Rchard2scout (talk | contribs) m Fix archive subpage after page move |
|||
(688 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk page of redirect}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{WPMED|class=Template|importance=NA}} |
{{WPMED|class=Template|importance=NA}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|counter = 4 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 3 |
|||
|minthreadsleft=5 |
|||
|algo = old(365d) |
|||
|archive = Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old)/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
== |
== Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2017 == |
||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox medical condition|answered=yes}} |
|||
I support placing clinical information within this template, contrary to what has been done before. This information can include: |
|||
The page [[Thrombocytopenia]] starts with a plain wikilink to the category [[:Category:Pages with Infobox medical condition using multiple parameters for one]]. I presume that you actually want to add the article to that category, and so the colon at the start of the wikilink in this template's code should be removed. [[User:GKFX]]<sup>[[User talk:GKFX|talk]]</sup> 22:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Class(es) of disease (i.e. virus, autoimmune disorder) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:50%;text-align:center;"><b>TALK<br />PAGE</b></span>]]) 02:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Age groups most commonly affected |
|||
*Gender most commonly affected |
|||
*(Common) symptoms |
|||
*(Common) causes |
|||
*(Common) methods of diagnosis |
|||
*(Common) methods of treatment |
|||
*Possible outcomes <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tatterfly|Tatterfly]] ([[User talk:Tatterfly|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tatterfly|contribs]]) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2017 == |
|||
==ICD-10 links in Dysmenorrhea article box do not work== |
|||
The ICD-10 links from the disease infobox at [[Dysmenorrhea]] do not work. Can anyone explain why this is? If you fix it, would you explain, here? Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/98.217.45.218|98.217.45.218]] ([[User talk:98.217.45.218|talk]]) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I have fixed the links. (The explanation is complex, but if you want the details: first read the documentation at at [[Template:ICD10]] and [[Template talk:ICD10]]. Then, go to the [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ WHO ICD10 site], and search for "Dysmenorrhea", and click on the "Primary dysmenorrhoea" link. Then scroll to the top of the page. You'll see that "N80" is the first code on the page, so that's the value that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysmenorrhea&diff=200579122&oldid=200403560 needs to be in the last parameter].) --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox medical condition|ans=y}} |
|||
::Thank you, I understand. [[Special:Contributions/98.217.45.218|98.217.45.218]] ([[User talk:98.217.45.218|talk]]) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Consensus [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_97#Infobox_update_April_2017|here]] has depreciated this template, in favour of [[template:Infobox medical condition (new)]] in combination with [[template:medical resources]]. Please add {{strong|<nowiki>{{Deprecated template|Infobox medical condition|Infobox medical condition (new)|note=For adding classification data, see [[template:medical resources]]|date=August 2017}}</nowiki>}} if deemed appropriate. [[User:Little pob|Little pob]] ([[User talk:Little pob|talk]]) 12:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:What is the transition process? How do I actually replace it with the new one? Parameter-replacements? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Last I read a bot was being proposed to automate the transition to the new infobox? However, the deprecated tag is for the template page, not the infobox itself. It may have been clearer if I had provided the WL to [[Template:Deprecated_template]] also, as it has an example at the top. [[User:Little pob|Little pob]] ([[User talk:Little pob|talk]]) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Updating is going to be a slow and gradual process. I have done 500 or so. |
|||
:::We have a tool that speeds up the conversion but it is still manual. More work is required before it can be automated. |
|||
:::You add this to your common.js |
|||
:::::<nowiki>importScript("User:Ladsgroup/RefCleaner.js");</nowiki> |
|||
:::[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 21:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:ETp --> Given that the main protagonist in this change {{u|Doc James}} has passed on making the change, and nobody else has taken it up in 2 weeks, I'll mark it as answered. I think marking a template as deprecated while it's still in use on 6500 pages would taint too many pages for too long. {{u|Little pob}}, some kind of comment on the [[Template:Infobox medical condition/doc|doc page]] indicating its deprecated state and where to find the new preferred template seems more appropriate at this stage. Regards, [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 09:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Added to /doc. Template {{tlf|Deprecated template|Infobox medical condition}} must be added to the documentation page, and so will not appear in mainspace. It does not alter any working of the tempalte, it's just documentation text. (BTW, that page is not protected and so does not formally need an {{tlf|edit template-protected}} request). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Please use HTTPS for the Patient UK (patient.info) link == |
|||
:::I've mildly highlighted this distinction (the code of the condition and the code at the top of the webpage that this is listed under) a little stronger in the description with underlining of "LinkMajor - The major coding at the <u>top of webpage</u> in which ..." - hope this helps with the WHO's complex addressing system and this external link template :-) [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit template protected|answered=yes}} |
|||
== Unnecessary specification of {PAGENAME} == |
|||
The purpose of this edit is to provide increased privacy and security for users by having the template use HTTPS when generating links to Patient UK. (As a side note, a previous comment states that the template is deprecated; however, it appears that there are still [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=500&target=Template%3AInfobox+medical+condition&namespace= many pages] on which the template is used.) In particular, it appears that URLs of the form <code><nowiki>http://patient.info/doctor/xxxxxx</nowiki></code> generate a [[HTTP 301|301 Moved Permanently]] redirect to <code><nowiki>https://patient.info/doctor/xxxxxx</nowiki></code> which in some cases is followed by a subsequent 301 redirect to another HTTPS URL. For example, http://patient.info/doctor/Body-Dysmorphic-Disorder-(BDD) generates a 301 redirect to https://patient.info/doctor/Body-Dysmorphic-Disorder-(BDD) which then generates a 301 redirect to https://patient.info/doctor/body-dysmorphic-disorder-pro. In the template, please change <code><nowiki>http://patient.info/doctor/</nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>https://patient.info/doctor/</nowiki></code> instead. Thanks. --[[User:Elegie|Elegie]] ([[User talk:Elegie|talk]]) 10:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Done}}, @{{U|Elegie}}. -- [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 10:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Also went ahead and did it one the [[Template:Medical resources]] that replaces this template. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 10:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Possible fix for broken eMedicine search link == |
|||
{{[[Template:editprotected|editprotected]]}}<br /> |
|||
To avoid editors having to type in "Name = {PAGENAME}", please replace every instance of |
|||
<pre>{{{Name}}}</pre> |
|||
At the current time, the template has the ability to generate a link for doing a search on eMedicine. If the search query is <code><nowiki>infection</nowiki></code>, for example, the URL for the search link would be http://search.medscape.com/emedicine-search?queryText=infection. However, it appears that search URLs of this format are broken; accessing such a URL generates a series of redirects that eventually lead to the URL <code><nowiki>https://search.medscape.com/search/?</nowiki></code> on the Medscape site and no search results are shown. It appears that it is possible to do a search on the Medscape site by using the URL https://search.medscape.com/search/?q=XXXX where XXXX is the search query term(s), though it is not clear as to whether all of the search results are specific to eMedicine. Would it be useful to change the template to use this URL format for doing eMedicine searches? --[[User:Elegie|Elegie]] ([[User talk:Elegie|talk]]) 11:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
with |
|||
<pre>{{{Name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}</pre> |
|||
== Error in template == |
|||
Thanks, [[User:Smith609|Smith609]] '''<small>[[User_talk:Smith609|Talk]]</small>''' 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
It seems that the template creates the following error for all instances now: |
|||
