This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
This section is only about the general formatting and layout (structure) of the Medicine navigation boxes. Any content or merge issue is discussed elsewhere on this page.
Useful links
There are ~625 navigation boxes in MEDicine. They are listed in:
All templates really should have a {{documentation}} page. At least to get an organised set. Of course this does not fit with the (bad) habit to led readers directly into tempalte space (wher they do not exopect wiki-documentation). -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This talkpage: One sublevel 2 (==) for Navboxes, then below use level 3 (===) and 4. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Y Done. -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The content uses "/" (slash) as a list separator: "Developmental dyslexia/Alexia". When I "see this, I cannot grasp what it is supposed to mean: "and"? "or"? "synonym" (forget about this word 'synonym'; DePiep)? I propose stronglyvery strongly to replace that with " and " (or could it mean "or"? -- see, that's the issue). Makes the meaning clear and makes more pleasant reading. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
No. We should not provide synonyms anywhere except in the actual article. It is extremely confusing to have multiple synonyms presented, and can quickly blow out an easy-to-read list of 3-4 items to a difficult to parse list of 8+. Same goes for abbreviations. We should not be using abbreviations unless they are extremely common, and we should certainly not be using both. That's what article space is for. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Misunderstanding. I propose to replace a slash, turn / into and, or. (Now I thought the slash could sometimes mean A/B = A or its synonym B? ... Better we forget this distraction). -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In the 36 navs we wrote the bracketed lists (those in ** level) in lowercase. Apply everywhere in this? (ecxcept : abbr like AIDS, eponymous titles I guess). -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, but I can't promise to invest my time enforcing this particular rule. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
About example "Bogart–Bacall syndrome" in {{this}} navbox. The article said the name is also known as abbreviated: "BBS". When a common or known abbr, add to the navbox like: Bogart–Bacall syndrome BBS? (better not start using brackets here, already present). -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Responded above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
N we don't do this. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Background colours
To be removed per consensus
REMOVE BG COLORS, USE NAVBOX DEFAULT
Consensus is that navigation boxes should use default navbox colors. Follows the earlier decision regarding the index subset. To be applied to the full set (Medicine and Anatomy). -DePiep (talk) 15:35, 16 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.
Should med navboxes have unique colours? I think it's time we got this discussion going.
There are pros and cons of having colours:
Pros
Provides some organisation for those who know what's going on
Differentiates navbox contents from embedded navboxes
Some logical structure (arteries are red, veins blue, ...)
Cons
WP:COLORS accessibility states that key colors should be accompanied with another form of that information. At the moment, there is no legend or explanation present.
Gives a messy appearance when multiple colours are used (eg 1, 2)
Makes maintenance difficult for new templates
Gives a complicated structure for other topics (?lymph ?bones ?microanatomy etc.)
Has a widely varying display depending on device
In my experience, some colours are dark enough to interfere with the appearance of text (patricularly the dark red)
Accessibility. There is the possibility that darker colours may interfere with the ability of visually-impaired users to read the text.
So my question is: should we just remove the colours and use default navbox colouring, or alternatively stick with a single colour per navbox? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Remove them. Back to basic navbox colors.
First and foremost, their meaning is not explained anywhere. There is no key provided. The effect is that it only looks like a badly-executed festive illustration. Since I can not see what it means, it is useless and bad WP:ACCESS even: Do not use colors to solely mean anything.
Also note that original navbox colors, come in two teintes of lightness: first and second indent (the 2nd, or child rowheader, a lighter shade of blue). This helps recognising the structure (subdivisions). The standard navbox colors are great use to convey navigation topics. Hard to improve.
More as a detail: The med colors used are not designed well as a set of bg colors. Even white is used. They don't make a palette. (This could be improved of course, but then the issue of dozens of colors to be distinguishable pops up. A number of 12 already is a headache to document in page, see here).
If such a set identification is needed (adding the supra-navbox overview), this can be done by an image. Thinking about a human body with the topic marked red.
