so many templates, particularly for eg the "extremities" set below.. there are probably 18 pages involved, so we must centralise somewhere and here seems to be a good place to do it... in addition it's related to the subject matter. With regard to mergers, I generally propose them and then wait. Occasionally (say 1/10) of said proposed mergers, a user, usually out of the blue, will have a good point as to why they shouldn't be carried through. So I think marking the templates for proposed merge if possible would be valued there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I will notify WPMED and WPANAT again in general about these discussions and plans for a template cleanup and some discussions, but I do not think there is anything specifically we will be doing which will require project-wide involvement on the talk pages. Much of what we are doing, I suspect, will be "wikignoming" --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
In summary, I am happy if Pizzaman removes my signatures in those lists and starts compiling some lists of what needs cleaning (some sorting, eg cleanup vs. renames vs. mergers would be helpful) --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This page as a todo list or to have some efficient backoffice communication - will be fine. However, for a more formal merge discussion &tc. there shall be not two places of discussion. Note that I also tried to give way to the intense & prolific way of editing by PizzaMan (instead of being penned). Think I better leave this now. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, i was just referring to sorting the todo list on this page (and the centralized discussion that might evolve from it) according to "renames/mergers/additions/removals" and "index templates/templates listed in the index templates". I propose first separating out the index templates and their proposed renames/mergers/etc, followed by the proposed renames/mergers/etc to the other templates.
  • Index templates
  • Mergers
  • Rename template name
  • Additions/Removals of items in template
  • Other mutations
  • Other templates (as listed in the index templates and below)
  • Mergers
  • Rename template name
  • Additions/Removals of items in template
  • Other mutations
Just to structure the list on this page. As for the place to discuss such things as mergers, i think you mean that should be discussed on the talk pages of those templates? I'm fine with discussing here and leaving a link on the talk pages of the templates, or the other way around. I have no preference for either. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As you like. Yes I'd advise a merge disc at a template talkpage, for more relaxed and natural discussion flow (as I described above). All feathered birds can come by. Whatever one does, a split over two pages is a horror and is wikillegal. I'll be back here only by request. -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help DePiep. We are doing this to improve the encyclopedia, and we're not violating any natural laws, so hopefully you can still sleep easy =P. Will almost definitely be contacting you at some point in discussions too. But first things first. We first need a list of what we actually intend to do. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done have split the 'todo' list into subsections above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup list

Medicine

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Template_cleanup_--_help_needed!
 – Tasks relating to "Medeical" templates moved to WP:MED --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

  1. {{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)
  2. {{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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physiology § Template cleanup -- help needed
 – Tasks relating to "Physiology" templates moved to WP:PHYSIOLOGY --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

  1. {{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)

Dental

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dentistry § Templates in need of cleanup
 – Tasks relating to "Dentistry" templates moved to WP:DENTISTRY --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Open Tasks
 – Tasks relating to "Anatomy" templates moved to WP:ANATOMY Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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)
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
OK hang on PizzaMan, I'm getting confused here. Are you talking about the names of the templates themselves, or the actual names displayed here? (There's a difference). --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I second this: hang on. Do not touch the 36 "Abc navs" templates in this thread. -DePiep (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Both. The name of the template as it shows up in the templates we're working on is already changed to Muscle. But i think the name of the template itself should also be changed. As with all the proposed changes here. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like some variant of "Disease-causing bacteria". This is an almost literal translation of 'patho/genic' and nonmedical editors can understand it. We already accept some grey area in other templates and I think it is adequately summarised here (ie not all these bacteria cause disease all the time and not all disease is caused by these bacteria). I have no particular semantic preference but do hope we can remove the word "pathogenic". --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiData

Underway

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)
 Done. {{Lymph immune and complement navs}} -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Medicine_navs/Archive_3&oldid=900236930"