Template talk:Medicine navs/Archive 2

3978:

progresses, a descriptive name may become incorrect, whereas an eponym is future-proof. For example, doctor Parkinson originally identified the shaking palsy. I wouldn't consider that a proper name for the disease, but Parkinson's disease is a fine name, and will be whatever more we learn about it. @Tom: The disadvantage is that eponyms are less self-explanatory, hence the need to have an overview of them specifically. For health care providers, most of the words you look up will be eponyms. That's why many books in the pockets of docs have lists of eponyms and that's why it's a "thing". Anyway, DePiep, what do you mean by "No person is mentioned nearby, there is no "self"? Perhaps you're confused by the literal meaning of the word eponyms, or how the word is used in other fields? In medical science the definition is simply a disease/symptom/etc named after a person.

3755:

the impression that we were collaboratively editing this document and any items of note we would be 'bold' and then could be discussed here. Secondly although you appear to consider this a matter of professional integrity ("Please, either trust my expertise when i do such corrections or study the subject yourself") please consider that my edits may be guided by an alternate but equally valid point of view. That point of view is: we should not have multiple word hedging statements when an approximate statement can be almost as valid. Yes we may lose some technical accuracy but the point is we need a readable template that can be understood by lay readers. Hence I've made some changes by removing extra words... but please feel free to change them, that's why it is 'collaborative' editing, correct? For example:--

3651:

example "Acquired musculoskeletal deformities" should be shortened to "deformities", but it was changed back to "acquired". But dorsopathies and soft tissue disorders can also be acquired so this is just incorrect. Same for myopathy (either we just use myopathy or "Muscle, myopathy", but the word myopathy should remane, because not all diseases in the muscle are myopathies. Please understand that it's a little discouraging and not very productive if corrections get reverted. Please, either trust my expertise when i do such corrections or study the subject yourself, but please don't revert such corrections without discussion. Either way, the corrections i made should be restored before we go live. -

286:

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 Knowledge (XXG) 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

4123:) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I found a few instances where there were not just eponymous signs and symptoms, but also other eponyms. However, those should probably be edited out of the template for consistency. One thing i would propose: in cases where there's no general "signs and symptoms" template, i would like to replace "Symptoms and signs (eponymous)" (with only a link under eponymous) to just "Symptoms and signs" with the link to the eponymous symptoms and signs directly under the "Symptoms and signs" words. I think this is overstructuring and i don't think consistency is that important in this case. 1319:

theme we'll run into on more places. It also caught my eye in the gastrointestinal section (before i read this), but i didn't yet systematically check where it's an issue. But other than that, i think disease is ok and the general/other template should be referred to as Other. Alternatively, the template could be made all inclusive and could be the link under the bold "Disease" header. Anyway, until such time, the best patch is to name these general disease templates last as "other". Or put the link under the bold "Disease" header in cases where the majority of diseases fall under the other-template.

4011:" is an improvement already. re PizzaMan: My beef is, that I had not the slightest hint that a word like "Parkinson" could be behind that link. (I am a lay reader, and I'm seeing these templates for a few weeks now but did not click to check & research that word. And that is what our Reader experiences too). So I wanted a solution that the linktext is, to the effect of: "Diseases that are names after persons". (part 2: Of course when you expain it to me here, I get it. But you are not there to explain when the Reader arrives at the template. A self-explaining wording would do that). - 2770:

already implies that it's drugs unless it's clearly not (such as "procedures"). But i don't have a strong preference and it should definitely not be an issue that keeps the improved templates from being pushed out. But let's wait until Tom gives his opinion (and any other editor that stumbles on this pages). If we do decide to stick with Drugs (drug1, drug2) i aplogize for being too bold when editing and i'll fix it. In that case i hope you agree with me taking some liberties, such as "Antibiotic drugs (drug1, drug2)", because antibiotics is almost as commonly known as drugs.

3686:

metabolic disease (disorders has to be mentioned here, either in the heading or before the list, because the metabolic pathways get disturbed in many diseases that aren't a disorder of the metabolic pathway per se). This is just from the most recent edits though. I'm not sure how long this has been going on and how far back i should look. I've checked for so many different things in so many runs. I hop this reverting is just the most recent edits and i don't have to all the checks runs all over. If i can even remember all the things i've checked for.