I note that with the 36 MEDnav template subboxes, Tom(LT) advocated to remove the supra-overview completely. I do not advocate that. Maybe the |below= line could be used for this.
Thanks for the reply! You make some good points about why they should be removed. I've added accessibility to the items above. You also imply a very reasonable point here ("This could be improved of course...")... if we are considering changing colours (instead of removing them), we are going to have to go through a very effort-intensive process, including of selecting colours, when as you point out there is a well thought-out selection already available. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Redesigning these colors is theoretical. Forget it. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Also am not too sure what you mean with removing the subboxes... could leave a talk page comment or comment in the thread you're referring to? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see what you have done. Delete the subboxes?? Certainly not! Where did I give that impression? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
That complete suggestion was introduced by you above [1]. Never mention never mind any more. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I can see how you'd get that impression. I meant "remove colours" not "remove infoboxes" when I stated "remove them" --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue with bad accesability is not the contrast: that is good (lighter bg's=OK, even the silvery grey header is OK; this is by contrast calculation I did off-wiki). The access problem is: WP:COLOR: Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. (first bullet). So if it is not explained in a footnote or by symbol/text, the reader can not understand it. This is a major contra. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
A very good point, especially if multiple colours are used. But then users won't understand why the current boxes are blue either. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
No time for this game. -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The blue has no meaning. Nothing to be told. It is supportive, just like a border line is, or the wikiglobe. The blue differences do have a reason (still not a meaning), about sub-leveling. And that too should be clear in itself or the reader does not recognise it - and no info is lost. As access requires. -DePiep (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
What with the title colors? I see white, silver (grey). -DePiep (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we just use default colours? The grey in particular looks very uninviting. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Is what I'd propose, but we better decide it explicitly here. That's navbox title default then. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I would support this. DePiep, do you think there's the possibility of an automated tool like AWB (although I've never used the thing) that could strip the colours automatically? Removing the colours seems like probably the most effort-intensive task we have to do --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes can be done by AWB (+REGEX so a bit smart). But first that must be a very stable decision. Try and preview some dozens of MEDnavs to check the effect beforehand. But once decided, we don't need to wait for other discussions to finish here (because: the color is sooo bad that one might do it sort of right away). So: formalise the proposal, check effects self-critically, and ttry to reach an undisputable decision. Question: will neighboring projects (like WP:ANAT) disturb this, maybe by having colors so we mix up styles? -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I think there is agreement here (we can wait a few more days to see if any other users chip in too). AND I have just found some evidence of 'non-coloured' templates: {{Endocrine system anatomy}} and {{Epithelium and epithelial tissue}} --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
They are not "non-colored", they are colored "white" as that is one of those key colors in the set. This white should be removed for the same reason. Any WP:ANAT overlap in sight? -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I think a lot of colours add more messiness than providing organisation. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
We need a complete list of MED templates that use colors. So far, we have a. templates that use one of 36 MED navs, and those that are mentioned in the 36 MED navs (~625 tempaltes). Missing: true Medicine navigation templates that do not relate to a MED navs at all. Any idea how to find those? -DePiep (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure how we are going to find such a list, but almost all templates use them in my experience. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Template-Class medicine articles lists 860 templates. Cross-checking with the other lists (A, B) above would produce an interesting diff ("MED templates not in list A AND not in list B"). I cannot do now. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OK I just wish to state after having a rummage around through Anatomy templates, colours must go. It is extremely confusing to organise them like this. In addition the white titles make the navbox titles harder to read and lead to complete mess. And it is also nonsensical as we just make things in each template a different colour, regardless of the item. Confusing and unnecessary. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I still don't get why WP:ANAT is popping up every time. These are WP:MED templates rigt? Waht templates are under WP:ANAT that we do not see in WP:MED? (issue foreseen: if we rm color from MED nav templates consistently & correctly, there will be ANAT nav templates we do not see. --23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I mostly edit anatomy articles, hence I am most familiar with them. I just wanted to emphatically state having now had a look and edited most of the templates, removing colours is an excellent choice on many levels as we have already discussed. Nothing new. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but how can I find them all? There is an over lap with MEdicine temapltes, right? They do use the 35 MEDnavs index boxes right? -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record: we recently removed these bg colors from the 36 {{Medicine navs}} templates (the index subtemplates), and no objections appeared, not even afterwards. Makes the conclusion safer. (See also previous discussion). -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 15 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.
