Here you can add points for discussion about the Refinement Wiki that are not addressed to one particular person.
Editing questions - how do I....?
How do I delete a page? GeoffH (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Under the More menu at the top of the page you will find Delete --AdrianS (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC) I've only got "Move" under "More", not "Delete" GeoffH (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC) same here, I guess only the person who has added content is allowed to remove that content? And if so, can we add the option to allow the administrator to remove parts, for example if we agree that the added content is not fitting or not a procedure we wish to promote? I've had a look at this (31 January): yes, you have to be an Administrator to be able to use the Delete (or a "Protect") option. For the time being, I suggest that we leave it like that, and that items which should be deleted are reported to me as Administrator, but I foresee in the not distant future that we give Administrator rights to many contributors - not quite sure how to organise this: one way would be to ask people either to email an Administrator, or leave deletion requests on their Talk page, or on the Discussion page of the wikipage with the dubious content. --AdrianS (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I added three topics under "Sampling" (Bile, Cerebrospinal fluid, Bone marrow) but they dont appear the same as other topics on the main page and they don't appear in the contents table. Any advice? GeoffH (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC) --> Go to "edit source" and add the topics as follows: "====Tissue=====" (without" ") :) KatharinaH (talk) Alternatively (easier) you can go to the table of contents, choose edit, and give them "subheading 4" from menu that starts with "Paragraph". Refresh the page, and they will appear. --AdrianS (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I added types of substance administration, but want to make a 'subheading 5' for 2 types of intravenous administration. However, they keep on appearing as 'subheading 4' types. Reply: I can't comment on this, I'm afraid, because the text doesn't seem to be present any longer. If it is, let me know. --Adrianprivat (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Other question: I only see 'empty' pages with titles. Are we supposed to start filling them as well? If so, who will check the content for accuracy? Reply: yes! The whole question of 'checking for accuracy' raises the same question that any wiki or any online discussion list, like CompMed or VOLE has: can you believe the author? It will be up to everyone to report anything they don't like. The administrator(s) will have a special responsibility, but ultimately it is the user who is responsible for unedited content. --Adrianprivat (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Organizing the Wiki
I like the idea to organize the content by procedure. I would suggest that we list the animal species on the wiki page of each procedure (e.g. handling) so that we can add species-specific content on these subpages. If there are procedures than can be refined using the same technique such as clicker training, which can be used for a variety of species, we could describe this procedure on the wiki page about clicker training in detail and add examples on the subpages of the respective species.KatharinaH (talk)
Regarding organization: consider refinements to metabolism housing used in radioactive excretion studies to allow pair housing of macaques. The refinements involve integrated changes to study design, methodology and caging. It's difficult to see how this can be accommodated neatly under a "procedure" heading. It would really do better under a "research area" heading. GeoffH (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, do we really need to impose an organization structure on the Wiki??? After all Wikipedia doesn't appear to have a structure. Doesn't the search capability (along with built-in links in pages) provide all the necessary functionality to find content? An imposed two dimensional structure is always going to result in uncomfortable classifications that could hinder rather than help. One of the advantages of a wiki is surely the multidimensional nature of the relationships between subjects? (Similar to the difference between a flat database and a relational database.) GeoffH (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
We have a heading called 'training'. I guess this refers to animal training, not training of persons to perform procedures. To avoid confusion, I will try to change the heading
How do we cite? Just link citations (e.g. Makowska and Weary 2016) or provide all references at the end of the wiki page (e.g. Makowska, I. J., & Weary, D. M. (2016). The importance of burrowing, climbing and standing upright for laboratory rats. Royal Society open science, 3(6), 160136.)? Shall we agree on a uniform format?KatharinaH (talk)