3094:

muscle relaxants. Anti-TB drugs with other antibiotics. Antiseptic agents with oxytocins. To me that is quite confusing because there's not that much that's actually similar and often the context they are used is very different. Secondly I think that including the word "Drug" will lead to some odd issues with weight, such as in "Circulatory system" where will be "Procedures, Drugs (...)" and 2 lines worth of data contained within the 'drugs' heading. --

31: 1773:

the myelum and the template also contains tumpors. So a merge with lymphocyte in a generic "blood cells" template is not very practical. I think it should be renamed to "Bone marrow" or "Myeloid cell" or "Cells from the bone marrow" though. To do that, we should check if it isn't used in both meanings. But for now, i think "Cells from the bone marrow" is the best option. Added it to the list below.

3799:

the last round of edits i did, out of approximately eight rounds of edits and fixes. I'm still a little worried of what got lost from the other seven rounds. Anyway, if you prefer one word, we should give up on consistency. For example, change the title of metabolic disease to disorders and the injuries of the skeletal system to just fractures. As for the functional disorders of the GI tract,

3126:

IIC), and "Drugs" at level. I agree that coughing water is extremely opposite to chemo, but a "drug" they are and that is why it is listed under Drug, in this context. You then introduce "different what they do" -- I bet they differ. But that is not what we are conveying (that should be in the linked page itself). Simply: we list the drugs. I do not get how that can be confusing to

5093: 4874: 4088: 3260: 3186: 2542: 2444: 2374: 2306: 2202: 2134: 2021: 1855: 1646: 1623: 993: 2495: 1374: 1336: 3609:

think professionals are bright enough to work backwards from the lay term and work out what the clinical term is, but lay people will not be able to work out what the lay term is from the clinical term. Am strongly against putting synonyms in article titles or other locations... one word for description should be enough.--

829:" I have no idea. Disclosure: I am a medical doctor (pulmonologist). I agree with the sentiment that abbreviations should be avoided in these templates. If expansion of abbreviations makes a template too large and unwieldy, it should be edited down (i.e. links deleted) to make the template a sensible size. 3804:

tract. Please try to be aware of the risk of introducing a lot of errors if you make such edits without background knowledge of what such terms mean. I'll try to fix anything that i come across, but i'm not sure how much runs i'll need and i'm going to be busy tomorrow and offline for six days after that.

2816:@DePiep: Treatment is fine, we shouldn't change that. @Tom: the question is whether drugs should be grouped as 1: Procedures, Drugs (drug1, drug2) or as 2: Procedures, Drug1, Drug2. I think option 2: is better, so i changed the templates to that. It's less messy and because of the reasons i gave above. 3928:

is, in my experience, a well known word and the accepted word for signs, diseases, procedures, etc named after a person. Eponym is just the noun of the adjective eponymous. I've had apps on medical eponyms since ages and in medical dictionaries and the wikipedia page about this, they're also referred

3125:

Major: "we should be doing so by disease not treatment type" - huh? If I understand this correct: this is a completely different approach & categorisation that we actually do. I do not get this at all. We are talking about the data row "Treatment", which has subsections "Procedures" (chirurgical

2685:

I've renamed "enodcrine system" to "hormones", which imho also implies the glands and receptors. And for consistency, "disease-causing bacteria" to "bacterial disease". Please check if i renamed the right places (section header and words in the title of the navbox, but not the link tot the template).

1762:

Neoplasm: The word cancer should be avoided, because new growths can be benign. It can be called a tumor, but i would avoid that word as to many laymen a tumor is synonymous for malign tumors (cancer). And on the other hand, some neoplasms grow so invasively that they're not really a mass. So i don't

1414:

The problem is that congenital diseases and neoplastic diseases (tumors), injury, etc are also categories of diseases. So then it would have to be Disease (congenital, tumors, injury, dis1, dis2, dis3). In that case it would be better to put the link to disease under the header. But the issue is that

3962:

I agree and to be honest don't actually understand how it is helpful to organise diseases in templates by ones that are and aren't named after people. If placed in the disease subsection, I agree "Named after people" may be more understandable. We've already simplified some titles, this one could be

3803:

has a specific meaning of disorders for which no medical explanation exists (some might say psychological cause). So there are no drugs for functional disorders. The template on treatment for functional disorders of the GI tract is about drugs for disorders in the physiological functioning of the GI