Navbox titles
To be simlified, and domain removed per consensus
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.
Before we begin editing the titles... is there a general feeling that we can/should simplify navbox titles? I refer to eg:
{{Muscles of neck}}
Wrong. -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Sequence: First get the titles right. When that's stable, they can Move (when for this reason; other Moves can go earlier). -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I definitely agree with removing the domain. As for the excluding... part, i think we generally need more delineation of navbox titles, so we should be careful imho. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is one significant reason users have added amendments over time -- for technical accuracy. Further example is {{Foramina of skull}} ("Foramina of the skull (and canals, fissures, meatus, and hiatus)"). I think like our changes to the embedded navboxes, we should consider simplifying many of these headings and retaining the specifiers on the template's doc page rather than the templates themselves. Including "exclude" treats the information with equal prominence, but the intended meaning is "Gastrointestinal tract* *excluding oral cavity" --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Will most editors see this information before making an edit? Are there other places we could/should clarify the scope? These are not retoric questions, i'm still very new to the topic of navboxes. If we can make the scope sufficiently clear to any random (lazy) editor, then i agree on doing as we did with the index templates: simplicity and lay friendliness wherever possible. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
That's the way, PizzaMan. It's not so much that you are "new" to navboxes, but all the MEDnavs are looking really very bad. They require studying. Better trust your own judgement: simplify, correct facts, don't let details ruin the big picture. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 11 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.
Repositioning identifiers in the navbox
This subthread is about moving data like TA into the navbox body. For the discussion to remove GA numbers altogether, see above. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: move both TA and GA into navbox data. This data indeed is not needed in the navbox header. (it is not the topic of the navbox; it is a fact related to that topic). This same can be said about the TA fact, now in the header. I propose to move both TA and GA from the header into the navbox (crude demo: this sandbox). Note that it makes much nicer reading of the navbox title. -DePiep (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a good idea DePiep, and I'd support moving TA (I personally do not think it is helpful to end users to have it displayed like this). I don't think it is worthwhile storing the Gray's data. That's because TA refers to Terminologia Anatomica, which is an international standard for anatomical terminology and the selection of terms that we use (eg Circle of Willis or arterial circle of brain, etc.). On the other hand, Gray's is just a book and, whilst influential in the field, we shouldn't base our classification system around it. In addition if we are referring to the 1918 edition very few users will have that accessible and so the classification will be fairly useless, whereas if we are referring to the recent editions then we are asking for updates every time a new arrangement comes around, which is labour intensive. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Also agree your example template looks 100% better. I can almost not believe how much less confrontational it looks. I've trialled putting the 'identifiers' using the 'above' class to separate them from the text. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I have refactored your comment by changing it to an 'outdent', I hope that is OK. Not that one. The codes provided on that template there are ICD codes, I am focusing here specifically around Gray's Anatomy codes, which are presented on mostly anatomy templates. But what you state early could be just as appplicable... such codes could be displayed in the navboxes or transferred to wikidata. Hmm. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I made a mess, with that "move TA" suggestion. Start subsection somewhere above? -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, created this subthread. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for splitting the ones below, too. How does one get these moved to wikidata? --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
For completeness: I also met identifiers (class identifiers) by ATC (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System), like "B03". These should get the same treatment (remove from title bar, place somewhere else or remove). -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikitechnical howto proposal
Wikitechnical proposal. A TA is now hardcoded in the med template header like this (from {{Facial bones}}):
([[Terminologia Anatomica|TA A02.1.08–15]])
There are ~550 med nav templates to change with this (possibly along with the removal of GA). I propose to have TA formatted through a dedicated quite simple template eg {{TA med}}:
{{TA med|A02.1.08–15}} → returns [[Terminologia Anatomica|TA A02.1.08–15]] and shows TA A02.1.08–15
Advantages:
1. All uses of a TA can be found via tool "What links here" (=what transcludes). Even better when the anatomy infobox uses this one too!
