Template talk:Medicine navs

2931:. Hope you both had a wonderful Christmas or other festive day recently. Over the past few months with work commitments I've been using Knowledge again mainly for (self)educational purposes and have to agree with your original point, RockMagnetist, that these navs visually contribute to a lot of clutter and are rarely used. If a user wants to go to a certain article, they can already (as you state) use google, the internal WP search box, nav boxes, and wikilinks. So I have to state (and apologise for all the hoo-hah) but I have come around to your point of view. I fully support removing these subnavboxes from article space. I don't support deleting them though, because for a template editor they are exceedingly useful. So would you support making them visible only to template space? I have left a comment about index articles below so we can separate discussions. -- 263: 24: 142: 3566:, they visit a navbox. And it is an upper limit on their use because some people may have visited the navboxes by other routes, and they didn't necessarily use the links once they got there. This analysis is easy to repeat for any of the other index boxes. Even as an upper limit this is really low usage, so I don't see what more we need to know about index boxes; maybe we should refocus our investigations on the regular navboxes. 3776: 3013: 1892:

an hour to revert the whole setup, and an hour or two to collect the data and write it up. Whether anybody uses these navboxes would actually be a useful thing for WPMED to know, and the results would probably be more or less applicable to all subject areas at the English Knowledge. But it takes sustained work over the course of a month, and there's no point in starting if the project won't be finished.

73: 55: 83: 2628: 2598: 2587: 2566: 3967: 1720:. You identify that index boxes are confusing. Yet you also lump together a whole lot of other concerns about they way our articles are linked. My point is that removing index boxes won't fix any of those other concerns. So by fixing index boxes (or removing them) we get rid of any of the problems in clear text. However the preceding problems (which I have struck through) remain. -- 1267:

project's numerous templates, ensuring that we don't start to have duplicate ones. So one option would be to move them all so they only display in template namespace. This will mean readers are no longer confused. An alternate option would be to include all of the 'index' templates as collapsed, so that only a line "Index of..." is displayed and users can open it at will. --

1381:

don't see a way to solve the problem you pose (how to keep navboxes small and compact in an up-to-date way) without using a system like this to ensure that the templates are compartmentalised. Perhaps "Index of..." could be renamed to be even more clear, or a small (?) question mark could be provided with an explanation for lay users to explain what these subnavs do.--

2118:

Also, since the purpose of index boxes (as I see it) is to provide links that are not in the article or regular navboxes, we should compare links from each of the three groups I described above. Another control experiment is my idea of replacing navboxes by lists and monitoring them for the same length of time as the navboxes.

2440:

I agree that it looks like a huge job, but I don't see this as something that needs to be done all at once. Each change is good by itself; we could just choose something to do and do it. Here is what I suggest for the first stage: remove links to the index templates and wait a couple of weeks. If no

2235:

Here are my suggestions for how to fix the template creep in the articles covered by this project. They go beyond my initial point about index templates, but that is necessary because the index templates themselves were designed to fix template creep. I think the suggestions below are consistent with

1883:

There is a kludge that will let us see how often links in navboxes get clicked on, if we really want the information. It won't let us separate search engine spiders from real humans, but it will let us get page view counts for clicking a link in a navbox vs other ways of reaching the page. It's not

1766:

links to 32 navboxes. Collectively, in the past 30 days, they were visited 13,856 times. The index box appears in about 1600 articles. Thus, it was used an average of 9 times per article over 30 days. At the other end, I would estimate the navboxes have a total of about 1000 links, so on average each

1210:

articles. They may be used significantly by a small number of editors. Whether anyone else uses them is unclear. It seems unlikely that typical readers use them very much. As I said above, they're systematically stripped out of the mobile version. You can't see them, and therefore you can't use

1087:

I must be crazy, because I don't find this system terribly difficult to navigate, and these little user vignettes read to me like scripts for the wiki-equivalent of those late-night infomercials involving someone who sets their kitchen on fire trying to boil water. I don't object to simplifying it -

672:

becomes an issue, then you may find that you like that display anyway. Quite a few readers using that even on desktop systems. And, on a more serious note, if anyone's hoping that readers will use navboxes to reach important, related articles, you should note that navboxes are completely invisible

234:

Consensus here is that the "index" templates do not serve as useful navigational tool, and that they contribute to visual clutter for readers. We have agreed that the index templates should not be displayed to readers. I have been an active participant in these discussions but as we have all agreed

3249:

I like the second idea, but could we do longer changes? It takes a while for changes in templates to propagate out to the articles, and this step is where we create (small) server costs. From what I overhear from the analytics folks, one week (any seven-day period) is the right way to think about

2964:

I don't think so. We've already mentioned this discussion 3-4 times, so I think if editors were interested they would already be participating. If we all agree on something, we can roll out a change and then alter it according to the reaction. But I don't think it's normal for every peak and trough

2117:

Yes, a separate page sounds like a good idea. I think random choices are good in principle, but some thought still needs to go in the implementation. I think it's best to have controls in the experiment, which is why I suggested comparing different ways of getting between the same pair of articles.