3798:

I'm sorry if you felt i implied that you deliberately reverted my changes. I know you didn't. I'm very sure you did all the edits with the best of intentions and i'm sure we'll be pushing live massively improved templates soon. I'll try to (re-)fix the points listed above. However, this is just from

3093:

together. Yes they are conceptually linked by being drugs, but they are very distinct in terms of what they do. And if we link drugs together we get similar problems throughout the templates. Consumer preparations like cough drugs are lumped with more serious antibiotics. Antiinflammatory drugs with

2876:

very well: rowheader -- regular word -- bracketed sublist. And in fact, the higher levels in the navbox do just the same. Ultimately the Reader's eye recognizes this hierarchy without actually thinking about this (no mental steps are needed to disentangle classes). The wikilinks should be OK anyway.

2769:

The way i see it, there are several classes of treatment, some of which are chemical, some are surgical. One drug class may work as different from another class as from a surgical procedure. So a flat structure (Drug1, Drug2) is more parsimonious than "Drugs (drug1, drug2)". And the treatment header

2751:

I prefer not to do that. 'Drugs' is a listheader, drugs1 etc is the sub-list. That should show in the format/layout. Even if only one: "Drugs (drug1)". This irrespective of links, these should be OK anyway. Also, this should be maintained over all 36 blocks, to keep constency. And some drug names do

1318:

There's an underlying problem here that we can't really fix here. The Template:Vascular diseases should either be all-inclusive or be for other vascular diseases than tumors and congenital disorders. Probably the latter, so just other, but in that case it should be clearly defined as such. This is a

4782:

I'm sorry, but i'm not an oncologist. I can point out examples of where tumor is very far off as a proper description, but i don't have the expertise to identify where tumor can be used and where neoplasm should be used. I'd have to study each neoplasm listed under the template, which would take me

3977:

I'm sorry, DePiep, but i don't quite understand. Perhaps that is because for me it's quite clear that in medical context, an eponym is a disease/symptom/etc named after a person in stead of a more descriptive name. There's a huge advantage to using eponyms, because as our unterstanding of a disease

3754:

Firstly please note I am not reverting your changes, but making what I see are incremental improvements to the article. I'm sorry you are discouraged, I haven't been systematically following and reversing your edits (!) and it appears there are only five items which you wish to discuss. I was under

3685:

Here's the list i found so far: fractures removed from skeletal injuries; Acquired musculoskeletal deformities|deformities was |acquired; (dislocations, sprains); myopathy; functional gastrointestinal disorders (functional disorders means something very different); "Disorders of: " was removed from

3608:

I've marked this discussion as 'active' (even if we've all agreed to close it, it's not actually inactive) but I do agree we could rethink this later. I think what this discussion is really about is common name vs. technical term, as some of what is described as 'latin' isn't actually latin here? I

1772:

Myeloid refers to the bone marrow, where some of the white blood cells originate, or to a specific cell that originates there. Since other organs, such as the thymus and the spleen are also involved, there is partial overlap with other templates. On the other hand, red blood cells also originate in

1303:

Hmm. I agree it is not ideal to have two "diseases". On the other hand I can't think of a better subtitle. Some other subtitles I have considered (eg "Medicine") would require the treatment section to be rolled in, too. What about we rename the second "Disease", where this occurs, to something like

4820:

In addition, keep in mind that neoplasms refers to both benign and malign neoplasms and both solid and other tumors such as leukemia. There is no lay-friendly word which covers all those meanings. Therefor Tom and i decided to go with the always technicially correct "neoplasms" in combination with

3541:

On a completely different track I have added names to the section title when they differ (old title used, tempalte name used, visible new title used). This is for me to keep overview. I am thinking about some name changes (template moves), first of all for CEA navs and Psych navs. (naming all "...