2. Straight data format (wikidata?)
3. Single, central format for all
(detail: the chapter can have their own parameter for future section pointing: {{TA med|A02|1.08–15}}. More such smarties can be made available)
Provisionally agree, this is a very clever proposal. However will this formatting need to be done manually or via a bot? If via a bot, can it be done simultaneously with porting it to Wikidata? Ideally we will port this to Wikidata soon, so this template will be an interim step... after the data is ported, will it be necessary? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I still don't know what "going to wikidata" factually means. I have to see a single demo. And I am not interested in any bot task, before I can do it manually myself. Quite simple: I disconnect each and every d: activity from improving the 600 med nav templates. The only connection is: always increase structure (eg, wikicode in template), never decrease (the bot will like this).
The formatting will be done once, in template {{TA med}} (longing for a better name). I don't know the TA format/structure yet, could be to expect like {{TA med|A02|1.08|15}}. The template /doc will describe which data is where in the template input. Then we'll have to edit all 600 templates (remove GA, reposition TA into the |above= row, and rewrite TA into the {{TA med}} input form). By manual, AWB or bot. Then the templates are looking OK, and we take a break. For this, we need to know beforehand what the TA format is & how it should show.
Independent from this, and after this, a bot can come along and read the (structured) TA-template and put it in d:.
I have no idea if these two steps can be done in one step (the bot reading TA, rewriting it in the template code, plus adding it to d:) Since this is complicated (combining multi, and interrelated steps) with new issues (d:), I myself would not do this nor advise this. Software project management. Hey, why not do some other improvements in step 1 (bg colors, add portal & category links below, ...)? More potential d:-data in a template? -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2015
@DePiep do I have your permission to move this subthread down and retitle it "Navboxes -- repositioning identifiers", so that all three discussions are in one place? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep, PizzaMan and others. So irrespective of HOW this is done, where should the identifiers be moved to? Move into an 'above' row, remove entirely?--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Something tells me to move them to the |below= row. That row can also be used to add a Portal and Category, and maybe more supra-nav topics. (currently the |below= used by navs sub-blocks, but these can work OK when put in |list99= of the template). -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Other coded identifiers in titles; candidates: GA, TH, ICD, ATC,
(please add more) -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
To be honest i don't have a strong opinion on this. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree using 'below' and 'List 99' seems good ways to do this. I also like the way you integrated the identifiers into the bar. Two more used are TE and TA, which stand for 'Terminologica anatomica' and 'Terminologia embryologica'. Also as a sidenote, if we are linking anatomy articles 'biology' portal may be a more appropriate destination. Lastly, is there any way to make the bar a little less tall vertically? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You can try too in {{Medicine navs/below}}. Bar height I dunno, to be solved in the end. I think the below+navs needs to be looked at. Maybe the bar above those subnavs, or integrate. The subnavs might need a little adjustment themselves (color level? now they are child navboxes). Need some playing around in the navboxes. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Not looking too shabby. I think a bar inserted above the subnavs might be the way to go. I like the general idea of the bar. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, the converse point of view is that the navboxes are cluttered up already without adding another layer of links, and I'm still not even sure it's worthwhile linking identifiers in infoboxes... is there a precedent for that? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I think 'cluttering' is not a good reason to remove that. It's a reason to change the format/layout. (I made the med snake symbol smaller). As I said, I'm not happy with current sandbox. But we should play with colors and such. I'll put the bar in a regular group right now, to have a look. Remember that the colors can change too, following structure (and inversely: if the color doesn't look OK enough, that says the structure is not good enough). About examples: I don't know of. What I know is: it's a navbox, that means that if a reader is likely to click in one click to that other page, it should be in the navbox. That one click implies it should be directly related to the navbox topic (=title). For this, I'd say main & direct identifiers must be there. Readers are navigating around, in that topic. (btw, it is not a 'layer' of links. It is plain same level as the others imo). -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
What I do know, is that virtually all good navboxes have a below-bar with the Portal, catgory/s, and such general links. Can't do without them. These generic links must be in the below-bar not in a group. (note: you can play with the sandboxes too. Noting to loose.) -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see. I have seen such bars around, so I guess you're right. If possible I think it would be good to have " Biology / Medicine " linked. I have different feelings about the use of identifiers in navboxes though. I think including them is a colossal waste of time for both us and future editors, and I think 0% of editors use the numbers to navigate around. The greater risk is that by adding one system users may want to add more and more systems, thereby wasting consecutively more and more time for no navigational benefit, and a detriment to the overall readability of the navbox or the little banner. Identifiers in navboxes may however have relevance for research purposes or some other unidentified wikidata use, which is why I think they should be transferred there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I added Biology portal, but I think it is wrong. The one and only portal for "Bones diseases" is Medicine. Not Portal:The Universe.
You are diverting into side-reasons. "I think 0% of editors [readers? DP] use the numbers to navigate around." Irrelevant, speculative. The criterium is: Is it a navigation link for that navbox's topic (=title). Read and digest WP:NAVBOX as a guideline. Apart from Gray, I have not read that id's are to be discarded. About 'time spend': irrelevant, misleading even. Sure we can postpone edits, but delete things because they takes attention? -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we are at loggerheads and will need the input of a third user. I know I have been inconsistent throughout this discussion but I just can't justify clutting up the navboxes with even more bars. Having been now through most anatomy navboxes I'd say the ratio of text to subnavbox text in a box is about 1.5:1 (ie there for every 1.5 links to an article there is 1 link to another navbox). I fear with this change we may move to 1:1. It is just too much clutter in my opinion, and I am not sure I am going to be convinced. We may need the opinion of a third user on this, or perhaps an RfC (ideally after we have done most of the work on other fronts). I'm still progressing on other fronts (moving headers, renaming, cleanup + colours) because if there is consensus to insert a bar we can quickly do that at any stage. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Good idea to ask someone else. I'd start repeating myself. And indeed better wait, your current works can prevail and are an improvement everyway & anyway. -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
List and text formatting
About usiung navbox lists (including child navboxes, *, ** and maybe *** listings.
Use standard navbox structures as much as possible. Do not introduce style variants that are inexplicable or unclear.
Use standard levels, eg child and *, ** and maybe ***.
Added bolding, brackets, indents, newlines, smallpinrt etc are style deviations and have unclear meaning. Do not add them without very good reason. First try without. This also helps keeping the navbox simple (row-oriented, hierarchical).
A three-*** level has double ()-nesting. Text in there should be in italics to make distinct.
When regular navbox colors (blues) are used, a second level rowheader will have a lighter shade of blue. Good.
Capitalisation: Eponyms keep capitals, and abbreviations (like AIDS).
Navbox rowheaders (those on colored background) have one capital. Level-* list items get one initial capital (not all words). **-level items (= bracketed sublist) are not capitalised. ***-level items: no capitals.
Do not use "/", write "and" etc. Keep all text easy to read at all times, don't fall into code. Don't use jargon abbreviations (unless more common, then add them to the word). Do not omit repetated words unless they are gramatically replacable (eg, keep them repeated when in a different level).
Thanks for posting these. I think these are some good principles and don't have anything to add here, but want to acknowledge that I've read it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
State
Many templates are included as automatically autocollapsed. Is this a recommended option? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO easiest first solution. We want: 1. show in homepage (because readers are led there), 2. don't show when in a set of navboxes in an article. (Even then, the first one = most important = may be open.
Do you have bad examples? Or situations to solve? -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
has: | state = {{{state<includeonly>|autocollapse</includeonly>}}}
Shows open in home tempalte page, and collapsed in an artiucle like vein. OK (is what we want).
But when I leave out the <includeonly> tag, the ausotcollapse does not work? -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, this question is above my head. I do wish to ask though, are navbox generally included as autocollapse? I am more familiar with boxes that are expanded if there's just one navbox, and collapsed if there are multiple. Is there such an option? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, autocollapse is best here. autocollapse does:
1. in the article, collapse. Good, esp. when there are multiple navboxes in there.
2. uncollapse at the template's home page. Good. The reader does not need to (and not want to) click to see it. Bonus: neither do we, editors. In its tempalte page it can show.
(3. minor or irrelevant: an "autocollapse" shows initially when it is the first show/hide on that page. Not needed for list-of-navboxes).
{4. minor: my confusion I mentioned is about the correct wording: 'autocollapse' or 'autocollapseD'? Need to check the effects; should do #1 and #2. Also: what in a not-home template page?). -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. So reading your reply, 'autocollapse' is the best option. Can I write "autocollapse" without the complicated 'includeonly' and 'state' formatting? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Documentation
After the final "}}", templates include some form of documentation. @DePiep, I was wondering if there is an anatomy documentation page to put in, and what the format should be when including documentation (eg whether it should be wrapped in "noinclude" and things like that). Secondly, I was wondering if there is an automated tool for that or if I have to do it manually? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: 1. no whitespace in }}<noinclude>. (after }}-closing the navbox). 2. the category/ies best be specific. 3. We can control & improve {{Anatomy navbox doc}} centrally - nice & good. (4. and: no other text or things in there).-DePiep (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Answer 2: AWB can help with that (but the categories are varying so can need manual action). My AWB is not working at the moment.
My question: what whith MEDICINE navboxes? Is that a different set, or is there overlap? -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help, DePiep. There seems to be a lot of variance when it comes to documentation as I've discovered with my recent edits, but I'll try and stick to your formatting (Which, now that I see it, makes a lot of sense)--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Response to your question: Is there much overlap? There's less and less, and as discussed there is a fairly well-demarcated distinction between the two sets. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Summary of progress
To be updated as we go
I think we are making progress on this. To summarise thus far: --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
We have agreed to remove the colours
We have agreed to remove GA numbers
A bot has moved GA, TA, TE and TH codes to Wikidata so they can be removed from the headers
I am slowly making my way through Anatomy templates, doing a cleanup as I go.
We have not reached a consensus on whether to include a bar @ the bottom of navboxes, nor where to place identifiers other than the header (although there is consensus to remove them from the header). --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Physiology with few exceptions --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Pathology Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Treatment Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep and @PizzaMan I'm reaching a loggerheads with some of the anatomy articles. I'd be very grateful if you please have a breeze through the 'cleanup' lists and help out.
