Thumperward (talk | contribs) →Infobox conversion complete: new section |
Trevor MacInnis (talk | contribs) m →Infobox conversion complete: done |
||
Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
== Infobox conversion complete == |
== Infobox conversion complete == |
||
{{editprotected}} |
{{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) |
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) |
Revision as of 13:38, 29 July 2009
{{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 | ||||||
|
|
||||
Clinical info on this template
I support placing clinical information within this template, contrary to what has been done before. This information can include:
- Class(es) of disease (i.e. virus, autoimmune disorder)
- Age groups most commonly affected
- Gender most commonly affected
- (Common) symptoms
- (Common) causes
- (Common) methods of diagnosis
- (Common) methods of treatment
- Possible outcomes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatterfly (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
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. 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 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 needs to be in the last parameter.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, I understand. 98.217.45.218 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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 top of webpage in which ..." - hope this helps with the WHO's complex addressing system and this external link template :-) David Ruben Talk 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary specification of {PAGENAME}
{{editprotected}}
To avoid editors having to type in "Name = {PAGENAME}", please replace every instance of
{{{Name}}}
with
{{{Name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}
Thanks, Smith609 Talk 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Every instance (the one) of the {{{name}}} parameter in this template already defaults to {{PAGENAME}}. Nihiltres{t.l} 06:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
Template:Infobox Disease → Template:Infobox condition — A better name for many uses that are not diseases. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) — Ned Scott 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Suppport, per discussion above. --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. David Ruben Talk 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. Colin°Talk 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? -- Ned Scott 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose unnecessary --WS (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? -- Ned Scott 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- And this new template will have hookers.. and blackjack!.. aaaa, forget the blackjack... -- 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. --WS (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. -- 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. Dekimasuよ! 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. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
- Perhaps Template:Infobox Medical condition might be less ambiguous? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 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 {{fact}}-tagging is used not as an assertion that a point is true, but to highlight that a point needs a citation to verify). David Ruben Talk 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. -- 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? Maedin\talk 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Throwing this out there.. how about Template:Infobox Medical diagnosis? -- 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. -- 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, Casliber (talk · 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. --Arcadian (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (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 {{eMedicine}} and {{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 {{eMedicine2}} template and so may have a mix of existing {{eMedicine2|<<field>>|<<topic number>>}} use, as well as now additional links using a {{eMedicine2|article|<<article number>>}} 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. David Ruben Talk 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
ICHD-2 Classification
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
---Johngallias (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- CommentI 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. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
it interwiki
please add interlink to italian wikipedia: [[it:Template:Infobox Malattia]] --LuckyzTell Me 10:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Styling updates
I've created a new 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 test cases page. Comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. (I'd also recommending updating Template:Infobox Symptom, as they are essentially the same.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Already done. I'd actually prefer if this template moved to the header styling of {{Infobox Symptom}} as well, but that can be discussed afterwards. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - 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. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Example added to the test cases page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - 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. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Requesting sync, then, as this helps on the road to further consistency / maintainability fixes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
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 {{infobox Symptom}}. Comparison is on the test cases page again. After that it's just a cases of moving over to use {{infobox}} directly, which will be straightforward. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- What are you gently leading us to? I'm not sure where (and why) we are heading. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Please clarify. --Arcadian (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The {{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 {{infobox Symptom}}, which I've just converted, to see this. There won't be any further changes in actual output. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- 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 {{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. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Arcadian (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- 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 {{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. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- The {{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 {{infobox Symptom}}, which I've just converted, to see this. There won't be any further changes in actual output. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Requesting sync with the sandbox again as there has is consensus for this change. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Done with a few tweaks of my own. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 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. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 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.) --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? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Alt attribute in infobox image
{{editprotected}}
As per WP:ALT I just now added alt attributes to all but one of the images in Autism, but since {{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 {{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 {{Infobox Disease}}:
! colspan=2 style="text-align: center" {{!}} [[File:{{{Image}}}|{{{Width|190}}}px|alt={{{Alt|}}}]]
I made 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 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. 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. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - 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 (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- That would result in screen readers reading both the caption and the alt text, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - 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 (MSGJ · talk) 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. Eubulides (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. Maybe! Still think it needs proper discussion somewhere. I may bring it up at Village Pump. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- That would result in screen readers reading both the caption and the alt text, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Infobox conversion complete
{{editprotected}}
I've now converted the sandbox to use {{infobox}}. Comparison between old and new is on the test cases page as before. Requesting sync as this is a low-impact change which helps considerably in future maintenance of the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)