285:

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

4523:

I agree we should minimize the use of a *** level and prefer a flatter categorisation where possible, but in some places an additional level is really needed. For example the skull bones, where it's just logical and the description section of inborn errors of metabolism, which will stay a little

4508:

need it. I've seen too many anatomy templates where there are so many subdivisions and it gets hard to follow and looks quite messy and disorganised. So I think if you two want it may be good for "skull" but not for other topics where there may just be one item.... in my opinion it is one set of

1443:

We could also consider "Pathology", although that doesn't really solve the problem of not duplicating synonyms for "disease". I think better is to place the second link to disease at the end of the list and call it "Other" or "General" (which is distinguished from "Tumours" etc. as the links are

1212:

Do you mean why are the templates titled 'Human heart'? I think it's to delimit the scope of the template. I think that is sensible because the internal structure of the navboxes, and a lot of the named structures contained within the navboxes, is mostly about humans. There have been some animal

474:

Note: I am having a lot of trouble following all the different discussions, and I guess other users may be too, so I have refactored these discussions into two discussions: 'wording' and 'layout'. I've split 'wording' into areas I think have some consensus, and then areas that are actively under

4911:

Thanks for your edits Pizzaman to IEM, it's greatly improved. Agree with your implied position that we will need to take a closer look at the templates of "Inborn errors of metabolism" after deployment (I am guessing from some of the title/box mismatch). Will leave editing that one for a while.

3650:

We have a problem here. I've added some common words. For example no lay person will ever say "i have an injury of the skeletal system". It's a fracture. We can leave injury for consistency, but the word fracture should be added. Also, more problematic, some of my corrections were reverted. For

3222:

On second thought, i think the titles are all great and there's no added value for adding latin terms to the titles. But probably here and there in the templates. For example in "bacterial disease" i changed "drugs" to "antibiotic drugs". But we can collaps this general discussion as far as i'm

2801:

Sorry, I'm having a little trouble following what was renamed here. I think the section titles should be retained as "Treatment" for consistency. In general treatment can be surgical, medicinal, or other, so I don't think it's wise to rename that way. I think it sometimes helps to put things in

4701:

The "tumor(s)" should be renamed to "neoplasia" or "neoplasia (tumors)" for the same reason we renamed the template to "neoplasia": some neoplasia grows infiltratively and doesn't form a mass. For example, in the Muscle template i had to rename "Tumors" to "Tomors and sarcomas". I would prefer

2900:

I think you make some good points, so I've scratched my old opinion. I agree levels should be linked together. There are a few outlying situations though. These arise when all the entries are what we'd think of as "Level 3" but there are no "Level 2" entries -- for example, the disoders in the

2588:

Do you think the new titles are stable? Or can we expect a lot of edits when they are live? If stable enough, I will move the templates to the new name: "Template:Abc navs" (eg title=Small → Template:Smell navs). That will prevent future headaches when working with all these med nav templates.

178: 4748:

I'm all for using lay friendly terms, even if slightly incorrect, but in some cases tumor is completely off. Take for example leukemia: it's neoplastic white blood cells in the blood stream. There's no mass. I draw the line of being lay friendly when it's incorrect to the point that it gets

3207:

Ok on grouping the drugs together. When there's only one group, it should be linked under the word Drugs not Drugs (drug1). I'm working on many small fixes. We should be careful not to introduce not too many new errors. For example, the drugs for the female reproductive system are not only

3992:

I have renamed the templates to "Eponymous" as we are talking about "eponymous (adj.) diseases" rather than just a list of eponyms (noun). At any rate, I think such a distinction would be better made in a category rather than a confusing parallel distinction, which may be better made in a

3084:

OK. I understand what you are saying about groupings drugs under the heading "Drugs" because they are the same "level". However I don't agree with this. I think if we are grouping we should be doing so by disease not treatment type... to me it is not logical to group treatments for

320:

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?

3784:"Functional disorders". Confused. I thought "Functional GI disorders" referred to "Functional disorders" of the GI tract, ie those without an organic or structural basis? The template and article seem to confirm this. "GI" is implied by the title "digestion", hence I removed it. -- 1758:

Yes. Just as blood vessels and blood cells are very different things. "Lymphatic vessels" wouldn't cover the lymph nodes. So no better alternative. Lymphocyte is a type of leukocyte (white blood cell), but there's no lay word for this specific type of white blood cell (that i know

1106:

which has subcategories: procedures, deveploment, anatomy, etc. In these subcategories I expect to find roughly the same articles that are in their nav template. So, navboxes and categories show the same: the medical systems structure & articles. Sort of mutually complete.