2095:

There's no rush. If somebody else volunteers to help out (always good to have more than one editor involved, because real life happens) and nobody objects, then we could start by picking a couple of navboxes and targets, which will save us some time when we actually want to do it. We could make a

1907:

I like that. It would be interesting to gather some information. I can't guarantee that I could be involved the whole way - next month, real life will be pretty demanding for me. I think the experiment should be carefully designed, with links to closely related and more remote articles. Here is one

1891:

Is that interesting to you? More to the point, is it interesting enough to two or three editors to do the work involved? It'll take an hour to pick templates and links, an hour to set it up, a few minutes each day to check the links for problems/potential corruption, and (after a few weeks or so)

1324:

While a navbox may appear redundant to a category or list, it is not the same as a single category, a group of categories under one parent category, or a list. Each section of a navbox may seem to be a carbon copy of a category or list, but that is not always the case, and in many cases, the navbox

4265:

says, "This is an embedded medical navbox." If that means that it should not be used anywhere except in another navbox, will someone please edit the doc file and say this, so users and editors will be less likely to use it outside navboxes and more easily diagnose misuse. If it is permitted to use

838:

For these "indexes", I use these links occasionally myself but having been editing them I am not too impartial about their use. I would love to hear from any editors who have used these to good end. A question that hasn't been asked at any point in the last 6+ years is are these templates actually

3587:

I agree it does not seem like these links are used much. I am however very intrigued about doing an experiment as it may lead us to make one of the few "evidence based" content decisions on Knowledge. In addition it will provide useful information for the future of this idea (subnavboxes). In the

1380:

Reading through the above, I'm not convinced you've really shown a convincing reason or consensus for a change. I've minimised the extraneous comments in your case studies to illustrate this. I think unfortunately most of your frustration emerges from the way we've structured our articles. I just

842:

If we get rid of them we should consider removing them completely, as in my experience in the dusty corners of Knowledge outlines are either forgotten for many years and unusable for that reason, or excessively edited with links from all and sundry that they are also unusable. On the other hand I

550:

The guidelines also suggest, "If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate." I am going to make a proposal here rather than at a TfD, because I would like to give editors the chance to

1812:

Note that the above only provides information on access to the navboxes through the index template. The navboxes themselves might be useful because they are transcluded in each of the articles that they are linked to. That is the kind of thing that could be studied by the method described below.

1734:

These things you refer to as "conflating" and "lumping together" are what I call "context". The purpose of all those numbers is to compare the use of an index box with the use of links from the article itself and in regular navboxes. The answer is not definitive, but it does seem to suggest that

1266:

to see what we can do there, also. With regard to these internal navboxes, what would you think about moving them to template space or template documentation? You may a good point as to why they may not be used by readers, but they are supremely useful in part because they help keep track of our

865:

Thanks for keeping an open mind on this - always hard when something you have worked on is challenged. I hope that anyone who has found them useful will provide some details. In the TfD, you were the only one who did. Some people will go to a deletion debate and more or less equate "navbox" with

1627:

the regular navboxes and go straight to the index boxes? All the rest is "extraneous"? I think you're having a hard time visualizing how a first-time user might approach this page because you have been developing these indices for so long. One view of how regular users behave is to look at page

834:

Part of your frustration with this template series seems to relate to the incomprehensible jargon we use to describe medical articles and medical diagnosis. This is a frustrating fact of life and with any luck will improve within the next 200-300 years as we move away from Latin and Greek-based

3122:. Would it be worth emulating this on all the navboxes, or providing a series of links (as you two mention above) in navboxes? I am personally not in favour of this in view of the discussions we've had above, but if other editors are going to do this piecemeal we should discuss it. Thoughts? -- 401:

for "anatomy" and "treatment". If I search "anatomy" and the navboxes are in their normal, hidden state (because there are four of them), I get no hits. So how about "treatment"? Now here is something really strange. The word appears nine times in the article - and none of them are linked to

1102:

No doubt the more you use this system, the better you get at using them - and the less you need them. Each of the indexes has a doc page that says "These are geared towards lay readers". I am an appropriate person to test them on - lots of experience with Knowledge, but not a lot of medical

4182:

Ah, i see. Sorry i was too lazy to read up on the talk page when i saw all the archives. Too bad for all the effort we put in, but an understandable choice. Thank you for updating me. Any other general medicine or neurology related navboxes in dire need of fixing that you know of?

3250:

changes like this. (At least with people who edit, the people who edit on Sundays are not the same as people who edit on Mondays.) So my suggestion is to do two-week sessions of "on" and "off", even if that means that it takes eight weeks to collect data. Does that sound okay?

884:

As for delete vs. outline, I lean towards delete; I just provided the demo as an option to consider. Also, I don't think the way to prevent users from adding navboxes is to add meta-navboxes; that just changes the baseline for template creep, and navboxes get added anyway, as the

1841:(Tom) I edited those Mednavs (the Index subtemplates) from weird ad hoc illegible abbreviations into readable text. This very step was useful, and at the same time we recognised it was not enough. There was something more about these Mednavs. And RockMagnetist now points to this. 3293:

sounds like a good objective way to do this. I say we pick 6 navboxes randomly from the list using a RNG. The list is provided on the "Template" page here. I do not have access to a RNG however if you could generate the numbers I think this experiment will be quite interesting.