:Every instance (the one) of the <nowiki>{{{name}}}</nowiki> parameter in this template already defaults to <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki>. [[User:Nihiltres|<font color="#233D7A">Nihiltres</font>]]<sup>'''{'''<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Nihiltres|<font color="#000">t</font>]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres <font color="#000">l</font>]</span>'''}'''</sup> 06:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:I18n/date' not found. |
|||
: It is now fixed it seems [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] ([[User talk:Hervegirod|talk]]) 21:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Move discussion in progress == |
|||
== Requested move == |
|||
[[Template:Infobox Disease]] → [[Template:Infobox condition]] — A better name for many uses that are not diseases. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) — [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
There is a move discussion in progress on [[Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new)#Requested move 3 June 2019 |Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new)]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new) crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 21:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== Survey === |
|||
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Wikipedia's naming conventions]].'' |
|||
* '''Suppport''', per discussion above. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 08:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* '''(very) Weak oppose''' - not needed. As previous discussion above highlighted ([[#Disease is inapropriate for many symptom-based neuropsychiatric conditions]]) the name of the template is immaterial as not shown to readers. I would (weakly) equally feel uneasy calling pneumonia a condition (on a par with baldness, freckles, obesity) rather than a disease. Clearly "Infobox medical conditions disorders and diseases" is just overpedantic and not needed, and "Infobox medical problem" feels awkward and perhaps limited to just social shyness or discomfort of having to wear a plaster cast in midst of summer. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose'''. WP Naming conventions don't apply as this is an editor-only name. No satisfactory catch-all PC term is available. [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*How is that a valid reason to oppose? We re-name editor-only items all the time. Less experienced editors are likely to be confused by the template name, making this "editor only issue" worthy of a rename. A rename would require absolutely no effort from us and have several positive effects, so what's the hang up here? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' unnecessary --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*Honestly, what's with the sticks in the mud here? I've been pretty good with making popular templates, maybe I'll just make a duplicate and make it substantially better, at the new name. Less confusion and less offensive. I don't really mean to be rude, but where does "unnecessary" come from? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::*[[Futurama|And this new template will have hookers.. and blackjack!.. aaaa, forget the blackjack...]] -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Well you ask for our opinion here, and I don't think it is needed to move it. I don't think it is a problem at all if psychiatric conditions have a disease infobox, but that is just my opinion. And even if you rename it, it still links to the diseases database and two international classifications of diseases. To rename the template would just be trying to be overly political correct I think. I don't have any problem with the suggested other names either, but the current name is just as good so I would prefer keeping the current name. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Fair enough. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 23:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' "Infobox medical condition" as suggested below. Also agree with Ned Scott that there's no harm in relisting the discussion if he can't get in touch with the opposing editors. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<font color="darkgreen"><small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small></font> 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - my daily life is centered on using the ICD in its various forms (back to the sixth revision) and there is no title for this infobox that comes anywhere near describing all the different codable concepts covered by the ICD. To pick a few: Bronchopneumonia NOS (J18.0) [a disease]; Congenital absence of ovary (Q50.0) [an anomaly]; Alcohol dependence (F10.2) [a disorder]; Delayed delivery after artificial rupture of membranes (O75.5) [a condition]; Fall from tree (W14} [an external cause of injury]; Kidney donor (Z52.4) [a reason for health encounter]. There just simply isn't one overarching word that covers all of these and there are others. However, "disease" covers most of the chapters of the ICD and therefore (remembering the purpose of this infobox is indicate classification) disease is the least inappropriate background name. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 08:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion === |
|||
:''Any additional comments:'' |
|||
:Perhaps [[Template:Infobox Medical condition]] might be less ambiguous? — [[User:Twas Now|'''Twas ''Now''''']] <small>( [[User talk:Twas Now|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Twas Now|contribs]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Twas Now|e-mail]] )</small> 04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Note prior discussion [[#Disease is inapropriate for many symptom-based neuropsychiatric conditions]], where point that name of template is hidden from reader makes this relatively unimportant. "Infobox Medical condition" indeed better disampiguation, howeverer as only 1st word normally capitalised then as "Infobox medical condition". I can still envisage some objecting to their situation being a "medical condition" at all, but as templates are not shown to readership, what counts is ease of use for editors (likewise {{tl|fact}}-tagging is used not as an assertion that a point is true, but to highlight that a point needs a citation to verify). [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::No one is claiming this is a life or death situation. Being a back-burner issue is no reason to oppose a rename that requires no effort at all. The only reason I'm making a formal proposal is because the template is protected. Redirects cover all old uses, software automatically fixes any double redirects, so one only needs to press the button once. Given that this can and will help reduce editor confusion and avoid offending a great many others, I don't see why we shouldn't consider this. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm not going to say support or oppose (not yet anyway), but do feel that [[Template:Infobox condition]] doesn't cut it. If [[Template:Infobox Disease]] ''is'' to be moved, I consider [[Template:Infobox medical condition]] a much better option. Perhaps this could be updated on the [[WP:RM]] page? [[User:Maedin|<span style="color:#4B0082">'''Maedin'''</span>]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Maedin|<span style="color:#4B0082">talk</span>]]</sup> 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Throwing this out there.. how about [[Template:Infobox Medical diagnosis]]? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Two of the editors opposing this are now on Wikibreak. I doubt anyone will close this early, but just in case anyone is thinking of doing so, please wait until they are active again. I honestly want to understand the objections here, and see if there is a way to find a solution that is satisfactory to them. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== DSM IV TR section? == |
|||
OK, is it worth adding a DSM IV TR field to the template? If so, how do I do it? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:As discussed at [[Template_talk:Infobox_Disease#DSM_and_ICD9]], I'm of the opinion that we should keep that information with the ICD9/ICD9CM, and in the few cases where there are differences, we can notate that directly in the box. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes for adding DSM codes. DSM-IV-TR codes ''match'' ICD-9 codes (see [[DSM-IV-TR]]), than maybe we could change the name to e.g. ''ICD-9 (DSM-IV-TR): 296 (296)''? Or just add corrections if the code is different? Or in different way mention the differences between those two. ([[User:Es uomikim|es_uomikim]] ([[User talk:Es uomikim|talk]]) 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)) |
|||
:::I don't think it would be a good idea to change the name of ICD-9 in the infobox to include DSM-IV-TR. DSM covers only a small subset of the many conditions, diseases and disorders that are covered in ICD-9. I agree with Arcadian's opinion above. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 07:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The issue isn't ICD versus DSM. Not at all. It's about ADDING the DSM to the info box. Why do this? |
|||
:#Omitting DSM (current version) is a serious error, for it fails to meet people's expectations. Millions of people in the USA use the DSM, and aren't likely to cease soon. That there is a close match to the ICD is not well know even among specialists. In my own graduate training in professional mental health, we glanced at the ICD, then dropped it. It is not used in our practice, our thinking, our research writing. Personally, I think this is a mistake, but that's beside the point. <u>People reading about a mental illness category will, if American, expect to see reference to the DSM. That will not be changing anytime soon.</u> I personally find jarring that the DSM is omitted from the Infobox Disease. |