1458:

I agree with Tom. Using two different synonyms only adds to the confusion. Disease is a little broader than disorder. Pathology is a less lay-friendly word. So, we should stick to disease and name the Disease (non tumor/injury/etc) templates for what they are: Other.

4749:

confusing. In some templates, people will come in who will argue that tumor is incorrect. And they'll win the discussion. And the problem with Cancer is that there are also non-malignant tumors. It's either neoplasm or two words; neoplasm plus a lay friendlier word.

3929:

to as eponyms. While i generally prefer using lay terms as much as possible, i think eponyms is the lay word, as there's no alternative. We don't have to give a dictionary description of every latin word to avoid using it if there are no alternatives. This is not

1415:

the disease template is usually not the general template on the disease but rather the template on other diseases that don't fall in the categorie of tumors, congenital, etc. So that's why i would prefer calling it other in stead of disease and putting it last.

3571:

On second thought, i think all the titles are fine as they are. As for the rest of the template, i added some latin where i felt it appropriate. I think we can collapse this one and discuss or boldly add latin on an individial basis where we feel it is called

159: 3735:"Disorders of: " was removed from metabolic disease (disorders has to be mentioned here, either in the heading or before the list, because the metabolic pathways get disturbed in many diseases that aren't a disorder of the metabolic pathway per se). 4764:

OK but I'd point out the word used on the existing set is "tumr" ("tumour") and that nobody has complained for the last 5 years. A number of different sources state that it is now equated with "neoplasm" in lay usage, even for non solid tumours

861:

I always thought it stood for 'nosocomial' which is, at least somewhat related to disease, although actually I have no idea. Thanks a lot for creating that DePiep... that's a lot of effort! I'll have a look in more depth when I have time later.

1735:

There are two templates "Lymphatic system" (relating to the anatomical location of lymph nodes) and "Lymphocyte" (relating to the study of immunology). Agree these are not clearly titled, "Lymphocyte" being the more confusing title here.

4768:) and certainly this is what I am accustomed with (hence my statements above). Am not sure how we can reach compromise here. Can we rename non solid-mass tumours (viz. haematological) to neoplasms or cancer, would that be OK for your? -- 4041:

OK I believe I have solved this problem. As stated I have renamed them all to "Eponymous". These templates all relate to signs and symptoms, so I've put them all as subheadings of that. Thoughts? If it is OK, we can close this off, too

3168:

Changes made and running through for any inconsistencies now. Am trying to put drugs in alphabetical order, lowercase for secondary headings, and rephrase so that "anti-tuberculosis drugs" is now written as Drugs (tuberculosis . ...)"

181: 4114:

There are also many eponyms for procedures, diseases, etc, but these templeates indeed seem to *mostly* relate to symptoms and signs and in the context of "eponymous symptoms and signs" i think the word eponymous is just as good as

1718:

Renamed some and marked as 'done' above (I can't find just "Metabolism", so that must already have been renamed). "Neoplasm" straddles the boundary between cancer (malignant) and tumour (generally benign) so I think it's the best

3476:

Which is the Latin word you're referring to here? In my mind 'parasite', 'infestation' and 'pests' are commonly used English words. Hence I think the names used in template titles are good and don't need any sweeping changes.

3947:

Yes I understand, but my point is that it is not clear which person it refers to. No person is mentioned nearby, there is no "self". It's a questioning the reader to make extra mental steps. And I did provide an alternative.

3497:

Ah sorry, are you referring to the template titles? A simple naming scheme for the name of each template may be the words used in the title plus "medical navs". So when implemented, the section "Toxicology" could be moved to

5270:, our links to the templates, and reflects the fact that embryological development refers to some period within weeks 0-8 (depending on source), whereas "development" continues throughout the foetal period and into life. -- 3905:

Clearly it does need explanation to me ;-). Now that I understand the intention, I think this is the issue: "eponymous" means self-named. That is clear only when the "self" is clear, such as nearby or in the article title:

4805:

Renamed to 'Neoplasms and cancer'. This is accurate (neoplasms) but also has 'cancer' so that readers will know what it links to. As described "Tumours" is used mostly for solid tumours and there is a better alternative.

2989:

TomLT, I think we are talking different solutions. "I agree levels should be linked together" is confusing. What I say is that different levels should not be put in one level. But what I see is (another example, Joints):

3447:

Am strongly in favour of retaining the current title "parasites and pests"... I think most users are aware of what they are, and "infestation" covers only a few (fleas, lice) whereas the current title is comprehensive.