@DePiep although you might not be familiar with the content many I've noted as 'Wikify' revolve around things like strange uses of capitalizations or italicisations I'm not too sure what to do about and would value another users opinions
@PizzaMan there's a list above of 70 templates that have subnavboxes but aren't linked. IF you have time, could you look at infoboxes (especially the ones where I've noted the title is unreadable to lay users), and also link the subnavboes without links from our navbox set? There have been some important ones, particularly general physiology and what not, that are missing
Sure. We're both busy atm, so we didn't finish cleaning up the index templates. But when i have time i'll take a look. What steps should i follow if i want to fix the name of a navbox? Just edit it? Or give you a list of corrected names? (please ping me in your response) PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @PizzaMan. Not to worry, when you have time. Most of the boxes are in need of content rather than title edits, although for titles I am generally following this format. "Anatomy of [x]", "Physiology of [x]", "Diseases of [x]". If heaps of things are linked in the title, I try to move the excess links to the navbox itself. Oftentimes we have navbox titles trying to be navboxes and navboxes trying to be articles. If you could just browse through our list of templates in need of cleanup and do what you think needs doing (if nothing, then mark as Not done) I'd be very grateful. I just find it hard to do thoughtful edits and batch editing at once, hence the lists. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that i haven't forgot and when i'm less busy irl i will look into it. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks PizzaMan. I've separated what we've identified into different sections and am parceling it off to relevant WPs. If I could ask something of you this week, would you mind clarifying what you meant in the section #Moves_or_titles? That way I can add it to the appropriate 'to-do' list. I look forward to your presence next week! --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Just letting know i didn't forget, LT910001 :-) For most points in that section, i think the names of these templates should be changed. That would also involve renaming/moving the template itself, but i can't quite oversee what other technical steps that would require. Not that this is as far as i can see mostly index templates. When cleaning up the index templates we also changed the name of many of the templates linked from the index templates. So eventually there are a lot of name change requests in that too, but for now the first step should probably be getting the index templates in an even better shape. But what a change from where we started already! PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you both! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Next week more time. Found the word "wikify" on this page only once - here (even with lists unfolded). Anywhere else I should look? -DePiep (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look DePiep. When you have time next week, open a few of the 'content cleanup' ones and have a look. Most of the cleanup isn't technical in nature, it's more like wikifying and simplifying the content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Got it. I won't touch the TA's etc. Currently my AWB doesn't work. -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Tom LT, to be clear, this is bugging me into frustration:
Again and again the topics/templates/issues of WP:MED and WP:ANAT are mixing up. To you they may look the same, but to me they are not. Consider this: if that is not clear to me, I am don't feel invited to join. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, DePiep. To be clear, templates that start with "Anatomy..." are usually anatomy. They are linked as "Anatomy" in the templates, or present in the list of anatomy templates here Template:List_of_anatomy_templates. Why am I centralising some discussion here? Well, firstly there has been some historical crossover, secondly they are referenced in this set of templates and thirdly, as above, I am just using it to subdivide my workload (ie I will work through all of them but will start at "Anatomy" and work forwards). Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
LT910001. Tom, this page is off of my watchlist. I'm sure if you ping me, your question is relevant & I'll be there. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I've run through + removed colours / simplified titles and noted what templates need cleanup. Now we just need to work through them! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Updating a table below to keep track and compartmentalise things: --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the categorisation: pages into the subcategories now. -DePiep (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree 100% with what you're thinking above.In addition DePiep there are a few more that I've noted and I think two more that I've created above in Template_talk:Medicine_navs#New_subnavs. Now that there's some more activity here I might give another burst of energy in this direction :P. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The last 3000 pages in that parent template don't seem to be re-categorised soon. I think my job is done, but I'll keep an eye on this. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Tom, I see that Category:Templates that use a Medicine navs subtemplate (628 P) still has templates with background colors. Are these the colors we decided to get rid of, waiting for a cleanup? Or is there an other color scheme still active? -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi DePiep, I tried to get rid of them from all the templates... I think I did at least 500+, if there's more then please continue to strip them! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do so happily. Accidentally. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Subnav cleanup
Lists of templates
Below are lists based on two criteria. It can help to check for missing usages (why does template A not use template B?). An explanation can be OK, or indicate an omission. -DePiep (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Very handy lists. When I get back from vacation I'll do a full census. Some of these definitely need to be linked. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Tom (LT) perhaps we can work on it together? I'd like to prioritize the remainder of the general index templates and then move on to these and see if it's more effective to work on them individually or together. Either way, i'm available for the latter if you want. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Since this is about the 36 med navs templates only, it has a natural isolation from the 600 other med templates. I advise to keep discussions separate when possible. (For that, this page is a good place btw). -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