3082:. I do not favour this option at all. The index boxes may serve a navigational value, although as RockMagnetist points out this is questionable. They definitely serve a very useful role organising our templates and articles, so I believe they should be preserved in some form. -- 1088:

it's certainly unusual to have meta-templates that navigate between other templates - but converting to outlines doesn't really appeal to me; those things are un-watched and un-edited backwaters, and the vertical-ness makes them harder to read than the condensed navbox format.

1666:. This is a stub with no references, yet it got 781 hits in the last 30 days. Unfortunately, I know of no way to determine how often a regular navbox is used because readers can click one of its links without visiting it. But clearly it's the index boxes that are extraneous. 1211:

them (even if you go to the navbox's page in the template namespace) there. Therefore we can guarantee that 30% of readers aren't using them, and despite these being invisible on the mobile site for a very long time, I have never heard a complaint about their absence.

2985:, thank you for reviving this discussion; I had given up on it and moved on to other things. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply - this is always a very busy season for me. I still haven't managed to read all the recent discussions, but I will reply to this one. 831:. Links between medical templates have existed since at least 2008, and recently with some other users I attempted to make these templates somewhat more useable, with a goal to reduce the (huge) amount of navboxes plastered on our many articles by linking them . 493:

Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:

2360:

40,000 (including anatomy and non-med articles) so although I think you make some good points I am not sure, having recently spent a month going through the med templates, how this is going to be done short of a concerted effort by multiple editors over many

1119:

Well, I don't really use this system often - I work on molecular biology articles; anything as big as a bone is beyond me ;) - though I did look into it when one of these was TfD'd awhile ago. No doubt the navbox pileup at the bottom of an article like

3602:

I agree with the general idea of making changes based on evidence; but it's important to know what questions you are trying to answer and not ask questions that have already been answered. As far as I am concerned, we already have really good data on

2887:

my indended meaning is that like template documentation, the index boxes are moved to the "noinclude" section of templates. So any users who go into the template namespace to view the template itself can still see them, but normal users cannot.

547:, but it wasn't placed directly on any of them. However, it is pretty obvious that any given article will refer only to a very small fraction of the others. When you add a subnav to a template, you are, in effect, giving up on the guidelines. 2902:

Getting it. Then, nothing of the navs information will be available for the reader (in content space) at all ever? Would be an easy solution (for us here), but I thought the info was useful in some situations (but not all 400000 articles).

1337:, which has shown that in the month following its creation, readership of the articles contained within increased by 8.5% (an average of 406 views per article) and editing of these pages increased by 37% from the month prior to its creation 2276:

If there are still a lot of boxes on some pages, for each page see if the article subject is closely related to the other subjects in each navbox (i.e., the articles are likely to link to each other directly). If not, take them off the

3837:

The navs templates themselves remain intact by this. They may be used in some WP:MED overview etc. When needed in template space, they should be put in the template documentation page, not in the parent template (with some switch).

3820:

Thanks DePiep for your work :). If there were any way to keep them in template namespace only that'd be very useful, maybe including the list in the documentation page so the relevant nav opens up. Otherwise, au revoir metanavs.

3272: 2561: 2341:

On considering the first point (during my sadly mostly internet-less week :( ) I would support a move of the index templates to project or documentation space, they are simply too useful when editing to get lost in deletion.

2066: 1697: 4003: 3877:

I'm not clear on what you have done or what you mean by removing the index templates from article space. Mostly they are transcluded in other templates, and based on a small sample, those links seem mostly intact. Going to

1022:. Now, I must admit, this is a bit slow, so I try going to the bottom. I find a box, "Bones of the human skeleton", with 7 templates inside of it, all but one of them massive and multi-leveled, and all of them transcluding 1282:

Conflating these issues is hard to avoid in a case study. I think the naming is not a big problem because the redirects work well. Article content may be more of an issue (more below). Absolutely you use too many navboxes

4153: 3879: 3726: 581: 558: 319: 626:

If you mean, delete some and replace others by lists, that sounds reasonable (I wasn't really implying an all or nothing scenario). Some templates might convert into good categories or lists, others may not be suitable.

1423:), I see a three-layered hierarchy of link groups. Seeing something like that, my inclination would be to abandon the navbox and try a search (see below). But suppose I carry on, wading through dozens of terms like 359:), I see a three-layered hierarchy of link groups. Seeing something like that, my inclination would be to abandon the navbox and try a search (see below). But suppose I carry on, wading through dozens of terms like 3552:). Thus, it was visited an average of 9 times per article over 30 days. At the other end, I estimate the navboxes have a total of about 1000 links, so on average each target article was accessed about 13 times. 2945:

If you, medicine editors, think this info is not needed in content space, that's fine with me. We can leave them visible for WP:MED space only etc. Waiting for RockMagnetist opinion. No need to mention this at

2367:

So to summarise I'm having a little trouble visualising how we will actually go about this mammoth task you propose. I do not want to launch into any sweeping action without thinking about it in more detail.

