Template talk:Medicine navs/Archive 2

RfC - Useful links

 * Draft:Medicine overview of systems
 * medicine navs - shows all templates (live versions + having v-t-e links)
 * Bone and cartilage navs/doc
 * RC in the 36 Medicine navs (source)

Check for recent changes in all outgoing links (ca. 530 pages) in the 36 boxes. Also their talkpages. Mainspace+template space only. Page list as of 18:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RC in the outgoing links for 36+1 medicine navs subtemplates (source)
 * Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates
 * Category:Pages that use a Medicine navs subtemplate
 * Thanks, I see where you're coming from now. This will be useful to monitor changes when it is implemented. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC is closed. Follow up is at  -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

RfC - Wording

 * See Draft:Medicine overview of systems

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 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. I think this current process of much talks & many edits is going great for quality results. Don't fall for a speed trap. -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think with the current state of the templates, leaving them as they are much longer is an even greater trap. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Spell out abbreviations

 * Enough for today. Please take a look at Draft:Medicine overview of systems. First aim: getting the lists complete & with the right wordings. -DePiep (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Request to all: please check you pet topic in Draft:Medicine overview of systems for correct lists & words. Don't worry about space now. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Uppercase abbreviations used

 * Are the abbreviations formal? If so, I think we should write "lymphocyte (LMC)" and so. But not in the header, somewhere in the text/list. Are these abbreviations formally listed or introduced somewhere (wiki article)?
 * Not formal. If we can, we shouldn't be using them.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No abbreviations then. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, and that said there may be one or two exceptions (eg "HIV" rather than full). --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Latin or English words

 * Is it possible to add English words to (Latin?) jargon? Or even the other way around: write English, add Latin/ -DePiep (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is no need for Latin. We should be using lay equivalents. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll replace Latin with common English then. Latin be mentioned in the proper article. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

noco / noncongenital

 * What does "noco" stand for?


 * "What does "noco" stand for?" 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. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * lol at "noco". Zero hits in google. Another Wikipedia hoax? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We should not use "noco/notsocomical" cleary; unknown . -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, it's in the template documentation: 'noco = noncongenital'. Would that word be OK? (not to me as a layman). -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not OK. And confusing if we classify things by what they are not.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Need a better word. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just 'disease'? I can't wait for FLOW to come, this inthreading is very confusing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Completeness

 * Some questions: can someone confirm that the list of 34 is complete, and roughly in the right order (grouping)? Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates lists 37 templates.
 * Added from that category: taste navs, olfaction navs. Not added: Occupational safety and health (not in format; but things like asbestos & tennis elbow should be?). -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am missing things. When there is a navbox about the topic Bone, cartilage, and joint procedures, I'm expecting a Category:Bone, cartilage, and joint procedures. (This category is nicely in content space, so the reader can click there). And as a parent cat, I expect Category:Bone, cartilage, and joint 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. -DePiep (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider closed. I think this list of 36 is complete now. No others have popped up. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates has just all 36 + this Medicine navs overview. That's it. -DePiep (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning 'Human'

 * Is it correct to list Human heart and Human eye, but not Human ear? Isn't this all related to humans? (so we better label the link: Heart ). -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to change the template names, but we'll label it "heart". -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

'Disease' - a better word possible here?
We use the three subtitles "Description - Disease - Treatment". But the word 'disease' might not cover the its row correctly. For example, in #Circulatory system we need it twice. That is bad (or even wrong). Anyone a better idea for this? ping. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 "General", "Overview" or "Acquired"? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PM, I don't understand this. It is not about template names at all. Currently we have situations in the 2nd subheader ❌:
 * Description: ...
 * Disease: Disease·Congenital·Tumors·Injury
 * Treatment: ...
 * Those two words 'disease' have a different level of meaning. Is 'tumor' a disease or not?
 * Also bad (cannot start with brackets) ❌:
 * Disease: (dis1, dis2, dis3)·Congenital·Tumors·Injury
 * 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). -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * notareply: found "disorder". Usable? -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 present) --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So IIC this would produce the row(-pattern) to look like:
 * Disease: Congenital·Tumors·Injury·Other (dis1, dis2, dis3)
 * and/or
 * Disease: Congenital·Tumors·Injury·Other
 * 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. -DePiep (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK made this change. Not ideal I agree, but something that could be revisited at a later date. Box this topic? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's box this thread when PizzaMan has seen these changes. DePiep (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Have closed this discussion as 'other' is also what Pizzaman proposed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Other titles

 * Jargon/Latin in titles. These block titles might be too much jargon. Are there more clear wordings for it?:
 * ✅ Metabolism
 * Lymphatic system and Lymphocyte (two blocks?)
 * Neoplasm
 * ✅ Mycosis
 * Protozoan infection
 * Infestation
 * Myeloid
 * Integumentary system, superficial fascia, loose connective tissue
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Skin appendages
 * Muscle, deep fascia and dense regular connective tissue Added. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Added below. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 title.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Lymphatic system and Lymphocyte (two blocks?) => 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 of).
 * 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 see a proper lay term.
 * Protozoan infection: no lay word for this afaik.
 * Infestation: added below.
 * 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 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.
 * Skin appendages: already mentioned below, should be merged into "skin", together with ingegumentary system.PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Clear enough titles?. These titles are unclear/unknown to me, but might be OK in general. Pls take a look if improvements are possible.
 * Obstetrics
 * Endocrine system
 * Inborn error of metabolism
 * Olfaction
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These are all common titles which I'd consider clear enough ("Obstetrics, Endocrine system") or the best term or description ("Inborn errors of metabolism"). We could rename "Olfaction" to "Smell", but I think it should be retained if we're talking about the scientific use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Scratch that, 'smell' is eminently more understandable and ties in with our other titles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We could rename "Endocrine system" to "Hormones"PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from putting a question mark with those words, I can not argue much more. Just in case there are obvious improvements at hand. -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm happy with the new titles. If Pizzaman is too, we can consider boxing this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues identified by Tom
A list of minor issues identified by me (should not block release):--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems title "acba" needs to be improved
 * Made it "Electrolyte and acid-base imbalance". -DePiep (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems has a duplicate listing of template "Congenital disorders of the digestive system" which could be removed
 * ✅. Gone (not by me). -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that i took the liberty of boldly fixing many, many, maaaany such small issues without discussing them here. Only when in doubt. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems have responded above.
 * Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems 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.
 * The following systems have "eponymous signs and symptoms" but not general "signs and symptoms" templates: Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems, Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems, Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems, Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems, Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems, Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems
 * Use of "Other" in the "Treatment" section is not always clear, but then neither other the templates themselves... --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pending
 * Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems, could "Gynecological anti-infectives and antiseptics" be simplified?
 * ✅. Just "Drugs" will do here.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Draft:Medicine_overview_of_systems two titles ("after delivery") could be improved.
 * Tom, any of these need to be solved before deployment? -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. 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.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues identified by DePiep

 * About #Peripheral_nervous_system: I've just changed the sublists (** bracketed lists) into what it was days ago. Or was this intentional? -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but it looks good now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit as you think good. I can't check. -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * About #Inborn_error_of_metabolism. Is "Disorders of:" used OK, or can we leave that out? -DePiep (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * we can leave it out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit as you think good. I can't check. -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there any grouping possible, or shall we sort them alphabetically? It appears to me that bacterials & viruses are below together, but why exactly? -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sort alphabetically. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll wait for the stable titles. -DePiep (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * TomLT, I in a diff screen I see recent changes adding like "^*" (eg with cleft). But in code it shows regular "**". You know? -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ummmm....... (may need some more details) --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not a problem, so we let it go. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Enzymes/pathways" - please replace the slash. "and"? "or"? -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed. I don't think we need it... the titles are self-explanatory in my opinion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Title stability
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 &rarr; Template:Smell navs). That will prevent future headaches when working with all these med nav templates. DePiep (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Once we've nutted out the "Index of..." and whether to include "Medical system" then I'd say yes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, we should not include "Index ..." into template name at all ( is fine). I'll keep an eye on when these names can be moved (should & will not interfere with our main topic here). -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If and when renamed (moved), the prefix "Index of" is not added. (From this RfC; propose later if desired). -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK that makes sense. No objections here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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). 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"?PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Treatment subgroupings (Grouping 'drugs' together)

 * Say, the group1, list1 issues; incl. their formatting
 * Lists are primarily made using * and ** (class=hlist; ** produces brackets).