OK finally getting up to this. Your meaning for this list is the following:
the following list of templates are linked from the subnavs, and also contain a subnav, correct Y?. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Templates that are an outgoing link in a Medicine navs or having a Medicine navs subtemplate (595, initially)
The following list contains templates that are linked from the templates, but do not contain the subnav, correct Y?. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
One outstanding issue. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Asymmetrical lists from the above list (disjoints) (20, initially)
Templates checked: 615 unique
Templates in both: 518 unique
Templates bluelinked 518+20=538
Templates bluelinked, but *not* a parent (target link does not have a Mednavs subtemplate): 20
Not done No apparent problem. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
These 'no issues' could imply an error in the list composing logic ({{Breast navs}} replated?). Sorry to have bothered you; glad it's only a few. -DePiep (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done Already linked. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Unlinked but contain a subnav
The following list contains templates that are not linked from the templates, but contain a subnav, correct Y?. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Update:Many of these templates fall under the purview of {{Psych navs}} --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Done linked as 'lesions' in the symptom section (this is more about syndromes that can arise secondary to lesions) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Layout
If there are no objections would I be able to organise these navs into groups? They are getting a bit unweildy. I would arrange them into groups: by anatomy, by speciality, cellular navs, and a group 'infections'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Im not sure what you suggest (exactly). But I think all the links to other templates should be much smaller (right now, they take up to 40-50 percent of some templates which transclude them (e.g. {{amino acids}}). Its a navgigation box, and imho it should link to articles. I think that consensus are not to link to templates from templates, but I cant find it in policy, but I have seen the arguments in TfD's. Christian75 (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I agree some are quite large but particularly the medical ones are very useful navigational tools because editors can readily jump between related articles (eg circulatory diseases and circulatory anatomy). I don't know what makes a list preferable to these boxes if the boxes are not too big. However I see what you mean about biochemical families... and does an inbuilt link to the families actually provide useful navigational value (I think this is the question we should be asking). If not I agree let's shorten it or get rid of it. What do you think? In addition, it seems to be displaying larger than comparable navboxes, at least on my system...? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Biochemical templates didn't have the |belowstyle = background: transparent; padding: 0px; line used in most medical templates to format the index nav. Specifically, {{Amino acids}} had code that made the font bigger. I added it and the navs look fine now. I feel that the navigational value of biochemical navs isn't that of medical navs, but I'm not really in favour of deleting them altogether. Should they display as collapsed? --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
And to clarify earlier I'm just talking about how we've arranged the templates on this page (currently it's in alphabetical order), not how the actual contents of the templates are arranged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
So, the #1 proposal here is to order the ~40 navs in page Template:Medicine navs by group (not by alphabet). NotNote that this page is just for documentation (our internal overview). This {{Medicine navs}} itself should not show in articles (content) ever. Agreed: let's do it (need any help, Tom?). Any side proposal left then? -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Done 'Cell', 'General' and 'Infection'. That's all I was proposing. I hope that's satisfactory.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. I've added green to show the documentation parts. Changed title. -DePiep (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep I'm about to merge two of the 'cell' templates. Would it be OK to wait a few minutes? Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
In addition I'm not too heavily in favour of use of subnavboxes in these templates as I think it makes it harder to edit and we already have a good structure we have all agreed on ('description, disease, treatment' with level 2 and three headings). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Merge'm. Won't edit in here today. I think the (sub) level is not necessary, esp sinece it takes only one depth extra. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Having expanded some of the cell navs that you've just brought up, I think 2-3 can be merged into a single 'cellular disease' nav. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, saw similarities. btw, the subnavbox I added prevented it being one long snaking line of text. Not clear. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I might slice and dice contents a little bit through. I'm just not sure in what ways. I've put the cellular things in one, and that leaves membrane transport / intracellular signalling. Still not decided what to do with them. Any ideas? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
We (you) can do the merge first. Long after it's stable and live, we could take another look at this structure layout. Till then, I take a nap. -DePiep (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
... Now I see. That was fast. -07:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
with few exceptions --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Template:List_of_anatomy_templates
Not done) I'd be very grateful. I just find it hard to do thoughtful edits and batch editing at once, hence the lists. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Done
Doing...
Not done