3613:, and I can repeat the analysis for any other index box in about 10 minutes if you want me to. I have an average for 1600 articles over a month - what more do you hope to learn with 6 randomly chosen links? 2184:

It might be slow, but it'll be higher traffic than a brand-new page. Why don't we copy this whole thing over there, and make some plans? We can always post reminders here about it if we need extra input.

2854:

these 42 into WP:MED WikiProject space, so MED editors can still access them to have a more complete overview. The 'public' ones (still appearing in articles), may be edited or deleted by this discussion.

2523:

First step: copy all navs (as they are today) to Project space. Sure they will disappear or change heavily, while they are useful for editors in teh background. For this, they are quite stable & OK by

3229:

Retrospectively - we changed the format of the index boxes over a short period (see the archives). Pick some medical articles, see if there are any difference before the date the index box changed &

2815:

while we are experimenting with what to do in terms of drafts, I propose concurrently that we move all these index boxes into template space by moving them into the "noinclude" second of each template.

303:, I narrowed the list down to two. But each of these templates, in addition to a large number of its own links, transcludes two "Indexes" to more templates. This was my first hint of a broader problem. 2819:

This can be done at the same time as other editing, and means they won't be displayed to end users. They will however retain their useful purpose for template editing as I have previously explained. --

3193:

so that you'll all know that this discussion has moved here. Please be liberal in pinging me (and other editors) for this discussion, since it's not the first page I visit every day (unlike WT:MED).

2802: 906:

I think that considering specific examples will make it easier to think about these templates. So I will do two more case studies from the TfD. I will describe my experience as I try the exercises:

3114: 2097: 1287:

the navboxes have too many links. I'm not sure what you mean by moving the internal navboxes to template space, since they are already there; but moving them to documentation pages is a good idea.

2416:

Sorry to hear about the loneliness of it. I have had a taste of it myself during this process. The plus side is that if we agree on something, we could just do it and not wait for more consensus.

3044:

Technical note: done correctly, the 42 navs must be removed from all parent templates (those 700+ med navboxes). The construction "show in templete space only" is possible, but too cumbersome. -

2402:

with lists of the templates I believed to be most in need of cleanup in each project space, identified during my editing sweep. So far it has been a mostly lonely process for myself only :(. --

1580:. Now, I must admit, this is a bit slow, so I try going to the bottom. I find a box, "Bones of the human skeleton", with 7 templates inside of it, all but one of them massive and multi-leveled, 3548:

links to 32 navboxes. The traffic stats for these pages say that collectively, in the past 30 days, they were visited 13,856 times. The index box appears in about 1600 articles (obtained from

432: 1307:

would benefit from closer alignment with their content. And, converted into regular templates linking to articles, they would be an improvement over some of the existing regular templates.

2103:

I kind of like the idea of using an actual random number generator to pick which links we'll test in the navbox. We can change some links and not others. Does that sound good to you?

1303:

And now I would like to say something positive about the internal navboxes. They are well organized; I like the division into description, disease and treatment. Some of the articles like

2070: 1693: 3636:: Here is an example of something we don't know yet. Which is more effective in providing navigation when there are a lot of links - a multilevel navbox or a link to a list article in 4137:. I see there's been a nice cleanup since then. What's the current status? Anything an editor with a humble academic medical background can contribute for the navboxes at the moment? 1159: 3535:

Before doing this kind of study, we should clarify what we are trying to find out. I am going to repeat the essence of an earlier post because I think it may have been overlooked:

1103:

knowledge. And the thing to note about my case studies is that I can get the information I'm looking for very quickly if I ignore the navboxes. Hardly setting the kitchen on fire.

3718: 1880:

Okay, guys: How serious about this are we? I see some comments here that may degenerate into my-link-is-better-than-your-link, but the fact is that nobody has the overall data.

1174: 1155: 4236: 326: 3233:

Select two or three index boxes. For one month, every second week show the index box, and every alternate week hide it. Monitor viewership to see if there's any variation. --

1928: 793: 2364:

Something we have slowly been doing is moving the ICD codes in the navbox titles to wikidata, and then removing them from the titles, making it easier for readers to use.

1851:

Bad thing 1: they are Navboxes on an article page, but thay link to template space. In short, links in articles must link to content space (articles, content categories).

796:. There would also be outlines of the outer and middle ears, but the rest of the links would continue to be to articles. This outline cuts across the templates listed by 3184: 2828: 764: 747: 3131: 1144:(because otherwise navboxes couldn't possibly help me). But that's not how I really look for information. I would go to Google and do the following (by case number): 4318: 4279: 3053: 1735:

index boxes are used very little compared to the alternatives. However, I think it is worth exploring the usefulness of certain groups of regular navboxes as well.