|||
:#The Infobox simply doesn't reflect current practice. It should reflect practice, not some ideological position. |
|||
:I think the template needs to be changed, ASAP, please! (I would do it myself, if could figure out how.) We need a separate line for the DSM. '''[[User:Tomcloyd|TomCloyd]] ([[User talk:Tomcloyd|talk]]) 06:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)''' |
|||
::There are 2 issues that I can see with this suggestion. |
|||
::#The classification resources linked to in this Infobox cover the full range of conditions/diseases/disorders that humans are subject to, whereas DSM-IV only covers one small part. This means that, for the majority of uses of this Infobox, the addition of a field for DSM will be superfluous. |
|||
::#The official web-site for DSM-IV-TR does not give the content of the classification - because it is copyright and has not been released under the appropriate licence for inclusion on Wikipedia. This means that any codes put into the proposed field are a) unverifiable and b) not linkable. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry to be slow responding. Still learning to use "watchlist" functionality. |
|||
Your point #1 is obviously correct. Allow me to restate: |
|||
* Both my original points stand, I think. |
|||
* The solution is not modification of the general template, but rather "forking" (to use a term from the software development community) the template so that we have a new version, which DOES reference the DSM, to be used where appropriate (only). That way, everyone wins. One way to do this, instead of "forking", would be to include the DSM field in the template as a commented-out area, with instructions to un-comment it where appropriate. Personally, I like this option. Again, I'd do this myself, but I'd rather someone with more skill in PHP (I'm guessing) do it. I'll just supervise (!). |
|||
* Your point #2 is true until one gets to "a)" and "b)", towit: |
|||
** a): Verifiability is possible in the same way that the same code used in a given article is verified there: by source citation. And... |
|||
** b): The codes are readily accessible at [http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm available online], a site which states that it provides them with the permission of the American Psychiatric Association. So, using this source, the codes are both verifiable and linkable. |
|||
Now, can someone please show me how to modify the template, or just do it and post a notice here so I can then USE it. It would be much appreciated, and it would help the readers of our articles on various mental illness diagnoses. |
|||
<strong>[[User:Tomcloyd|Tom Cloyd]] ([[User talk:Tomcloyd|talk]])</strong> 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:This is a large change, and does not currently have the consensus of the community. Such a forking would probably be reverted. Can you provide an example where the DSM uses a non-ICD9 code? --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
FIRST, it isn't only about codes. Even if they were perfect match, most USA people who come to these articles, I would readily bet, are NOT professionals, and do NOT know about ICD, in a mental health context - not in the USA, because it's not what we use. So, offering them ICD references is meaningless and useless. <u>It makes no sense.</u> |
|||
SECOND, while I believe most of the codes ''are'' identical or similar - ''where the diagnostic categories are'', the list of categories, their names, and their descriptions, are meaningfully different. USA folks - my clients - do not WANT ICD. It's not relevant. |
|||
It simple: the ICD does not serve these people, in articles on mental illness diagnostic categories. For all others, I would assume it does. WHY NOT SERVE BOTH? |
|||
This not a large change, if it involves an option which has to be turned on to be used, and is only available for new uses or for those who take the trouble to update the template in given articles. All others would simply be unaffected. |
|||
What substantive objection can there be to this improvement? <strong>[[User:Tomcloyd|Tom Cloyd]] ([[User talk:Tomcloyd|talk]])</strong> 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==eMedicine website restructured== |
|||
The eMedicine website has been restructured. The old use of the '''eMedicineSubj''' & '''eMedicineTopic''' parameters still works as the eMedicine website internally redirects to the new URLs |
|||
Hence in the past for the url http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic43.htm# we would set '''eMedicineSubj''' as 'emerg' and '''eMedicineTopic''' as '43'. |
|||
However anyone now searching for a suitable eMedicine article is going to be confronted with a rather different eMedicine url to use: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/806890-overview and so now set the '''eMedicineSubj''' parameter always to the fixed literal text of 'article' and '''eMedicineTopic''' gets set to the article page number of '806890'. |
|||
I was tempted to consider providing a new single parameter name of perhaps '''eMedicine''' but I think not as: |
|||
* For backwards compatablity {{tl|eMedicine}} and {{tl|eMedicine2}} must still require at least 2 obligatory parameters to be defined, and this template should be consistant with the approach those templates use |
|||
* Indeed this template's '''eMedicine_mult''' parameter is normally defined using the {{tl|eMedicine2}} template and so may have a mix of existing <nowiki>{{eMedicine2|<<field>>|<<topic number>>}}</nowiki> use, as well as now additional links using a <nowiki>{{eMedicine2|article|<<article number>>}}</nowiki> style. Just too confusing to have this infobox with variable & mixed parameter numbers |
|||
* Easier, IMHO, to maintain for existing users of this template (who wont all come looking to this template discussion page) an expectation to see in general at eMedicine a "<space name>/<number value>" ending to the URL they find at eMedicine. |
|||
* Finally we still need to allow for the option of linking to a seach list at eMedicine if too many individual articles to include. So as at present: '''eMedicineSubj''' is set to 'search' and '''eMedicineTopic''' is the search expression to be used (as set out in point 9 of the this template's documentation). |
|||
If people really, really feel that it would be better to code the infobox for new eMedicine structure by use of just a single '''eMedicine''' parameter, despite my objection points above, please let me know quickly before we need undo too many instances of others using the curent modified template. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==ICHD-2 Classification== |
|||
{{Cleanup-ICHD}} |
|||
This banner has been added to the top of the page for [[Cluster headache]], but there is no way to add an ICHD-2 Classification to the Disease Infobox. Could this be added? I have searched long and hard to find out how to add this and have seen no other way than through official modification from higher power above. Thanks. |
|||
Link to the official classification from IHS for ICHD-2: http://ihs-classification.org/en/02_klassifikation/02_teil1/03.01.00_cluster.html |
|||
---[[User:Johngallias|Johngallias]] ([[User talk:Johngallias|talk]]) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment'''I don't think that it is appropriate to add ICHD (in either edition) to this template. It's only going to be useful for a handful of articles. The classifications that are in the template have a broad use across multiple disciplines and applications. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 05:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== it interwiki == |
|||
please add interlink to italian wikipedia: <nowiki>[[it:Template:Infobox Malattia]]</nowiki> --[[User:Luckyz|<span style="color:#3060D0;font-size:90%">'''Luckyz'''</span>]]<sup><small>[[:it:Discussioni utente:Luckyz|<span style="color:#3060D0">Tell Me</span>]]</small></sup> 10:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Styling updates == |
|||
I've created a new [[template:infobox Disease/sandbox|sandbox]] for this template which contains some tweaks to the styling of this template to bring it into line with the defaults of other infoboxes. A comparison of old versus new can be found at the [[template:infobox Disease/testcases|test cases]] page. Comments? [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 14:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Support. (I'd also recommending updating [[Template:Infobox Symptom]], as they are essentially the same.) --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: Already done. I'd actually prefer if this template moved to the header styling of {{tl|Infobox Symptom}} as well, but that can be discussed afterwards. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 09:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:How would it work for code ranges such as the ICD-9 one on the [[Pneumonia]] article. I wouldn't be keen to have the ends of a range on different lines. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 08:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: Example added to the test cases page. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 11:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Support. Standing the text off from the edge of the box is an improvement on the old version. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 08:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Requesting sync, then, as this helps on the road to further consistency / maintainability fixes. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{resolved|Done, but if there's issues with it, let an admin know so it can be reverted back or fixed. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 11:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Further work == |
