Template talk:Medicine navs

Feedback

Hello! Wow... I only just discovered these templates yesterday, when looking up some antibiotics. I'm a med student from Switzerland, in my infectious diseases rotation, and i sometimes get confused by all the antibiotic classes, etc. During my whole studies I always found that a hierarchical (but not too strictly) and therefore logical overview helps me a lot in understanding (and learning by heart...) anything. And wow... these templates are wonderful! Thanks so much to everyone involved in this, thanks for all your efforts! Yesterday i printed the classifications with antibiotics. I took a screen shot and then printed the image since Wikipedia doesn't seem to offer printing a template. Now, after having a look at all the other so helpful templates it would just be of great, great help if one could extract/export these templates in an electronic way (and therefore searchable). Is this in any way possible? Thanks again so much and all the best, Philipp

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.8.226 (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the most beautiful (and functional) things I've seen on wikipedia. Thanks, Arcadian, for your incredible work.

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. bact(+/-p/-o)/virs/fung/para(a,e,c,h,r), epon is quite a mouthful.)

If you want to prevent this, I am going to makes some suggestions: 1) Move some of the documentation ("NOTES:") to the top of the page? 2) Give a more thorough account of the downsides of lengthening the names. e.g., Are these abbreviations employed in pages other than this one?

user:Agradman, editing today as 160.39.220.88 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I agree with most of your concerns. Template:Infection navs is unwieldy. It should probably be split up, but I'm still trying to figure out the cleanest dividing lines, and build the surrounding architecture to support it. (Same thing goes for Template:Metabolic navs.) My goal is to keep each metanav on a single line (excluding the displays on netbooks and cellphones). I do my work on several different computers and browsers, and the combination where it comes the closest to wrapping is using Safari on a MacBook. Just today, I was able to get Template:Central nervous system navs down to a single line again on that platform, but I had to remove three spaces to make do it. Per point #1: I've added a small note at the top of the page, but feel free to expand/reorganize the documentation. --Arcadian (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now split the nav you mentioned. Any feedback? --Arcadian (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think navs necessarily need to be on a single line. I think they do need to be understandable. This is incomprehensible.--Taylornate (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2011 (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)

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)

Removal of Gray's Anatomy numbers from Anatomy templates

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)