3059: 1148: 789: 3329:

Three sounds good (to change and three to control) and quite implementable. Let me know what the results of your random numbers are and we can get started.--

1548:: A lay reader wants to know about what bones we have in our body, but don't know their names. The templates provide easy links to said bones by body part. 991:: A lay reader wants to know about what bones we have in our body, but don't know their names. The templates provide easy links to said bones by body part. 2387: 821: 3138: 3769: 1197: 1133: 1114: 1097: 2138:

is a place we've been centralising discussion about this and may be a suitable hub while we investigate what impact (if any) these index boxes have. --

3073: 2383: 1953: 1483:, and it has a discussion in prose of how the nervous system is organized. Possibly good enough already. Now I go to the bottom of the page, and see 1082: 928:, and it has a discussion in prose of how the nervous system is organized. Possibly good enough already. Now I go to the bottom of the page, and see 3685: 3510: 2502: 2486: 2210: 2129: 2112: 2090: 1236: 1220: 734: 716: 698: 682: 410:, with a single sentence in it: "Cardiovascular disease is treatable with initial treatment primarily focused on diet and lifestyle interventions." 3284: 2179: 1370: 1350: 655: 638: 621: 534: 3651: 2377: 2194: 1318: 3344: 1186:

That was 30 seconds or less for each search. I think the moral of this story is, structure the articles well and you won't need navboxes at all.

3624: 3597: 3004: 2472: 2452: 2441:

one objects, move them to wikiproject space. If someone objects to that, start a TfD to move them on the basis that they are not used anywhere.

2427: 2351: 2163: 2147: 1746: 1729: 1711: 1677: 1538: 1298: 900: 877: 4168:

we had replaced the abbreviations and codes into real words. Anyway, they can only be used outside of articles (Helppage, WikiProjects etc.). -

3494: 3338: 3324: 3303: 3259: 3242: 2199:

Good point. I think it should be prefaced by a set of proposals, so we know what we're trying to find out. I will do that in a new subsection.

3953: 3937: 3923: 2779:

For this 1/41 demo, that's already 40 to 60 templates to convert into tree lists ;-). So please if you see some objecting, object early :-). -

2325: 1867: 3588:

meantime, why don't we start working through some of your other ideas and cleaning up some templates. I'll make a new entry below for this.--

2993:

I'm glad that we're in agreement now. I think it would be fine to remove the subnavboxes from article space and keep them in template space.

299:

had an insane collection of navboxes - three containers with a total of 10 navboxes, each of which had a complex structure. With the help of

4053:(it sometimes mixed up content of two consecuetive (sp?) pages; so what you saw was the content of the page edited right before this one). - 4224: 4210: 3863: 3091: 2940: 2650:

But these are still navboxes, and not article content. We can't have an article content being navboxes! So we'll remove the navbox wrapper.

2533:, a higher level that the article itself is; that's why it does not belong on that article page by navbox philosophy). What we could do is: 2411: 2356:

As to your other points, I haven't formed an opinion yet. I would point out that this involves something like 700 templates transcluded on

1471:

The first thing that occurs to me is, if I were facing an exam, would I rely on Knowledge instead of a textbook? But, pressing on, I go to

916:

The first thing that occurs to me is, if I were facing an exam, would I rely on Knowledge instead of a textbook? But, pressing on, I go to

4110: 4077: 4045: 664:

Rock, this may seem a little indirect, but I can offer you a complete and immediate, if superficial, solution to the problem. Just go to

4192: 4177: 4015: 3847: 3830: 3167: 3150: 3108: 2974: 2959: 2912: 2897: 2864: 2788: 2772: 1888:

costs, so we shouldn't do this on a grand scale, but we could certainly try it out for a small number of links in one or two navboxes.

1556:. A quick scan gives me the impression that this article is mainly about the structure, development and so on of individual bones. I try 998:. A quick scan gives me the impression that this article is mainly about the structure, development and so on of individual bones. I try 3997: 3815: 3791: 3690:

It's different, but we know it has to be lower; and an upper limit of 9 visits a month is the same as zero for all practical purposes.

2878: 2758: 1399:: A person is diagnosed with heart disease and wants to know more about treatment and relevant anatomy. The subnavs provide easy links. 336:: A person is diagnosed with heart disease and wants to know more about treatment and relevant anatomy. The subnavs provide easy links. 1858:

linked to the article-topic, and so not the parent navbox topic (as RockMagnetist already noted). Below, I'll add a proposal sketch. -

1682:

On second thought, I can get some idea of how often the regular navboxes are used because a lot of them duplicate lists. For example,

4332: 1467:: A student has an exam on the nervous system. The subnav provides links to all the relevant anatomical templates for the said area. 1063:

At this point it occurs to me that I went to the navboxes earlier than usual because I am discussing them. Normally, I would look at

913:: A student has an exam on the nervous system. The subnav provides links to all the relevant anatomical templates for the said area. 268: 4337: 3906: 1225:

So what is your recommendation? Get rid of all the templates? Leave them as they are because it doesn't matter? Or something else?

772: 755: 4342: 3029: 1509: 952: 4146: 2728: 843:

fear if we remove these links we may end up with users adding more and more navboxes again. Hoping to hear from other users, --

839:

useful. A few long-term editors agreed last TFD but I am really unsure what other users think and if actual readers use them.