|||
Now that the previous change has been rolled out, I've made a few more tweaks to the layout to bring it into line with other infobox templates (and to make it look more like {{tl|infobox Symptom}}. Comparison is on the [[template:infobox Disease/testcases|test cases]] page again. After that it's just a cases of moving over to use {{tl|infobox}} directly, which will be straightforward. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 09:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:What are you gently leading us to? I'm not sure where (and why) we are heading. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 09:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. Please clarify. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 19:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: The {{tl|infobox}} base template makes it much easier to maintain and update templates based on it than hand-coding them out of wikitables - take a look at the code for {{tl|infobox Symptom}}, which I've just converted, to see this. There won't be any further changes in actual output. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 11:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]], you have been ''de facto'' the maintainer of this and its sister templates (symptoms and procedures). How do you feel/think about moving across to to the {{tl|infobox}} base template? From my perspective as a classification expert, as long as it continues to work and behave well, then the code behind it doesn't worry me. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Support. [[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 12:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{tlx|editprotected}} |
|||
Requesting sync with the sandbox again as there has is consensus for this change. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 08:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} with a few tweaks of my own. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== NHS Direct Online == |
|||
Could we add NHS Direct Online? Someone has been spamming it, but I think it should be in the infobox. Problem is their links aren't uniform... I've made some test edits but the problem was with two words, the link malfunctioned. --[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the usual precedent for the life cycle is to first build dedicated templates for use in the external links section, which gives us experience about how to parameterize. I agree that the NHS Direct Online are of an extraordinarily high quality, and if the URL templates proved stable and scalable, I could see myself supporting this addition to the infobox (though I'd want to see some examples of exactly what was being added.) --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Questions''' What particular information will be added to the infobox through adding links to NHS Direct Online? And how will adding this information to the infobox complement what is already there? [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 09:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Alt attribute in infobox image == |
|||
{{tlx|editprotected}} |
|||
As per [[WP:ALT]] I just now added [[alt attribute]]s to all but one of the images in ''[[Autism]]'', but since {{tl|Infobox Disease}} doesn't support this I couldn't do it for the lead image. I earlier ran into a similar problem with ''[[Philitas of Cos]]'' and {{tl|Infobox Writer}} and made the obvious change to that template, which works; please see ''[[Template talk:Infobox Writer #Alt attribute can now be correctly supported]]''. To do the same thing here, please make the following change to {{tl|Infobox Disease}}: |
|||
: <code><nowiki>! colspan=2 style="text-align: center" {{!}} [[File:{{{Image}}}|{{{Width|190}}}px</nowiki><ins><nowiki>|alt={{{Alt|}}}</nowiki></ins><nowiki>]]</nowiki></code> |
|||
I made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_Disease%2Fsandbox&diff=297016892&oldid=297016489 the change] to the sandbox and tested it there, using a new test case that I just added to ''[[Template:Infobox Disease/testcases]]''. You can just install [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Disease/sandbox&oldid=297016892 the current sandbox] to the template. Thanks. |
|||
By the way, is there some procedure for saying "add alt attribute support to all infobox templates"? Perhaps I should post a request at ''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes]]''? It's a bit tedious to have to compose these change requests for each individual infobox template. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 20:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: Insomuch as the actual code changes required may vary from template to template, I think they need to be requested manually. Pinging the project would be a good way of bringing this to the wider attention of the community though. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 08:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::{{done}}, although this could use some further thought. Presumably, if no alt is specified then it would be better to use the caption (if specified) rather than nothing? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: That would result in screen readers reading both the caption and the alt text, no? [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 11:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh. Maybe! Still think it needs proper discussion somewhere. I may bring it up at Village Pump. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::: There's currently a thread at ''[[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates #Alt text in images]]''. I agree with Chris Cunningham that the duplication wouldn't be helpful. It's not clear that we have the best solution now, though. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Infobox conversion complete == |
|||
{{tlx|editprotected}} |
|||
I've now converted the sandbox to use {{tl|infobox}}. Comparison between old and new is on the [[Template:Infobox Disease/testcases|test cases]] page as before. Requesting sync as this is a low-impact change which helps considerably in future maintenance of the template. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 10:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. - [[User:Trevor MacInnis|Trevor]] [[User talk:Trevor MacInnis|MacInnis]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Trevor MacInnis|Contribs]])</small> 13:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Sadly it's now broken the work-around that allowed an [[mw:Extension:ImageMap]] by writing it as a caption without an image. See [[Nitrogen narcosis]]. I suppose I can't complain because the caption is not meant to hold images, but it means I could put an imagemap in the article infobox before, and now I don't know how to. Is this really improving the encyclopedia? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: Well, that was an ugly hack, not merely because of its abuse of "<code>|Caption=</code>", but because it presented textual tabular data as an image instead of as natural form, which is a table. As per [[WP:OUTBOX]], often a better way to present info that isn't naturally supported by an infobox is to put a do-it-yourself infobox after the main infobox. I've just now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitrogen_narcosis&diff=305131897&oldid=305125456 done this] for ''[[Nitrogen narcosis]]''. One hacky example isn't a powerful argument against the change to this template, though of course if hacks like this are common that would be a different matter. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::: It was an ugly hack from an editing point of view—and not my idea, as I originally used just an image—but the change to an imagemap was clearly an improvement. Obviously, it's a pity that these templates don't accept imagemaps, even though maps often have an "easter-egg" quality to them. I have tried many times to present information like this as a table, but HTML is inherently incapable of displaying a column of figures with aligned decimal points (as you can see in [[Nitrogen narcosis]]). It just doesn't look right in the same way that a well-crafted, optimised image (with proper alt text) can do. I'm tempted to just write the whole thing in HTML, but I suspect that the templates provide metadata that would then be lost. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 20:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::: In my experience the hassle of maintaining an image like that far outweighs any trivial advantages in appearance. But we may have differing opinions about appearance: to my eye [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitrogen_narcosis&oldid=305188682 the current version] has a table that is uglier than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitrogen_narcosis&oldid=305133654 the version I put in], mostly because it unnecessarily expands the table to be the same width as the infobox. And if you compare the imagemap (on the left below) with a mildly altered version of the table I put in (on the right), to my eye the table version is just as readable, is more compact, and is much more usable by a naive reader (wikilinks easily seen; you can cut text from the table, etc.). (And the decimal points are just as nicely aligned, at least in my browser.) To each their own, I guess. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 09:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="infobox" |
