Template talk:Routes of administration by organ system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In what sort of articles should the "Routes of administration" template be listed?[edit]

I was a bit surprised, that the old "Routes of administration/Dosage forms" template suddenly was split into two seperate templates. After giving it a carefull thought, I found no need to remove some of the content from the "Routes of administration/Dosage forms" template, so this previous content has now been reinstated per 2010-05-06. The remaining question now is, to what extend the new "Routes of administration" template (related to this discussion page), should be used?

By first catch of the eye, I prefer to only use the big integrated template for the "Dosage forms" articles, as this template manage to combine two interrelated templates into one very informative template. As all "dosage forms" follow a specific "route of administration", it is possible to integrate the two templates into a 2-dimensional template, showing first the "routes of administration" in purple boxes and then the "dosage forms" in uncolered boxes. This integrated design still appear for the current "Routes of administration/Dosage forms" template. So the remaining question is, whether some of the wikipedia articles perhaps can bennefit to also have this new seperate "routes of administration" template included, to only show the more overall "routes of administration", without giving the additional info about dosage forms?

My own opinion, is that only the integrated "Routes of administration/Dosage forms" template should be used for the "dosage forms" articles, as it aspire to give the readers both an overview of "dosage forms" and "routes of administration", with a single blink of the eye. The new template created with the title "Routes of administration", right now attempt to categorize the routes in a more general way according to anatomic systems of the human body (ie. where categories as oral, rectal, sublingual and sublabial are merged into the category "Gastrointestinal"). This more general classification might be relevant to show, with the template appearing at the routes of administration article. But somehow I also think it would be best to limit the use of the template, to only that particular article.

I have added both templates right below for their internal comparison. Please let me know your opinion about whether or not the use of the "Routes of administration" template should be restricted to only the "Routes of administration" article. And if not, then feel free to list your argument for which kind of other articles, it would be good to add. :-)

Danish Expert (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

After several days of reflection, I have now decided to update all "dosage forms" article with autoshow of the "Routes of Administration/Dosage forms" template and combined it with the new "Routes of administration" as a hidden template. This serve the purpose of only showing the most informative template, while still adding the secondary template in a collapsed form as a supplement for the curious reader. I suggest we now close the discussion about the use of the template, unless some of you have a different oppinon. :-)
Danish Expert (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirects, duplications, and removal of duplicates[edit]

There was a discussion in the Teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Redundant_navbox), started by Quest for Truth on 27 June 2015, which indicated that because the {{Routes of administration}} template is now being redirected to the {{Dosage forms}} template, articles which contain both templates were showing redundant information. In response, I removed {{Routes of administration}} template from all articles in namespace, which took care of the redundancies. I also updated the use of the {{Dosage forms}} template with the "expanded" instead of the "show" parameter, per the template's definition.

This {{Routes of administration by organ system}} template also redirects to {{Dosage forms}}, but since is not being used in namespace, there is no problem with redundancy. Kekki1978 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)