Template talk:Medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggestion

While there is no guideline on these pages, I have been trying to standardise all of the Medicine navigational boxes. This is what I have been using, to keep a sense of uniformity it would be best to stick to this, or change them all. Below I have given a bare code for the boxes for future use.

Code

{| style="margin:0 auto; clear:both; text-align:center;" align=center width="80%" class="toccolours"
|-
!style="background:#ccccff"|{{Tnavbar-header|[[Template Title]]|Template_Title|bgcolor=#ccccff}}
|-
|| LINKS - separated by '|'; or '→' if continuous series
|-
!style="background:#ccccff"| Second Title
|-
|| LINK | LINK (1, 2, 3) | LINK: A → B → C
|}

Output

Template Title
LINKS - separated by '|'; or '→' if continuous series
Second Title
LINK | LINK (1, 2, 3) | LINK: A → B → C

Notes on templates

To each of the templates I have added the following <noinclude> documentation info:

<noinclude>:''This template is part of the [[Wikipedia:Navigational templates#Medicine|Medical series]] of [[Wikipedia:Navigational templates|navigation boxes]]. Refer to [[Template:Medicine]] and its [[Template_talk:Medicine|talk page]] for suggestions on style and editing.''</noinclude>

Giving:

This template is part of the Medical series of navigation boxes. Refer to Template:Medicine and its talk page for suggestions on style and editing.

Please be aware that when using <noinclude> any extra newlines will be included in the articles, so make sure the first <noinclude> is on the same line as the |}.

Spaully 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'd prefer to separate the links with vertical bars (|) instead of hyphens. If you look at the other Wikipedia:Navigational templates, you'll see that this is common practice.

Also, I'd prefer the links to begin on the same line as the table cell code, that is:

|| Link | Link

instead of

||
Link | Link

as the latter creates an unneeded paragraph tag to be created inside the table cell, thus adding some extra space.

One more thing: Skip the leading <br clear=all />. You already have clear:both and 1em margin top and bottom (½ might be enough?), so the
shouldn't be necessaty. All in all, I propose the following:

{| style="margin:0.5em auto; clear:both; text-align:center; width:80%" align="center" class="toccolours"
|-
!style="background:#ccccff"| TEMPLATE TITLE <small>- [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:TEMPLATE NAME<nowiki>&|action=edit}} edit]</small>
|-
|| Link | Link | Link...
|-
!style="background:#ccccff"| SECOND TITLE
|-
|| More links | links | links...
|}

Best regards, Fred Bradstadt 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for the input. All of your suggestions are fair - I hadn't noticed the current conventions on |'s. 1/2 em would work better in articles where several nav boxes are present. As with the  s. Cheers, Spaully 19:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Substing {{SERVER}} and {{localurl:..}}

Hi everyone. I added some minor changes to the template. First I made the "edit" link look like an internal link (just a cosmetic change) and then I also added the two "subst:" tags since double transclusion should be avoided to save server load. "Subst:" causes those templates in the template to be expanded when the page is saved and thus means the server don't need to do that on every page rendering. --David Göthberg 17:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was aware this could be an issue, but had included the SERVER and localurl tags to prevent what had happened to the previous 'edit' links - at some point there seems to have been a change in the namespace link, making most of the old 'edit' links obsolete. However if we're pretty sure that is unlikely to happen again there should be no harm in including subst:. The change to an internal link is good, I'm going to ask for AWB activation to make changing this across all of the templates for easy. |→ Spaully°τ 21:09, 27 February 2006

The double transclusion policy has now been rejected and so to preserve clarity I think transcluding these templates here is beneficial. The edit link still appears internal, a nice addition. |→ Spaully°τ 20:22, 27 March 2006 (GMT)

Using (&)middot; rather than the vertical line as divider

To me, the &middot; (" · ") is more effective than the vertical line (" | ") as a divider because it isn't as obtrusive (perhaps because it doesn't resemble one of the strokes used to form letters). Where do I vote for my preference?  Thanks, David Kernow 13:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We could have a vote here, although you and I might be the only ones to visit. Perhaps it would more properly be decided on Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates, where there might be more traffic.

I had started to use '-' as a divider before the current bias towards '|' was drawn to my attention. Personally I do not see a huge amount of difference between them, but think that all of the medicine related navboxes should be the same. (Unfortunately that means any change would require significant effort).