|||
! <br>Gas !! Relative<br>narcotic<br>potency |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Neon|Ne]] || align="center" |  0.3 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Hydrogen|H<sub>2</sub>]] || align="center" |  0.6 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Nitrogen|N<sub>2</sub>]] || align="center" |  1.0 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Oxygen|O<sub>2</sub>]] || align="center" |  1.7 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Argon|Ar]] || align="center" |  2.3 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Krypton|Kr]] || align="center" |  7.1 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] || align="center" | 20.0 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Xenon|Xe]] || align="center" | 25.6 |
|||
|} |
|||
<imagemap> |
|||
Image:Relative_narcotic_potency.png|alt=Relative narcotic potency: Ne=0.3; H2=0.6; N2=1; O2=1.7; Ar=2.3; Kr=7.1; CO2=20.0; Xe=25.6 |
|||
rect 1 75 149 107 [[Neon]] |
|||
rect 1 108 149 140 [[Hydrogen]] |
|||
rect 1 141 149 173 [[Nitrogen]] |
|||
rect 1 174 149 205 [[Oxygen]] |
|||
rect 1 206 149 238 [[Argon]] |
|||
rect 1 239 149 271 [[Krypton]] |
|||
rect 1 272 149 304 [[Carbon dioxide]] |
|||
rect 1 305 149 336 [[Xenon]] |
|||
default [[File:Relative narcotic potency.png|about this image]] |
|||
desc none |
|||
</imagemap> |
|||
:::::: I guess I'm biased by working on websites where the look is dictated by graphic designers who think that presentation is paramount. Knowing when to use a good image is the solution. I'd certainly be criticised for presenting a table where a column of figures don't have their decimal points aligned. Your table, despite the padding, still has the last two rows too far out for my eye (on my browser). But of course, with text, we can't control the font rendering in the client, since users may override our choice of font. I'm amazed that you find the wider infobox uglier - it looks so much better to me <grin>. Appearance is, of course, always a question of taste. Disclaimer: I'm viewing at 1920x1200 with the contents box shown, so I get a lot of horrible white space, that means keeping the height of the infobox down improves the appearance for me. That's the clincher, by the way; the original image is striking, but far too tall (in my eye), so presenting the information as a table now has all the advantages. As I can now move it out of the lead, I may try that, and then I would agree that the compact version you made would be better (although I'd still prefer to right-align + margin the numbers, rather than center and pad them). Thanks again! --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 14:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: It's trivial to add a new attribute for image maps; have a look at [[template:infobox Disease/testcases#Image map support]] for an implementation I just cooked up. This is a far better solution than hacking the caption element. But if you want the current hack to continue to work, all you need to do is ensure that an image is also specified (or the caption element won't be shown) - [[:file:blank.svg]] along with <tt>Width=0</tt> is a good choice. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 08:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::: That's a great solution - thank you for suggesting it. I did consider setting "|Image=" to a blank file, after I studied the recent changes, but as I also disapproved of putting the imagemap in the caption, I considered that would be a "hack-too-far". Possibly, this has already been discussed and rejected, but when I create databases, I often add an extra "blob" field because the client will always think of something they want which wasn't in the original spec; perhaps templates might benefit from a "|Data-extra=" parameter for those situations where something unusual may be required? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 14:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::: That's what the new <tt>diagram</tt> attribute I've added to the sandbox code is for: I could change the title if you want. In general, though, I think there's consensus that wildcard attributes shouldn't be used in infobox templates because it encourages users to add, well, random data to them. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I suspected that would be the case. There's always a delicate tension in making templates between catering for common possibilities and defeating the point of the template in the first place. I can see that "|diagram" would be an alias for "|data10", but I'm not going to suggest any change in that. It should settle any need for additional imagemaps in the infoxbox quite nicely. Thanks once more. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== MeshID == |
|||
.../MB_cgi?field=uid&term=<span style="color:#f00;"><nowiki>{{{MeshID|}MeshID}}}]</nowiki></span>}}<br /> |
|||
Trevor MacInnis,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Disease&diff=304877891&oldid=297127361] There's a small bug; the MeshID only displays the link, excluding the number; should be <nowiki>{{{MeshID|}}}{{!}}{{{MeshID}}}]</nowiki> [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:+1 --[[Special:Contributions/84.44.177.67|84.44.177.67]] ([[User talk:84.44.177.67|talk]]) 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Problem with missing eMedicine tags == |
|||
It seems there's some kind of problem with this template when the eMedicine tags are missing, as at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurasthenia&oldid=299053823 Neurasthenia]. Can someone have a look at the issue? Thanks! --[[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] ([[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]) 00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: I just came here to report this. Someone should fix it (I don't have the knowledge). [[User:Nazgul02|Nazgul02]] ([[User talk:Nazgul02|talk]]) 12:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Links== |
|||
Based upon the feedback above, I will be reverting this template to the last working version if the new version isn't fixed in the next week or so. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{tl|editprotected}} |
|||
Fixed in the sandbox. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 10:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Looks good! Thanks, guys. --[[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] ([[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The Mesh link is still broken. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 01:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: And obviously fixed now, by you (just to get this off my radar). [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 11:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::: It's still broken (the link still is a bare numbered link). I'm hesitant to revert back to the last working version, though, since there have been so many subsequent edits. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Try the sandbox now; looks like a slip of the fingers at some point. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Looks good to me -- thanks. I've updated it from the sandbox. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Adjusting to default thumb size == |
|||
{{tlp|editprotected}} |
|||
When I used ''[[Special:Preferences]]'' to set my default thumb size to 250px, and then visited ''[[Autism]]'', I noticed that the infobox image did not change in size, which meant that the relative sizes of images in that article were out of whack: the lead image in the infobox (because it remained at 190px) incorrectly appeared to be less important than the other images (which had grown from 180px to 250px), even though the lead image is the best image in the article and should appear to be ''more'' important. |
|||
To fix this, I modified this template (in the sandbox) to default the size to "<code><nowiki>|frameless|upright=1.06|</nowiki></code>" instead of to "<code><nowiki>|190px|</nowiki></code>". This way, the image size is now 1.06 times the default thumb size, and therefore adjusts more gracefully to changes in the default thumb size. There is no change in behavior unless the user has selected a thumb size other than the 180px default. Also, there is no change in behavior if the invoker of the template uses {{para|Width}} to specify a size. Could you please install {{diff|Template:Infobox Disease|318169442|307723089|the sandbox patch}}? Thanks. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:No problem, done. <font face="New York"><span style="background-color:black; color:gray;">[[user talk:Skomorokh|<font color="white"> Skomorokh</font>]], [[WP:BARBARIAN|<font color="gray">barbarian </font>]]</span></font> 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== GeneReviews support == |
|||
{{tl|editprotected}} |
|||