310:

and need surgery. I have never seen such a maze of templates before. Indeed, medical articles have a monopoly of the so-called

3430: 3427: 2514: 281: 180: 175: 168: 163: 158: 3156: 3120: 3064:

I am creating this so we can at least centralise discussion. This option proposes that we simply delete all the navboxes. --

2168: 1901: 1824: 1778: 981: 595: 572: 4262: 1628:

views, because if you use a link in an index box, you actually visit a navbox. In the last 30 days, 29,049 readers visited

1499: 1124:

is a problem, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. Separate "outline"-type articles with navbox-y formatting maybe.

942: 256:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3740:

The 41 templates are not article navigational help (let alone article content). They should be removed from article space.

3714:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3452: 2237: 4160:

fit to be used in articles. That is, because they link to templates, not to other articles. They do not help to navigate

1178: 1068: 482:. So this anatomy article has access to several templates for drugs. How likely is it that a user will find this useful? 244: 102: 4029: 2304: 4090: 3577: 2254: 1439:). And there I see a link to anatomy and a group devoted to treatment. If I click on "Anatomy" I get another template, 1390: 1276: 852: 373:). And there I see a link to anatomy and a group devoted to treatment. If I click on "Anatomy" I get another template, 4245:

are themselves templates. And they seem to link to it without any problems. One non-Template page that links to it is

2847:

in template space. Anyway, as long as they are in articles (and content categories), they should be in template space.

3474: 3449: 1997: 4242: 3418: 3386: 3023: 2838: 2619: 2578: 1854:

Bad thing 2: They deviate way too much from the parent navbox topic at hand. IOW, they menting topics that are not

1596: 1586: 1480: 1167: 1036: 1026: 925: 3364: 3213: 1700:, which got 2606 hits. And they got all of these hits even though most of the links to them are through navboxes. 3408: 2052:

A possible control experiment: replace any templates that duplicate lists by links to the lists in ‘’See also’’:

1262:

Issues (1) and (2) won't be solved in this discussion but will be by editing away -- and I've opened a thread at

4124: 1875: 1424: 1334: 1166:, and I follow "Jump to anatomy in vertebrates", which lands me at the section by that name, where the link to 438:

So much for "easy links". But it goes much further than that. Say we click on one of the less general links in

360: 307: 96: 60: 2316:

Please do not introduce here an ICD-9 and ICD-10 discussion. Different topicv = diff thread. Complex enough! -

413:

Anyone who really wants to help that person diagnosed with heart disease would do something like this: Expand

3433: 768: 751: 286: 3471: 3440: 886: 723:

Naturally, if navboxes are useless, we could delete them all. But I believe they are useful if done right.

668:

and you will see the the navbox problem is completely removed. Also, if you are reaching the age at which

296: 35: 3928:

As I said, the work is in process. It takes some AWB runs to catch every situation for the 41 templates. -

3424: 3347:, which soupvector suggested at WT:MED. The first six numbers are: 12, 25, 38, 7, 40, 29, in that order. 3204:

doesn't edit often any more, so we might not be able to get much information about it. Any other ideas?

414: 407: 3666:?" NB that this is significantly different from "Does anyone view the page that happens to be linked in 3455: 3099:. First discuss which info should be used & retained for articles & categories (content space). - 3035: 2704: 2293:. In general, these templates are long and intricate, and the information is better presented as a list. 2134:

I'd be very interested in a data-driven approach that may have implications for our navboxes in general.

2028: 1656: 1636: 1443: 418: 403: 397:

But is that how someone is likely to look for this information? The first thing I would try is searching

377: 213: 3383: 2743:- Navbox templates to be converted into article treee lists: 774??? (~all those now in the Index navs?) 1941: 1610: 1129: 1093: 1050: 3446: 3312: 2763:

OK, thanks for your input DePiep, I support at least creating a full draft to see how it will look. --

1795:

for an average of 433 per navbox (the min was 142 and the max was 676 - a remarkably tight grouping).

1476: 921: 806:, many of which have a group for the inner ear. Links to these outlines would have to be added to the 510:

If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the

3800: 3361: 3197: 2230: 1330: 3477: 325:

I would like to explore a recent example of the supposed usefulness of these subnavs provided by at

3530: 3405: 1325:"categories" do not reflect Knowledge's custom for creating and organizing categories or for lists. 810:

section of articles. This would increase the likelihood of it only being added where it is useful.

3389: 2610:

of its mentioned templates (navboxes), add a subsection name for each (so there should be by now:

2152:

It's not very active. I tried to ask a question about eponymous categories and got zero response.

