Template talk:Mental and behavioral disorders

A great template - however, what do people think about using a WHO ICD-10 template for mental disorders versus DSM-IV? Although the ICD system is international, the DSM-IV system does seem to get used more in psychiatry research. 194.83.140.28 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Although DSM-IV is US based while ICD is international, DSM-IV is used more in international research. Probably the best way around this is to create a seperate DSM-IV template then articles could choose which one to use. 79.72.116.123 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Before removing the formatting a third time, please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#User:Thumperward.2Fnav_formatting. --Arcadian 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What fun this hoop-jumping is. Replied, funnily enough saying exactly the same thing as I did when I initiated dialogue with you in the first place. "Disinclined" my eye. Chris Cunningham 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"I've encouraged him to discuss the issue with a broader community" != leaving a message on my talk page. --Arcadian 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Collapsed

I've collapsed the box - it's pretty huge, this makes it more manageable. WLU (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Table's too wide

This table is too long and too wide. It doesn't fit well with the standard navbox formatting, because some of the headings are very long and there are three levels. Long upper-level headings should be put on a separate line instead of in the heading column. That would make the heading columns narrower so there's less empty space. It would save both width and height, making it easier to use for people with smaller screens. —Codrdan (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Arcadian reverted my heading linebreaks, so here's an explanation for them: Briefly, the table is much too wide in its current form. It's at least about 130 characters wide, and there must be readers whose content areas are less than 100 characters. Mine is 90, and 80 probably isn't too unusual for portable devices. Arcadian said they "create too much vertical whitespace", but I don't think people with large monitors understand how bad the wide format is on a small screen. Please look at the table with a text-area width of less than 100 characters, preferably closer to 80 or 90. There's a huge amount of empty space there, and the linebreaks eliminate a lot of it.
Table with linebreaks
—Codrdan (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Both proposed changes introduce many new issues, but rather than try to find the perfect one-template solution, do you mind if I split it into multiple navs instead? For example, (1) "Neurological/symptomatic", (2) "Psychoactive", (3) "Psychosis, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and neuroses", (5) "Physiological/adult behavioral", and (6) "Mental disorders diagnosed in childhood"? (Of course, we could make the titles of these groupings longer, balancing concision vs. precision). --Arcadian (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever fits in a 90-character width. There's no reason this navbox can't fit on the screen of a portable device. —Codrdan (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Table with above-style top-level headings
The word "disorder" in the headings is redundant, so I deleted them. This table is 30 percent narrower and slightly shorter vertically than the previous one.
—Codrdan (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I note you've reverted back to your preferred format. The approach you are currently following will affect hundreds of navboxes. If you are proposing that navboxes be optimized for 90 character screens at the expense of decreased usability on other size screens, I strongly recommend that you get consensus at Template talk:Navbox for such a radical proposal before implementing such a change. --Arcadian (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how this can be so hard for you to understand, but the format I've been working on is optimized for an entire range of widths, from about 80 characters up to about 140. That's the whole point: There's no need to optimize for wide screens, because the text automatically breaks into longer lines. The current format is extravagantly wasteful of space. It takes up an absolute minimum of about 130 characters, which has to be added to the width of the Wikipedia navigation column on the left-hand side of the window. Even with a text width of 130 characters, the above-style format still takes up less space than the column format. Also, what in the world makes you think this has anything to do with Template:Navbox? Template talk:Navbox is for discussing Template:Navbox itself, not individual navboxes. —Codrdan (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Above-style table with lists converted to subheadings
This takes advantage of the toplevel heading style to more fully organize the table.
—Codrdan (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried it on other monitors? On the screen I'm using now, your new format has the same width, but is almost twice as tall. Judging from your edit history, your focus is not just on this one template, but on how all the navigation templates look on your monitor. Given that, you'd probably want to get a consensus over at at Template talk:Navbox before moving too quickly on these conversions. --Arcadian (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See my previous notes about flexibility and Template talk:Navbox. I have a 17-inch CRT with my browser in full-screen mode and a relatively large font. Portable devices have much smaller screens, so I don't have much sympathy for people who want tables to be perfectly optimized for huge flat-panel monitors. Optimization is a much more important issue for small screens.

The only way I can make my format longer than the original is to make the font size much smaller than it should be for typical web browsing. Also, the table fits into a single page in that case, about 1.7 pages for the above-heading format. In contrast, it takes up more than four pages with a 90-character width, and most of the text of the current format isn't even visible on the screen, so it can only be viewed by scrolling. —Codrdan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)