An IP address {{diff|FG syndrome|329693928|329580998|added}} a GeneReviews external link to ''[[FG syndrome]]'', and after looking at it I thought that it'd be nicer to put this kind of link into the disease infobox. I propose adding support for GeneReviews to {{tl|Infobox disease}}. To help implement this I've made a {{diff|Template:Infobox disease/sandbox|329728794|327591051|patch}} to the sandbox and have tested the result in the autism infobox in the [[Template:Infobox disease/testcases|test cases]]. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: No further comment so I added an {{tl|editprotected}}. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 01:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{done}}, I'll leave the change to the documentation field to yourself. '''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:black; padding:1px;background:yellow"><font color="green"> Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones </font></span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones| (Talk)]]</sup> 02:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Radiopaedia.org == |
|||
I work over at [http://radiopaedia.org radiopaedia.org] where we are trying to create a wiki of radiology for radiologists. Lots of articles and cases with a growing userbase. Articles are becoming increasingly mature ([http://radiopaedia.org/articles/meningioma meningioma article]). I wonder if there would be consideration of adding a link to radiopaedia articles where they (on merit) are considered a good external resource. Clearly, with a vested interest, I wouldn't make such a change, but wondered what people's thoughts were. [[User:Drjermy|Drjermy]] ([[User talk:Drjermy|talk]]) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The life cycle for infobox additions usually involves creating a dedicated template link usable in the external link section (like [[Template:OMIM]]) and allowing it to mature and gain acceptance before adding it to the infobox. I'd recommend creating [[Template:Radiopaedia]] (with a blue link to [[Radiopaedia]]) and using it to replace the article links found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.radiopaedia.org here], as opposed to adding a new link to the infobox at this time. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 13:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks - I've started the template (after some reading) and will see how things go. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Drjermy|drjermy]] ([[User talk:Drjermy|talk]]) 17:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Case study: [[Sleepwalking]] [somnambulism] == |
|||
* http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ |
|||
What is the [[definition]] of the disorder....??? |
|||
<br>and |
|||
<br> What are the [[criteria]] to diagnosis it...??? |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/222.64.16.239|222.64.16.239]] ([[User talk:222.64.16.239|talk]]) 08:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Could someone add these two [[trait]]s into the infobox please |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/222.64.16.239|222.64.16.239]] ([[User talk:222.64.16.239|talk]]) 08:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*This infobox is not used for this type of information. It is used for links to various classifications. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 09:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==DECIPHER== |
|||
There is an effort in place to add content from [https://decipher.sanger.ac.uk DECIPHER] (the DatabasE of Chromosomal Imbalance and Phenotype in Humans using Ensembl Resources) to Wikipedia. My understanding is that it is essentially a genetic encyclopaedia of rare deletion/duplication syndromes, mapped to the human genome by a large international consortium. The editor involved in transferring the content across has asked about the possibility of including a link to the DECIPHER page in this infobox. It seems a good idea to me, as it gives those interested in these syndromes a direct link to DNA level information on which genes are affected, which is missing on OMIN. See, for example, [https://decipher.sanger.ac.uk/perl/application/syndrome/18 DECIPHER's entry] for [[1p36 deletion syndrome]] versus [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/607872 OMIN's]. Thoughts or objections? [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for links to be included in infoboxes is that the links have already been used on Wikipedia, and been proven over time to be useful, appropriate, and with stable URLs. The best way to do this is probably to follow the process described [[Template_talk:Infobox_disease#Radiopaedia.org|above]]. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 11:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: Ah yes, good idea (and another good idea would have been for me to read the talkpage in advance of asking a redundant question). Thanks also for your comment on my talk page. I'll be in touch when we have a time and place. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 11:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would like to add to what [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] has mentioned regarding the usefulness for linking to DECIPHER the following. DECIPHER provides a) links to affected genes, but also to overlapping, anonymised entries of patients' DNA and clinical features that have given consent to make this information available b) interactive visualisation systems that integrate all this data and allow users to navigate through it c) bioinformatics tools that predict the likelihood of specific genes causing symptoms. It is not possible to add this information to wikipedia but it is potentially extremely valuable to clinicians and other affected patients for consulation purposes. Regards, [[User:Manuelcorpas|Manuelcorpas]] ([[User talk:Manuelcorpas|talk]]) 10:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::: As Arcadian suggests, what I'll do first is create a template for linking to the DECIPHER page that we can add to each syndrome srticle that has a DECIPHER entry. Once that is up and running, we can reasses it after a while and see if it is appropriate to transfer the link to the infox. My broadband is (finally) getting installed at home tonight, so I'll get cracking on making the template soon! [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 10:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I support Rockpocket's plan. (When creating the template, I recommend including an internal wikilink to [[Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute]], to help make the template as self-documenting as possible.) If you need technical assistance, let me know. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 01:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Multiple links for each line== |
|||
Is it possible to have multiple links for each line? I know we can do this for emedicine and the ICD stuff but even the disease database could sometimes use two links. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:A second link for DDB can be coded using [[Template:DiseasesDB2]]. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== ICD9 == |
|||
This designation should be ICD9-CM, the version used in the US, since ICD9 is superseded by ICD10? [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Technically, yes, it should be ICD-9-CM. However, since the US is the main residual user of any version of ICD-9 the point is moot. However, I do look forward to the US catching up with the world and moving to ICD-10. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 05:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::We still use ICD 9 s for billing in Canada aswell. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 06:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::But Canada has been using ICD-10-CA since 2000 for morbidity and mortality clinical coding. This is my understanding of the purpose of the infobox. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 06:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::We use the ICD 9 codes for billing in British Columbia. I do not know about MM.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 07:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Side the "|" is place on== |
|||
There is a tool [[WP:AWB]] that put this thing to the right side of the text rather than the left. We need a consistent format across all pages. Should we move it in these templates? [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 23:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:No - easiest on left side, as then unfilled parameter values are simpler to add without the disruption that occurs if the right-side "|" gets deleted, also IMHO looks neater with all the "|" lined up left-side. Hence, rather than: |
|||
name = Foo | |
|||
image = Bar | |
|||
alt = | |
|||
caption = Foobar | |
|||
as |
|||
| name = Foo |
|||
| image = Bar |
|||
| alt = |
|||
| caption = Foobar |
|||
and especially where blank template is provided for copy&paste when spaces added for the "=" to line up too: |
|||
| name = Foo |
|||
| image = Bar |
|||
| alt = |
|||
| caption = Foobar |
|||
:Finally left-side is used by [[Template:Infobox]]. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] <sup> [[User talk:Davidruben|Talk]] </sup> 04:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I do not care which side it ends up on just wish it where consistent that is all. We need to let AWB know which side... [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 04:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== New OMIM site == |
|||