1804:

What we don't know is how many of the people who arrived at the navboxes actually made use of them

1515:, with links to templates on many of the same subjects. However, if I want to know more about the 958:, with links to templates on many of the same subjects. However, if I want to know more about the 938:. This has a nice, compact list of articles on the main parts of the nervous system. Below it are 4095: 3948: 3918: 3744: 3696: 3646: 3619: 3572: 3505: 3468: 3462: 3367: 3275:, and split them 50-50 into experimental and control. Does that sound like a good idea to you? 2999: 2497: 2467: 2447: 2422: 2299: 2205: 2158: 2124: 2085: 2059: 1984: 1819: 1773: 1741: 1706: 1686: 1672: 1533: 1487: 1417: 1365: 1313: 1293: 1231: 1192: 1109: 1077: 976: 932: 895: 872: 816: 729: 693: 633: 590: 567: 456: 442: 353: 223: 3411: 4314: 4285: 4275: 4267: 4246: 3978: 3886: 3751: 3681: 3670: 3660: 3607: 3560: 3542: 3490: 3380: 3320: 3280: 3271:

does, if you don't. I was thinking that we could use RNG to pick a handful of navboxes out of

3255: 3209: 2869:

I'll make something nice & correct for this. No need to discuss this further (timesaver). -

2482: 2247:

Before deleting each index template, examine each navbox that they link to, and do two things:

2190: 2108: 1912: 1897: 1767:

target article was accessed about 13 times. Is it really necessary to gather more information?

1760: 1646: 1629: 1453: 1433: 1410: 1304: 1216: 712: 678: 466: 398: 387: 367: 346: 277: 4164:. The discussion was on this page (see above). This removal from articles was done one year 3358: 1459:

transcluded at the bottom. At which point only the fear of death would keep me from giving up.

707:

see. Navboxes are not displayed on the Mobile site, and that's about 30% of our page views.

393:

transcluded at the bottom. At which point only the fear of death would keep me from giving up.

3896: 3402: 3374: 3190: 2175: 1577: 1346: 1125: 1089: 1019: 651: 617: 606: 41: 3119:

On day one of removed templates, one has already been replaced with another series of links

3352: 3173: 2391: 537:? As for the other guidelines, how would you even check them? Over 750 articles transclude 318:, which are footer templates that provide links between templates instead of articles (see 3892:, and clicked on the first three articles that linked to it. These led to two templates - 2477:

I think that this should wait until we've determined whether anyone clicks on the links.

363:, and eventually make it down to a box titled "Index of the circulatory system" (which is 8: 4106: 4041: 3396: 2282: 2038: 2007: 1963: 1569: 1263: 1011: 541: 523: 476: 1837:

This is quite late, but I'll add my 2cents. I am not into medicine, but a year ago with

1429:

and eventually make it down to a box titled "Index of the circulatory system" (which is

1064: 4220: 4206: 4188: 4142: 4002:

Stray navs (index templates) that happen to end in articles by accident, are listed in

3944: 3914: 3859: 3826: 3692: 3642: 3615: 3593: 3584: 3568: 3501: 3334: 3299: 3238: 3223: 3178: 3127: 3087: 3069: 2995: 2970: 2947: 2936: 2924: 2893: 2824: 2812: 2768: 2680: 2493: 2463: 2443: 2418: 2407: 2373: 2347: 2338: 2295: 2201: 2154: 2143: 2120: 2081: 1848:

I have not digested this talk section completely because of TL;DR. But my thoughts are:

1834: 1815: 1769: 1737: 1725: 1717: 1702: 1668: 1529: 1386: 1361: 1309: 1289: 1272: 1245: 1227: 1188: 1105: 1073: 972: 891: 868: 848: 828: 812: 760: 725: 704: 689: 629: 586: 563: 240: 2746:- Templates to be edited: 774 (replace Index template with link to Overview article). 2519:

My approach. Without fully having read the analysis TL;DR, I just drop a suggestion.

2267:

Make sure that each navbox is transcluded on the remaining pages that it links to and

235:

the index templates should be removed, I feel confident in closing this discussion. --

4310: 4271: 4051: 3912:- that still transclude this template. I will remove those two and see what happens. 3677: 3633: 3486: 3316: 3290: 3276: 3251: 3219: 3205: 2478: 2399: 2186: 2104: 2049:

For a bonus, we might want to look at connections between these lower-level articles.

1893: 1520: 1212: 963: 800: 782: 708: 674: 511: 273: 3760:

Practically, they should be removed from navigation boxes that appear in articles. -

2663:

from the navboxes mentioned in the Overview (i.e., maybe not all links in the list).

1493:. This has a nice, compact list of articles on the main parts of the nervous system. 262: 4173: 4073: 4058: 4011: 3993: 3933: 3843: 3811: 3787: 3765: 3181: 3163: 3146: 3104: 3049: 2955: 2908: 2874: 2860: 2784: 2754: 2724: 2321: 2261: 2171: 2019: 1916: 1863: 1698:

List of ICD-9 codes 760–779: certain conditions originating in the perinatal period

1592:, which in turn links to all of them. Just think of the reduction in complexity if 1342: 1207: 1032:, which in turn links to all of them. Just think of the reduction in complexity if 763:

might help if you did a mock up by way of demonstration of what you are proposing.

