![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
perhaps add "QRS" complex in the Arrhythmia "other/ungrouped" category to further information for the reader, as I see you have included the Hexagonal reference system for the purpose of further information-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for editing. Former bottom lines of the templates were cryptic. Now it's style is very easy to understand to me. Thanks a lot.-- Was a bee ( talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
An improvement in my opinion. The previous abbreviated links were a bit esoteric. Only concern is that some of the templates are now getting quite long.
A specific concern about a template itself: Template:Symptoms involving head and neck. This is poorly organized in my opinion... Furthermore, there are 100s of symptoms involving head and neck which are not included. Matthew Ferguson 57 ( talk) 13:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
|listn=
three times. Not advised yet, all templates use |below=
now). -
DePiep (
talk)
19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Post-closure discussion notes:
Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: The WP:RfC closures are odd to me because they are closed by people involved in the WP:RfCs. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
...if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that we remove the Gray's Anatomy numbers from the anatomy series of templates. An example template is here:
The template has both a Gray's Anatomy number and a Terminologica Anatomica number. First I'd like to start by acknowledging the stellar job of making these templates, it's amazing to have such a thorough catalogue of the human body. I'd like to propose thought that we remove the GA numbers and retain the TA numbers. I propose this because:
I think just one classification system (TA) used on templates is enough. To be clear I'm referring to removing the "(GA x-y)" on the template headings. Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The navbox data GA has been transferred to wikidata [3]. I would like to close this thread, and considering here and feedback @ WPANATOMY, mark this as consensus to remove the GA numbers from navboxes entirely. Any objections? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved from discussion above. Separate topic. - DePiep ( talk) 01:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Preliminary discussions
|
---|
OK as a general note, I think that there are a few different types of problems we'll be discussing:
After the navs are deployed, we can start discussing and looking at these problems. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
![]()
|
I have moved items relating to cleanup of medical templates to WP:MED, with the exception of the two below. Permalink [6] -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have moved items relating to cleanup of physiology templates to WP:PHYSIOLOGY, with the exception of the one below. Permalink [7] -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have moved articles relating to cleanup of dentistry templates to WP:DENTISTRY. Permalink [8] -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I have moved articles relating to cleanup of anatomy templates to a page on WP:ANATOMY. I will do the same for physiology templates and medical templates at some point, too. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Relates to previous discussion
|
---|
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
perhaps add "QRS" complex in the Arrhythmia "other/ungrouped" category to further information for the reader, as I see you have included the Hexagonal reference system for the purpose of further information-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for editing. Former bottom lines of the templates were cryptic. Now it's style is very easy to understand to me. Thanks a lot.-- Was a bee ( talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
An improvement in my opinion. The previous abbreviated links were a bit esoteric. Only concern is that some of the templates are now getting quite long.
A specific concern about a template itself: Template:Symptoms involving head and neck. This is poorly organized in my opinion... Furthermore, there are 100s of symptoms involving head and neck which are not included. Matthew Ferguson 57 ( talk) 13:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
|listn=
three times. Not advised yet, all templates use |below=
now). -
DePiep (
talk)
19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Post-closure discussion notes:
Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: The WP:RfC closures are odd to me because they are closed by people involved in the WP:RfCs. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
...if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that we remove the Gray's Anatomy numbers from the anatomy series of templates. An example template is here:
The template has both a Gray's Anatomy number and a Terminologica Anatomica number. First I'd like to start by acknowledging the stellar job of making these templates, it's amazing to have such a thorough catalogue of the human body. I'd like to propose thought that we remove the GA numbers and retain the TA numbers. I propose this because:
I think just one classification system (TA) used on templates is enough. To be clear I'm referring to removing the "(GA x-y)" on the template headings. Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The navbox data GA has been transferred to wikidata [3]. I would like to close this thread, and considering here and feedback @ WPANATOMY, mark this as consensus to remove the GA numbers from navboxes entirely. Any objections? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved from discussion above. Separate topic. - DePiep ( talk) 01:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Preliminary discussions
|
---|
OK as a general note, I think that there are a few different types of problems we'll be discussing:
After the navs are deployed, we can start discussing and looking at these problems. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
![]()
|
I have moved items relating to cleanup of medical templates to WP:MED, with the exception of the two below. Permalink [6] -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have moved items relating to cleanup of physiology templates to WP:PHYSIOLOGY, with the exception of the one below. Permalink [7] -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have moved articles relating to cleanup of dentistry templates to WP:DENTISTRY. Permalink [8] -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I have moved articles relating to cleanup of anatomy templates to a page on WP:ANATOMY. I will do the same for physiology templates and medical templates at some point, too. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Relates to previous discussion
|
---|
|