While NCBI still hosts OMIM files, the official OMIM database has shifted to a new site: [http://www.omim.org/]. Would it be possible to change the infobox linking to reflect this change? ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 01:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Is the [[OMIM]] content literally identical to that hosted by [[National Center for Biotechnology Information]]? If the content is the same, then server speeds and database integration is likely in the long run to be superior at NCBI. And to use the example of [[cystic fibrosis]], a link to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/219700 has a more [[self-documenting]] [[provenance]] than does http://www.omim.org/entry/219700. [[Victor A. McKusick]] died in 2008. I'd hate for us to facilitate a [[schism]]. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I know people who work for OMIM, and apparently such a schism has already occurred (hence the new site). The NCBI site has not been updated since February 2011, and it is unclear what future the data has at that site. OMIM owns the data, and it is only proper to link things to the official site. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::In that case, I don't object if you want to implement the change. The change would be implemented by altering the URL embedded in [[Template:OMIM]], [[Template:OMIM2]], [[Template:OMIM3]], [[Template:OMIM4]], and [[Template:OMIM5]]. But before making this change -- can you point to an entry where the OMIM.org site differs from the NCBI site? --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 01:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::See for example http://omim.org/entry/614052 versus http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/614052. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 15:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm persuaded, and '''support''' the proposed change. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think this is pretty open-and-shut; NCBI is clearly an outdated site. However, I do not have permission to change any of these templates (lowly reviewer-rollbacker that I am), so it would be appreciated if someone with the proper access could do so. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: I made the necessary changes. Btw: only the first and the fifth template seem to be protected, should the others be added as well? --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 13:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This template still links to NCBI. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Sorry, changed the omim templates but forgot the disease infobox itself. Fixed now. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] ([[User talk:Wouterstomp|talk]]) 08:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: FYI, you can find more of these by checking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fomim&limit=500&offset=0 here]. Thanks! [[User:Plastikspork|Plastikspork]] [[User talk:Plastikspork|<sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ</sub><sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)</sup>]] 02:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Update links == |
|||
{{edit protected|answered=yes}} |
|||
The ICD links should declared as <nowiki>[[International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems|ICD]]</nowiki> to bypass the redirects. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Alternatively, they could be made <nowiki>[[International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems|ICD]]-[[ICD-10|10]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems|ICD]]-[[List of ICD-9|9]]</nowiki>. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::This is on [[Template:Infobox disease/doc]] - which is not edit protected...[[User:Skier Dude|<span style="color:ForestGreen">Skier Dude</span>]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|<span style="color:SaddleBrown">talk</span>]]) 03:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Uh no...? They are {{para|label1}} and {{para|label2}} fields of the infobox. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 03:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} [[User:Skier Dude|<span style="color:ForestGreen">Skier Dude</span>]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|<span style="color:SaddleBrown">talk</span>]]) 05:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== PubMed Health == |
|||
Can the template include links to the PubMed Health pages under NCBI? A couple of example pages: |
|||
Esophageal atresia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001957/ |
|||
Pleurisy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002347/ |
|||
[[User:Catsintheattic|Catsintheattic]] ([[User talk:Catsintheattic|talk]]) 23:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Instead of or in addition to MedlinePlus? [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 00:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: In addition to... Different information on each site. [[User:Catsintheattic|Catsintheattic]] ([[User talk:Catsintheattic|talk]]) 00:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::If you look at the medline and pubmed for [[pleurisy]] they are almost exactly the same word for word. [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001371.htm] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002347/] I do not see the justification for both.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::: If I had to choose, I'd go with PubMedHealth because of the TOC and other info on the right. Also PubMedHealth has links to medlineplus as a reference sidebox. MedlinePlus doesn't seem to point to PubMedHealth. The reason for keeping both would be for backwards compatibility and legacy information and familiarity with medlineplus. I haven't had any preference to one over the other, but I do know that when I search for 'pleurisy' on both sites, pubmedhealth took me right there while medlineplus pointed me to things related to pleural disorders. [[User:Catsintheattic|Catsintheattic]] ([[User talk:Catsintheattic|talk]]) 01:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Very minor inconsistency == |
|||
These prompts display as follows: |
|||
*ICD-10 |
|||
*ICD-9 |
|||
*ICD-O: |
|||
where only the rare final one affixes a colon. The colon problem can be diagnosed on the [[colorectal cancer]] page.<br /> |
|||
And why do I feel dumb typing that?<br /> |
|||
[[User:Varlaam|Varlaam]] ([[User talk:Varlaam|talk]]) 03:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== GeneReviews ID & multiple Mesh ID queries == |
|||
*I couldn't identify a working GeneReviews ID for [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1252/ Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Cancer]. When I tried NBK1252 I got a dead link. |
|||
::: I would like to fix this problem, but I don't know how to edit the template. I work on the NCBI bookshelf, and our link structure has changed. It would be nice if people could use the book part identifier NBKnnnn, as you tried to do, and that the URL that is generated were of the form http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBKnnnn/. Right now, though, the template is producing URLs of an old form. [[User:Klortho|Klortho]] ([[User talk:Klortho|talk]]) 01:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I made an attempt at fixing this problem, see my edit request below. [[User:Klortho|Klortho]] ([[User talk:Klortho|talk]]) 02:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*A further issuewhich has stumped me is that [[Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer]] has two pertinent MeSH terms: at the moment the infobox has C537112, but ideally we should also include [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2011/MB_cgi?field=uid&term=C535516 C535516] Any suggestions? <p>Thanks, —[[User:MistyMorn|MistyMorn]] ([[User talk:MistyMorn|talk]]) 21:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: |
|||
== Edit request on 5 May 2012 == |
|||
{{edit protected|answered=yes}} |
|||
<!-- Begin request --> |
|||
Hi, I wonder if you could pick up my changes on the [[Template:Infobox_disease]]. I have never tried to edit an infobox template before, so please let me know if I went about this in the wrong way. |
|||
I work at NCBI on the bookshelf, and our site serves the GeneReviews. Yesterday, I noticed that this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperkalemic_periodic_paralysis, has a broken link to GeneReviews. I dug a little, and found that the template uses an old form of our URLs, and the "ID" that was used in those URLs is no longer easy to figure out. So the individual used the "NBK" number, which is the correct ID, but doesn't work in the old URL format. |
|||
Since there are no doubt quite a few pages that correctly use the old URL format with the old-style IDs, I couldn't change the semantic meaning of GeneReviewsID. So, I invented a new field, called GeneReviewsNBK, which should be the prefered field. |
|||
I edited the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_disease/sandbox template sandbox], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_disease/doc documentation page], and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_disease/testcases test cases], and I created some more test cases in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Klortho/template-infobox-disease-test my user area]. |
|||
<!-- End request --> |
|||
[[User:Klortho|Klortho]] ([[User talk:Klortho|talk]]) 02:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I've copied your changes over to the live template. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 10:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks! [[User:Klortho|Klortho]] ([[User talk:Klortho|talk]]) 13:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::This is an innocuous test edit to verify that I'm getting email notifications. Please excuse the noise! [[User:ZZombo|ZZombo]] ([[User talk:ZZombo|talk]]) 01:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== GeneReviews_Mult form? == |
|||
[[Cutis laxa]] has four GeneReviews entries in External links "FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa", "ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa", "EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa", "ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders". |
|||
I think [[Spinocerebellar ataxia]] also has a list. Would a GeneReviews_Mult form giving NBK,title pairs each on a separate line in the info box be worthwhile? OMIM_mult may use a helper OMIM template. [[User:RDBrown|RDBrown]] ([[User talk:RDBrown|talk]]) 03:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: I'd be interested in this. I can't speak to whether or not it would be useful, but I'd like to learn how to do it. I fixed the GeneReviews links (see above) back in April, and it was a bit of a challenge. This would be fun. Let me know if you want help with this. [[User:Klortho|Klortho]] ([[User talk:Klortho|talk]]) 01:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think you need to add a new parameter, something and add it as part of the GeneReview line. |
|||
:: Something like |
|||
<pre> |
|||
{{#if: {{{GeneReviewsNBK|}}} |
|||
| [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/{{{GeneReviewsNBK}}}/ {{#if: {{{GeneReviewsName|}}} | {{{GeneReviewsName}}} | {{{GeneReviewsNBK}}} }}] |
|||
{{{GeneReviews_mult|}}} }} |
|||
</pre> |
|||
:: (code changed to be move the Name test inside the link). Then you need a helper template for the list. For OMIM it's OMIM2. Since GeneReviews are a subset of NLM books maybe named NLMBook2 rather than GeneReviews2 (The suffix 2 is by analogy to OMIM2, since it doesn't prefix with a description). Code modified from OMIM. (Parameter 1 ≡ GeneReviewsNBK, Parameter 2 ≡ GeneReviewsName) |
|||
<pre> |
|||
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/{{{1}}}/ {{#if: {{{2|}}} |{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}}}]<noinclude> |
|||
{{documentation}} |
|||
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here. --> |
|||
</noinclude> |
|||
</pre> |
|||
Since I don't yet know how to use a Sandbox to write/test templates, so you'll need to ask or find the documentation. Hope this helps. [[User:RDBrown|RDBrown]] ([[User talk:RDBrown|talk]]) 13:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, I think that will work. I'd like to name the helper template NCBIBook or NCBIBook2. I checked with the OMIM example, and it looks like [[Template:OMIM]] produces a non-abbreviated link, and [[Template:OMIM2]] produces the short link used in this infobox. We will have to add a <nowiki><br></nowiki> tag at the end of the NCBIBook2 template, to make sure each title appears on it's own line. I tested that [[User:Klortho/sandbox|on my sandbox]] and it works (see the "OMIM" entries). [[User:Klortho|Klortho]] ([[User talk:Klortho|talk]]) 03:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::I got something pretty close, working [[User:Klortho/template-infobox-disease-test|here]]. I had to put the <nowiki><br></nowiki> tag at the beginning of the NCBIBook2 template. I don't like this break tag, because it means that the NCBIBook2 template can't be used as a generic linking template. Maybe the answer is to create NCBIBook3 that uses NCBIBook2, and adds the break tag. Anyway, I should be able to finish it tomorrow. [[User:Klortho|Klortho]] ([[User talk:Klortho|talk]]) 04:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::Update -- I did most of it, you can see it on the test page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_disease/testcases#Cutis_laxa_.28test_multiple_gene_reviews.29 . I don't love it, because the box is not wide enough, and the titles wrap onto two lines. I don't know if there's any way to fix that. Tomorrow I will work on the documentation and submit the edit request. [[User:Klortho|Klortho]] ([[User talk:Klortho|talk]]) 05:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:03, 12 April 2021
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Medicine Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2017
The page Thrombocytopenia starts with a plain wikilink to the category Category:Pages with Infobox medical condition using multiple parameters for one. I presume that you actually want to add the article to that category, and so the colon at the start of the wikilink in this template's code should be removed. User:GKFXtalk 22:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2017
Consensus here has depreciated this template, in favour of template:Infobox medical condition (new) in combination with template:medical resources. Please add {{Deprecated template|Infobox medical condition|Infobox medical condition (new)|note=For adding classification data, see [[template:medical resources]]|date=August 2017}} if deemed appropriate. Little pob (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- What is the transition process? How do I actually replace it with the new one? Parameter-replacements? -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Last I read a bot was being proposed to automate the transition to the new infobox? However, the deprecated tag is for the template page, not the infobox itself. It may have been clearer if I had provided the WL to Template:Deprecated_template also, as it has an example at the top. Little pob (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Updating is going to be a slow and gradual process. I have done 500 or so.
- We have a tool that speeds up the conversion but it is still manual. More work is required before it can be automated.
- You add this to your common.js
- importScript("User:Ladsgroup/RefCleaner.js");
- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Last I read a bot was being proposed to automate the transition to the new infobox? However, the deprecated tag is for the template page, not the infobox itself. It may have been clearer if I had provided the WL to Template:Deprecated_template also, as it has an example at the top. Little pob (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: Given that the main protagonist in this change Doc James has passed on making the change, and nobody else has taken it up in 2 weeks, I'll mark it as answered. I think marking a template as deprecated while it's still in use on 6500 pages would taint too many pages for too long. Little pob, some kind of comment on the doc page indicating its deprecated state and where to find the new preferred template seems more appropriate at this stage. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Added to /doc. Template {{Deprecated template|Infobox medical condition}} must be added to the documentation page, and so will not appear in mainspace. It does not alter any working of the tempalte, it's just documentation text. (BTW, that page is not protected and so does not formally need an {{edit template-protected}} request). -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Please use HTTPS for the Patient UK (patient.info) link
The purpose of this edit is to provide increased privacy and security for users by having the template use HTTPS when generating links to Patient UK. (As a side note, a previous comment states that the template is deprecated; however, it appears that there are still many pages on which the template is used.) In particular, it appears that URLs of the form http://patient.info/doctor/xxxxxx
generate a 301 Moved Permanently redirect to https://patient.info/doctor/xxxxxx
which in some cases is followed by a subsequent 301 redirect to another HTTPS URL. For example, http://patient.info/doctor/Body-Dysmorphic-Disorder-(BDD) generates a 301 redirect to https://patient.info/doctor/Body-Dysmorphic-Disorder-(BDD) which then generates a 301 redirect to https://patient.info/doctor/body-dysmorphic-disorder-pro. In the template, please change http://patient.info/doctor/
to https://patient.info/doctor/
instead. Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Done, @Elegie. -- Carl Fredrik talk 10:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Also went ahead and did it one the Template:Medical resources that replaces this template. Carl Fredrik talk 10:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Possible fix for broken eMedicine search link
At the current time, the template has the ability to generate a link for doing a search on eMedicine. If the search query is infection
, for example, the URL for the search link would be http://search.medscape.com/emedicine-search?queryText=infection. However, it appears that search URLs of this format are broken; accessing such a URL generates a series of redirects that eventually lead to the URL https://search.medscape.com/search/?
on the Medscape site and no search results are shown. It appears that it is possible to do a search on the Medscape site by using the URL https://search.medscape.com/search/?q=XXXX where XXXX is the search query term(s), though it is not clear as to whether all of the search results are specific to eMedicine. Would it be useful to change the template to use this URL format for doing eMedicine searches? --Elegie (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Error in template
It seems that the template creates the following error for all instances now:
Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:I18n/date' not found.
- It is now fixed it seems Hervegirod (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)