I'll start a discussion on that talk page, and we'll see where it goes, I think to jump straight into a vote wouldn't be sensible. |→ Spaully°τ 15:02, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

Thanks. I've had another thought in the interim and have added it there. Best wishes, David Kernow 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit links

It seems there has been some change to the software meaning all of the edit links now no longer work as they include an '&' in the title which was previously ignored. I'll change them all tomorrow with AWB.

Anyone know where this kind of thing might have been announced or could be announced in future? Might be a good idea if not current. |→ Spaully°τ 05:09, 28 March 2006 (GMT)

Ive been adding this to the headers of some of the templates, moving the ugly edit tag:

 <br clear=all />
 {| style="margin:0 auto;" align=center width="80%" class="toccolours"
 !style="background:#ccccff"|{{Tnavbar-header|<big>[[{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]</big>|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|bgcolor=#ccccff}}
 

Hope thats ok - Jack (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the v•d•e thing, very neat and functional. I'll try and copy this to the rest of the templates in the series.

I'm going to change the code a little though, mainly to get rid of the clear=all thing that tends to insert unnecessary lines. Modified below:

 {| style="margin:0 auto; clear:both; text-align:center;" align=center width="80%" class="toccolours"
 |-
 !style="background:#ccccff"|{{Tnavbar-header|[[{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|bgcolor=#ccccff}}
 

Thanks for finding and changing that. |→ Spaully°τ 10:47, 11 August 2006 (GMT)

Immunology

How come immunology isn't on here? -- 71.132.152.195 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Update

Was interested in updating the template information using Careers in Medicine as a (rough) guide:

Interested in your comments/thoughts.

Thanks,

-RJ1001 03:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

STD/STI

i think stds and stis should me worked into this template somewhere!Qrc2006 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Received the following on my talk page:

Hi, I'm not clear why you are lumping nursing, dentistry, etc. in on the physician navigation bar. These are separate professions. If you are going to do something like that, you need to treat them equally with physicians and list each specialty, which would be cumbersome. I'll go ahead and remove nurse and nurse practitioner from the list. -THB 02:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My reply:

Really it is a matter of not thinking of it as a the physician navigation bar, but rather as the health science navigation bar. When I first saw the original template that had the header "Health Science" in the title, I was disappointed not to find dentistry, nursing, etc. as I consider these valuable parts of the health science whole beyond merely physicians. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, there is no unification of the health sciences on Wikipedia, so consider this a first attempt at changing that. That being said, I agree with you in that perhaps something a bit more neutral is in order:

In this way, I hope that it seems that the specialties listed are less physician-oriented and more field-oriented (or are at least on their way to be).

Let me know your thoughts,

-RJ1001 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Further reply:

Thanks for the reply. My view is that the nav bar is for the medical profession. There's also a medicine portal. There's a health portal that includes nursing and I started working on a nursing portal last week. No need to blur the lines between the professions. Traditionally medicine has dominated the health care field but in numbers there are a lot more nurses, not to mention other professionals and paraprofessionals.

I suppose you could do a separate nav bar for all the health professions together giving each of them equal weight but I don't see a purpose in that as there is already a category for it. -THB 04:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'd just like to hear what the community thinks is appropriate. I may have gotten into editing this template without fully understanding its purpose,

-RJ1001 21:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to this discussion, however I think that it is natural to have links to other health profesions on the Medicine page because all the proffessions are linked and work together. Therefore a user who finds the medicine page might want to know about nursing or occupational therapy etc.

One other thing, you are missing Dietetics in the list of relevant proffessions.

Jkoopmans 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New format with bullets

I like it. That is all. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neurology

I would like to object to considering my last edit vandalism. According to the article on Internal Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine considers Neurology an Internal Medicine subspecialty. Thus, it belongs with the Medical Specialties, not with the Physician specialties.Mordac 17:17, 20 June 2007, GMT

Moving Neurology from Physician specialties to Medical subspecialties certainly isn't vandalism. I agree Neurology is more of an internal medicine subspecialty; the confusion arises because neurology is frequently a direct-entry (from medical school) residency. The same goes for dermatology, it ought to be in medical subspecialties. Dlodge 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of a semantic debate, but from my U.S. perspective, it seems that a "medical subspecialty" is one that results from additional training after completing full internal medicine training (although I admit I used "required medicine internship" as the definition in a previous comment). Can neurologists or dermatologists sit for the boards in IM after the standard combined training program? I'd vote to leave them in the "physician specialty" section. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 05:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Surgical specialties that aren't

So I noticed that several specialties listed under "surgical specialties & subspecialties" are not ones traditionally thought of as falling in that category, e.g. OB-GYN, Opthalmology, and "interventional neuroradiology" (a bit overly precise, no?) I typically think of "surgical specialties" as those requiring a surgical internship, while "medical specialties" require a medical internship, and "physician specialties" are those that don't specfically mandate either one or have their own specialty-specific internship. Maybe this is US-centric, but I think these categories are fairly consistent in the english-speaking world. Otherwise we end up with silly situations, like saying that dermatologists and opthos "practice medicine AND surgery" and thus need to be listed twice, etc. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to review US surgical specialties: http://www.facs.org/residencysearch/specialties/listing.html

-RJ1001 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there's no question that docs in those fields perform surgical procedures, but for many of them, "medical" therapy makes up just as much or more of their practice & training (and I wouldn't necessarily file refractions or vaginal deliveries under either "medical" or "surgical"). My point is that it's silly to list any field multiple times on the template, and unless we're going to turn it into a big Venn diagram, it is simplest to put IM subspecialties under "Medical", fields that are primarily surgical and require a surgical internship under "Surgical," and fields that practice a little of both, or their own totally unique skill, under "physician." -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge Physician specialties and Medical specialties

Why not merge the Physician specialties and Medical specialties? They include the same list - just that Physician specialties links to their codes. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to be merging these articles, I recommend merging all of the articles listed on the left side of the template. There is a lot of duplicated content between Physician specialties, Medical specialty, Surgical specialties, and Medical specialist. I recommend creating one big table of the specialties, with each row containing the specialty, surgical or medical, specialty code, annual salary, parent specialty (if sub-specialty), and a brief description of the field. You might want to place {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags on the pages and move this discussion to one of these 4 articles' talk pages. --Scott Alter 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is continued in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reformatted specialties

I just further revised the new organization. I mostly followed the separation of surgical/internal medicine/diagnostic/other based on the medicine article and I don't think any specialties should be listed twice. I also removed the non-medical specialties that non-physicians perform. These all belong within Allied health professions (and newly-created {{Allied health professions}}). --Scott Alter 04:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just made some more changes. Since this is the medicine template, the specialties should not be the main focus of the template. Rather, the template should be titled "Health science > Medicine," and the specialties should be a subset. All topics related to medicine as practiced by physicians should be included. There are probably more articles to be added to the template (including articles linked from Medicine with {{main}} and in the See also section). Currently, the template is divided into "Medical specialties" and "Other." With the addition of more articles, the "other" group could potentially be eliminated and replaced by more appropriate groupings of these seemingly miscellaneous articles. --Scott Alter 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine

Removing this controversial link to a stub article that is not as notable as other links here. Looking at the history and talk there was no consensus for its addition. --220.246.239.68 (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for its removal either.Bryan Hopping ^T 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you've been a one man POV for using Allopathic, I'd say you're hardly the person to discuss consensus. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Help with Fixing a Template

Template:Auditory and vestibular pathways has some problems I point out at Template talk:Auditory and vestibular pathways. I can't make the edits myself due to health & experience limitations, so I appreciate anyone who reviews the page & makes the corrections in my stead.

Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

parameters?

Where is the documentation page for this template? 69.251.180.224 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no documentation page, and there are no parameters for this template. Most simple navboxes without parameters probably don't have any documentation pages. What type of parameters would you be looking for? --Scott Alter (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If I understand my earlier question correctly (it has been some time), this template takes one parameter, which has something to do with its auto-collapsing (“show”/“hide”) behavior. Thus my request would be for this parameter to be documented somewhere? 69.251.180.224 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrology vs. Gynecology

Why is andrology under IM but gynecology under "other"? Cburnett (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Template name

I noticed that the template was moved today to "match title" that had been "Medical Specialities". This title seems to have been changed in June without any notice or discussion. The template is supposed to and does include topics that are not medical specialties. I'd suggest changing it back to Medicine as the name and title of the template and the title to match the contents of the template. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion or objections, I have renamed the template back to medicine. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)