703:

I mean "not able to be seen". Follow the link, scroll to the bottom, and see what

647: 613: 486: 612:

might be more balanced (having said that, I believe more opinions would be best)--

196: 1975: 300: 88: 4099: 4064: 4034: 3226:

two simple ways of getting a rough idea of the utility of the index boxes are:

1974:

One that is not mentioned as such but is in at least one regular navbox: e.g.,

1885: 1573: 1565: 1472: 1163: 1121: 1015: 1007: 917: 292: 192: 4326: 4216: 4202: 4198: 4184: 4138: 4134: 3985: 3855: 3822: 3629: 3589: 3330: 3308: 3295: 3268: 3264: 3234: 3187: 3123: 3083: 3065: 2988: 2966: 2932: 2889: 2820: 2764: 2458: 2403: 2395: 2369: 2343: 2139: 1838: 1721: 1663: 1557: 1406: 1382: 1268: 999: 860: 844: 743: 425: 342: 236: 141: 601:

so..you do seem to have a point, however something "in between" 1. deleting

3315:? And is that six to edit, or three to change and three for the control? 3201: 2545: 1151:. No Knowledge pages in sight, so maybe I would go to the Mayo Clinic page. 449: 1413:. At the bottom of the page, I see four navboxes. If I expand the second ( 1339: 792:. Mostly the links in this demo are to articles, but "Inner ear" links to 349:. At the bottom of the page, I see four navboxes. If I expand the second ( 4266:

this template outside of navboxes, then why is it causing lint errors at

4169: 4130: 4084: 4069: 4054: 4022: 4007: 3989: 3929: 3872: 3839: 3807: 3783: 3761: 3656:

Here's what I want to know: "Does anyone actually click on the links in

3159: 3142: 3100: 3045: 2982: 2951: 2928: 2904: 2884: 2870: 2856: 2808: 2780: 2750: 2740:- New Clinical Index Overview articles: 41 (One per Index child template) 2720: 2317: 1859: 1140:

The truth is, the above scenarios are how I would search for information

2695:

Milestone: This overview page should basically be fit for Article space.

2281:

I would also recommend removing those templates that duplicate lists of

198: 2834:"move all these index boxes into template space" - I don't understand. 1561: 1252:

We do not name articles in a way that is easy for readers to understand

1003: 669: 2286: 1568:(now why didn't I think of that immediately?). This has the section 1010:(now why didn't I think of that immediately?). This has the section 498:

All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

4129:

A few years ago i did a major update of the medicine navs with a.o

2018:

One that is not linked in the article or any regular navbox: e.g.,

1524: 1516: 1206:

On the question of usefulness: They are doubtless "useful" for de-

967: 959: 507:

There should be a Knowledge article on the subject of the template.

194: 2676:

14. Rebuild the structure per section into plain, indented list (

2643:

Milestone: We have a draft overview of all topics related. Enjoy.

501:

The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.

2529:

Intro. An index template gives an overview only of its topic (a

504:

The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

100:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at 3556:

This is hard data because any time someone clicks on a link in

3158:, new links not specific enough ('medicine' not 'bones' etc). - 2595:

3. Create three main sections: Description, Disease, Treatment

2071:

List of ICD-9 codes 390–459: diseases of the circulatory system

1694:

List of ICD-9 codes 390–459: diseases of the circulatory system

4309:

and this fixed the lint errors, but my main request remains. —

3311:, should the six targets be chosen from among the 42 items in 1756:

Here is another statistic that might be easier to understand:

866:"useful navigation tool." But is it as useful as it could be? 199: 3141:

IP seems to know about wp, but does not collaborate? Weird. -

2803:

Proposal: make index boxes only visible in template namespace

1642:. And the latter is linked to over 50 other navboxes through 1248:

I think you are conflating three issues, all quite relevant:

530: 452:. This is an anatomy article, and does not itself transclude 306:

The articles in this WikiProject are in an advanced state of

4215:

Likewise :-) Please let me know what you find on the shelf.

4050:

Reverted. A bug in AWBscript. Reported, fixed some days ago

3115:

Proposal: replace index box links with another list of links

2965:

of a discussion to get mentioned at the relevant project. --

1158:. No Knowledge pages in sight, so just for the heck of it I 665: 3499:

It might help if you describe the method you have in mind.

1553: 995: 687:

Thanks, but I wear glasses. What do you mean by invisible?

4201:. I'm sure I can dust something off the to-do shelf :). -- 2384:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Anatomy/Open_Tasks#Cleanup_templates

1519:, I have already clicked on the article link. I know that 962:, I have already clicked on the article link. I know that 72: 54: 2250:

Eliminate excessive levels of hierarchy (for example, in

2244:

Delete the index templates or move them to project space.

1258:

Our navboxes are overburned by these internal link boxes.

3267:, do you have good random number software handy? Maybe 2700:

21. In all the parent templates that now have the child

1716:

Actually I'm equally confused about what you're saying,

4261:. The problem doesn't go away by removing "Template:". 4237:

Usage instructions for Template:Bone and cartilage navs

3273:

Category:Templates that use a Medicine navs subtemplate

2382:

As to cleaning up templates, I fully agree. Please see

2096:

list of things to test and how to do it at a page like

4033:. Why is the new version so different from the old? -- 2562:

Draft:Index of bone and cartilage in clinical medicine

2067:

ICD-10 Chapter IX: Diseases of the circulatory system

4004:

Category:Articles that show a Medicine navs template

646:, this might be better,(but we need more opinions)-- 487:

guidelines that are intended to make navboxes useful

431:

template. Or, if that is not general enough, create

135: 78: 4154: