Template talk:Medicine navs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Template:Enzyme navs[edit]

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

Used in some 60 parent templates: [1], 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[edit]

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)

Template:Cell structure navs[edit]

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)

Eponymous signs[edit]

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)

new Category:Medicine navs templates[edit]

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)