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 not tell thay are drugs, so a reader won't recognise it when outside of brackets (could be a treatment as well). -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * rePizzaman proposal: "instead of writing 'Drugs (drug1, drug2)', let's write 'Drug1, Drug2'"
 * 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 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "And the treatment header already implies that it's drugs unless ..."
 * 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. -DePiep (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 groups (eg antibiotics (x, y, z)) but the downside is it can quickly look messy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree option 2 is better as you state. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I reread this, and disagree in a point. First: I don't want to change "Treatment" rowheader. My point is, we must maintain strongly:
 * Rule 1. keep same-class members together, and Rule 2. keep different class-members apart. It's a hierarchy.

In simple levelsnumbered, the row then has this structure:
 * Treatment1: Chirurgical2 (procABC3, procPQR3), Drugs2 (drugAaa3, drugBbb3)

A level3 list can be empty (= not present) or have one member; but we can not open with a bracketed list (no level2 class name?!). Note that the layout & formatting supports exactly this very well: rowheader1 -- regular word2 -- bracketed sublist3. 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.

Bad is: listing two class-levels into one. PizzaMan's description at 12:57 does mix together level2 and level3 drugs (bad). PizzaMan's also needs arguments of uncertainity, which are not needed (and which would introduce confusion). The reader can handle longer lists well, and these three levels. But leaving this structure is what makes things "messy" (what TomLT mentions). -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 psychiatry box and drugs in antibiotics. I've renamed "Disease" to "Disorders" for psychiatry and will have a look @ the drugs one.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * About level 2 lists exists, but no level 2 link available? Then use the unlinked word. I did in respiratory system block, shows like:
 * Treatment Procedures·Drugs (nasal preparations·throat preparations·drugs for obstructive airway diseases·cough and cold preparations)
 * btw, there is no need to ask for a closing/folding right after a reply. It should be digested. -
 * Yes I agree, saying this as I am having just boxed two discussions and reading this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Treatment Procedures·Antirheumatic drugs·Antigout drugs
 * Level distinction would give:
 * Treatment Procedures·Drugs (antirheumatic·antigout)
 * And this is what I propose. (Wording could be refined, like I did rm repetition of "drug", and there might be an exception somewhere). -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (I am mulling over what you say and will reply later.) --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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). -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 gout and rheumatoid arthritis 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 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This blocks deployment.
 * Minor: re your final remarks (you also noted 'secondary'): not decisive.
 * Please spend some time on making a rudimentary demo line of text (like I did above).
 * Major: "we should be doing so [grouping] 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 IIC), and "Drugs" at level2. 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 you. Unless it is that you expect a summary of a link in the template?. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 . ...)" --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have made the changes (and then reviewed and fixed any other errors I've encountered). --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 prophylactic but also curative. But once you both read that caveat, this section can be collapsed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 conserned and discuss (or boldly add) latin jargon on a case-by-case basis. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection to mentioning a single "drug1" in the higher level as pointed out, done consistently. -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Namespace error
In the Bones and cartilage template, there's this error:

Are we aware of this? Is it something we need to fix? PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an error. It the future categorisation, prepared. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Inverse: add a common Latin word?
For example, about infestation/parasites and pests.

The title now is to be:
 * "Index of parasites and pests"

Given that the latin word is semi-commonly understood (? I guess), can we write?:
 * "Index of parasites and pests (infestation)"

-DePiep (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, with me (you even say the old word "infestation" is wrong). Example killed. Valid for all 36 then? (never add the latin word)? -DePiep (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 Toxicology medical navs. Similar for the other templates ("Parasites and pests medical navs") This naming scheme may also prevent duplication with existing templates.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant to discuss: add the Latin word to the visible title, when it is a bit common? My example was "Index of parasites and pests (infestation)", but you rejected this single instance (OK). Now, maybe others could use that addition. New example: "Index of disease-causing bacteria (pathogenic)". Minor.
 * 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 "... medical navs" is a bit too much for now; and the "navs" suffix already does a lot for that). -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 for.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us close this one as "not done for now". Can always be re-thought later. -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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 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.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC is closed. Follow up is at  -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues identified by PizzaMan

 * 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 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. - PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I am online, I hope we can discuss this in real-time if possible. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth: this diff shows all the edits done to the page after your last one (28 Dec, 19:59 UTC) and now. I hope Tom can help sorting out. -DePiep (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorted into a list:
 * 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 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).
 * Please add any others that you wish to discuss above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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:--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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".
 * We don't need a big title ("Injuries (fracture)") if both point to the same template... why not just have the title "Fractures"?
 * 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 themselves.
 * 'Myopathy' I've renamed as you do make a good point why ("Muscle / Disease / Muscle") is a bit confusing.
 * "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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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, functional disorders 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 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC is closed. Follow up is at  -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of 'eponym'

 * Useful link: Draft:#Overview


 * "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? -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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: "Whitney Houston made an eponymous debut album". Here it is not mentioned nearby. Could it be: "diseases named after persons"? (for fun only: "selfiesease"?). -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All i can say is that eponym 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 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 simple wikipedia ;-) PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. DePiep (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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.PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 category.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The adjective "Eponymous" 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). -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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 --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To me this looks good enough, esp as a submentioning: "Signs and symptoms (eponymous)". -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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). -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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 eponyms.PizzaMan (♨♨) 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK with me. -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.) PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No objections here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Level 4 subheadings

 * (moved here, from process-listing:)
 * Would this be part of the issue? I changed skull anatomy to
 * ' * Anatomy
 * ' ** Skull
 * ' *** face
 * ' *** back
 * ' *** compound
 * ' *** foramina
 * So there i introduced an extra level with brackets in brackets.PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I can think of three formattings for these level4 subgroupings (this is a reduced list):
 * Description Anatomy (Skull (face·back·foramina)·torso·pelvis·lower extremity)·Physiology·Development
 * Description Anatomy (Skull (face·back·foramina)·torso·pelvis·lower extremity)·Physiology·Development
 * Description Anatomy (Skull (face·back·foramina) ·torso·pelvis·lower extremity)·Physiology·Development

I like the italics form. Small might end up too small in the navbox. -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the italics too. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of level 4 subheadings unless we really 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 brackets too many. I'll of course respect your opinions on this if I can't sway you a little here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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.PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't judge if we need it/can do without. It's just, if we add it it better be formatted somehow. -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Metabolism·Enzymes and pathways: Citric acid cycle (enzymes)·Glycolysis (enzymes)
 * Does not work out well in Bones. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done for IEM. Feel free to revert. I would be happy either way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, 'bones' looks OK actually. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Bones doesn't need this change. I re-added the 'Enzymes and pathways:' headwords. -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, not to worry. No further thoughts here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tumor / neoplasia
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 "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.PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No opinion from me; sounds like it should be done before the Go. -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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: ) and I think in the interests of accessibility we should maintain it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC) (edit:clarified)
 * 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 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? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 days. PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 the lay-friendly "cancer".PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * RfC is closed. Follow up is at  -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Further small notes from Tom

 * Renamed "Antiifungal drugs" to "Drugs": "Antifungal" is implied by being in the "Treatment" section of "Fungal disease"
 * Renamed "Antibiotic drugs" to "Antibiotics" as that's a very common word and 'drugs' is implied.
 * Ok, agree with both. I added the "drugs" after "antibiotic" for consistency with the other templates, but i think most people will understand. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Should we rename 'disease' in IEM to 'disorders'? --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Title changed. No further issues. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Question: in 'obstetrics' we group 'birth control methods' as 'drugs', yet not all birth control are drugs. Move it back out? --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note these aren't "blocking" bugs --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Subheadings in 'diseases / other'
In "Respiratory system" and "cardiovascular navs" we have subheadings under "other" (eg "Other (vasculitis)". Do we plan to do this for all our templates? --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ moved out from 'other'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Template name edits (mergers, renames ...)
For listing proposed changes as they happen.

For dealing with template names and what not -- NOT for dealing with things WITHIN the template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For reasons explained above @13:11, I suggest to keep these discussions at the template talkpages too . -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Straightforward changes
(Spelling mistakes, formatting, etc.)
 * Lymph immun and complement navs correct the spelling mistake. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Other

 * 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I propose renaming the "Embryology" series of templates to "Development". Such a change is consistent with many of the template titles, the current recommendations of MEDMOS for anatomy section naming, 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. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)