1519:

Looks OK with me. This also solves that the three words Description/Disease/Treatment should be singular (that's OK for a rowheader indeed). We better have sure that all such listings are correct classifications.

3556:

I think adding some latin between brackets here and there is a good idea. The primary focus of WP should be making it layman friendly, but this can be a great service to professionals. Who use WP just as much.

2880:

Bad is: listing two class-levels into one. PizzaMan's description at 12:57 does mix together level and level drugs (bad). PizzaMan's also needs arguments of uncertainity, which are not needed (and which would

4070:

I see written "Symptoms & signs". Shall we make it "Symptoms and signs", for being in reading mode? (it's subtle only, but shortcut can be too short sometimes. We wanted to get rid of abbr's after all).

3775:

Am unclear why we need (dislocations, sprains) after "acquired". If we add summaries of other templates to the navboxes, we will end up with quite length descriptions, when users can visit those templates

5251:

What term would be best for the templates and categories "upper extremity", "upper limb", "..."? arm? upper limb? upper extremity? This will affect things like bones, arteries, veins of upper extremity.

4702:"Neoplasm" or "Neoplasm (tumors and sarcomas)". We could even add the common term cancer if we want to be really lay-friendly. This should be changed in all templates, so i first wanted to discuss here. 1750:

Metabolism: I don't think there's a better word for it and i can't find where it has been renamed. Really, to any native english speaker of high-school education, metabolism is a known word i think.

162: 3871:"eponyms" - I am a layman and not English by 1st language (so an exemplary enwiki Reader then ;-) ). I do not understand this, and it is used in multiple places. Is there a descriptive possible? - 758:

I agree, but only assuming there is an english word for it. For some words, i think the latin word is the (most) common word. For example the pelvis and the word eponyms (as discussed elsewhere.

4552:

OK there are two instances, both of which I have no problem with. One is in bones, and the other in IEM (Inborn errors of metabolism). I moved the heading "cranial" from level 4 to level 3. --

2915:

Update. Have removed "Antibiotics" (see below). I have reviewed the list and am happy with the way things are currently organised. If you two are as well, let's box this discussion. --

2686:

Other than that i think the titles are good to go. I do wonder: why do some templates have multiple titels such as "Digestion/digestion system navs" and others just "Tooth" or "Mouth"?

346:

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

313:

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.

3070:

OK. Worth time. This is a structure thing, IMO important before deployment. I consider exact visible wording important, and secondary (= to adjust after a row structure is made). -

4731:

Opinion from me. While semantically correct I do not think "neoplasia" is very accessible. The lay definition of tumour encompasses both benign and malignant definitions (OED:

2872:

A level list can be empty (= not present) or have one member; but we can not open with a bracketed list (no level class name?!). Note that the layout & formatting supports

1213:

anatomy templates created but in my understanding not many. I'm all for creating animal anatomy templates but I think that will result in a lot of confusing in this context. --

2055:

have removed heading 'antibiotics', as I think it's implied by the different drug classes and the fact that they are located in the treatment section of the "bacteria" navbox.

4469: 4410: 4351: 4273:

As a structure it is OK & correct, but it makes a bit awkward reading of course. I say we keep it this way. A better formatting for this might come along later. -

3769:

Instead of writing "Disease" and then having a heading "Disorders" where all diseases are disorders, I am much more in favour of having the main title be "Disorders".

4566:

I have italicised both lists (bones, IEM). Afterthought: in IEM, why not break (my) rule and remove the level-3 brackets ('Enzymes and pathways' not being linked):

3891:

It's a perfectly normal word for any term (in this case disease) that's named after a person. For example Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. Doesn't need explanation.

3021: 2996: 2954: 1099: 1092: 4152:

Editing now so we can close as much topics as possible, if Tom doesn't agree i'll revert. --- Done. (I didn't give a description when doing the edit for Tooth.)

1834:

These are all common titles which I'd consider clear enough ("Obstetrics, Endocrine system") or the best term or description ("Inborn errors of metabolism").

5075:

In "Respiratory system" and "cardiovascular navs" we have subheadings under "other" (eg "Other (vasculitis)". Do we plan to do this for all our templates? --

2885:

confusion). The reader can handle longer lists well, and these three levels. But leaving this structure is what makes things "messy" (what TomLT mentions). -

2209:. First one should be "pregancy and childborth". Second one, "After childbirth": the official term is puerperium, but i'm guessing we don't want to go there. 4524:

messy whatever we do, but it would be a huge mess without a third level. Note that it's only the third level within a Description/Disease/Treatment section.

475:

discussion. If I'm wrong, please forgive me and move the discussion from one area to the other :P. I hope this way our discussion won't be so byzantine. --

4948:

Either that or add "Disorders of:" like i did and was later removed. I also mentioned this above when generally discussing why corrections were reverted.

3154:

OK sorry for flip-flopping, I think you make and have made some good points as to why we should have a heading "Drugs". I'll implement that change now. --

1918:

I think the names are, for now, lower priority, especially if we also want to change the title of the templates themselves. Let alone merging templates.

1400:

So I don't think the template names cause confusion, but the texts we use in the block. (also, I'm not sure if these words should be plural/singular). -

5266:

I propose renaming the "Embryology" series of templates to "Development". Such a change is consistent with many of the template titles, the current

5219: 2787:

If I understand that well, the header "Treatment" is wrong. And in general, bold editing is OK but an outcome can be that we'll do it different. -

1053: 633:(LMC)" and so. But not in the header, somewhere in the text/list. Are these abbreviations formally listed or introduced somewhere (wiki article)? 3508:. Similar for the other templates ("Parasites and pests medical navs") This naming scheme may also prevent duplication with existing templates.-- 4897:

Ok, agree with both. I added the "drugs" after "antibiotic" for consistency with the other templates, but i think most people will understand.

3910:

made an eponymous debut album". Here it is not mentioned nearby. Could it be: "diseases named after persons"? (for fun only: "selfiesease"?). -

2935: 354:

and cellphones). I do my work on several different computers and browsers, and the combination where it comes the closest to wrapping is using

2395:

grouping possible, or shall we sort them alphabetically? It appears to me that bacterials & viruses are below together, but why exactly? -

1272:

We use the three subtitles "Description - Disease - Treatment". But the word 'disease' might not cover the its row correctly. For example, in

4246: 81: 76: 71: 59: 2960: 363: 151: 3283:

As for new errors: I suggest Tom can take a careful look at the latest version texts, and signal questions. We will not enforce a hurry. -

3346: 3340: 1141: 1012: 197: 188: 3042:

And this is what I propose. (Wording could be refined, like I did rm repetition of "drug", and there might be an exception somewhere). -

328: 296: 1890:

Apart from putting a question mark with those words, I can not argue much more. Just in case there are obvious improvements at hand. -

1583: 1297: 4463: 4404: 4345: 2099:

Note that i took the liberty of boldly fixing many, many, maaaany such small issues without discussing them here. Only when in doubt.

370:

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. --

2929:

About level 2 lists exists, but no level 2 link available? Then use the unlinked word. I did in respiratory system block, shows like:

2901:

psychiatry box and drugs in antibiotics. I've renamed "Disease" to "Disorders" for psychiatry and will have a look @ the drugs one.--

2857:

I reread this, and disagree in a point. First: I don't want to change "Treatment" rowheader. My point is, we must maintain strongly:

4456: 4397: 4338: 3462:

OK, with me (you even say the old word "infestation" is wrong). Example killed. Valid for all 36 then? (never add the latin word)? -

492:

Good. I think this current process of much talks & many edits is going great for quality results. Don't fall for a speed trap. -

398:

I don't think navs necessarily need to be on a single line. I think they do need to be understandable. This is incomprehensible.--

174:(ca. 530 pages) in the 36 boxes. Also their talkpages. Mainspace+template space only. Page list as of 18:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC) 5000:

Question: in 'obstetrics' we group 'birth control methods' as 'drugs', yet not all birth control are drugs. Move it back out? --

3772:

We don't need a big title ("Injuries (fracture)") if both point to the same template... why not just have the title "Fractures"?

3028: 3002: 2461:

TomLT, I in a diff screen I see recent changes adding like "^*" (eg with cleft). But in code it shows regular "**". You know? -

310:

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

3034: 3008: 5161: