Medicine Redirect‑class
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. (es_uomikim (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't ICD versus DSM. Not at all. It's about ADDING the DSM to the info box. Why do this?

1. 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. People reading about a mental illness category will, if American, expect to see reference to the DSM. That will not be changing anytime soon. I personally find jarring that the DSM is omitted from the Infobox Disease.
2. 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. TomCloyd (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 issues that I can see with this suggestion.

1. 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.
2. 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. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Arcadian (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. It makes no sense.

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? Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we re-visit this discussion please? I don't see how it would hurt at all to have a DSM listing in the table. It would make it more complete and comprehensive. Currently the table does not reflect the current state of the US psychiatric system. Yes, I've read the discussion above, but as a 5th year doctoral student in clinical psychology, I believe its exclusion is problematic. 1000Faces (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is unreasonable. The issue is that I do not think we can link to it like the ICD and as such think it is probably better in that section of the article rather than in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[International Classification of Diseases for Oncology|ICD-O:]]
It displays with a colon (:) after the prompt, unlike the prompts for the other data points in the infobox.
Varlaam (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article Atrophodermia vermiculata is nearly all alternate names. Is there a place for that in the or another infobox or template? Biosthmors (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently started a discussion at WP:MED around a proposal to expand the information in this template and to maintain this information using a bot. The discussion began here, and has since moved over to User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase_3. I'd personally like to focus on adding new fields for data that is not already in the disease box, but we're happy to take on the role of maintaining existing parameters as well. In any case, feedback is welcome... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we make it so the template can incorporate data from wikidata if available? Remember (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of data would wikidata be able to provide that would apply to this Infobox? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of it. Check out [1] Remember (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Wikidata varient support the OMIM & GeneReviews_Mult forms? It wasn't clear to me on a first reading. I'd expect them to become more prevalent, though I've only see a few instances in use so far. RDBrown (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles would benefit from multiple images in the lead infobox, such as is possible in Template:Infobox_anatomy.CFCF (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you can insert multiple images. example article? Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I'm using Template:Infobox disease doubleimage to be able to add multiple images, such as in Asthma, Anencephaly Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease CFCF (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seems your edits were reverted. I will nominate that template for deletion. note the example with multiple images. if this becomes common, then clearly we could add Image2, but appears there is no consensus for it at the moment. Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am Dr. Noa Rappaport, scientific leader of the MalaCards database of human diseases. Following a suggestion by Andrew Su (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Proposals#MalaCards_-_www.malacards.org) we were asked to write a bot that updates the disease box external references within disease entries in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase_3#Disease. We found it to be a non trivial task. Does anyone know of any such bot that exists or can help us write it ? Thanks. Noa.rappaport (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Noa Rappaport[reply]

Has consensus been developed for this anywhere? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worthwhile to include a list of causative infectious agents, when relevant, linking to their wiki pages or the NCBI Taxonomy entry? eg American tick bite fever would need Rickettsia parkeri.

Malaria would need a list of the 5 Plasmodium species, ie Plasmodium falciparum.

Template_talk:Taxobox/Archive_17#NCBI_Taxonomy_IDs asked about NCBI Taxonomy IDs a while back. Is the list of NLM Entrez counts => Queries they provide useful enough in Infoxbox disease, or would it be more useful to try again in the Taxobox, at least for infectious agents?

RDBrown (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#Emedicine about replacing it with something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've already "disappeared" the emedicine links, the question really is now about whether or not to add new links to patient.co.uk. I started a new discussion here. Klortho (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no clear consensus. And the link issue has been fixed. Thus restored it for now to allow more discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made a property in Wikidata and harvested the data via my bot and now there is an authority control link to cancer-related articles. you can just substitute this page in to the main template (I tested it on Kidney cancer and it was okay, I also tested it on an article without NCI id to see it's okay and it was). I can harvest and add other authority control links like eMedicine if you want. Thank you. :)Ladsgroup^بحث 11:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes would be excellent if you could harvest http://emedicine.medscape.com/, http://www.patient.co.uk/patientplus and http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/encyclopedia.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of them alreay has been harvested, for example see breat cancer in Wikidata :)Ladsgroup^بحث 09:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing patient.co.uk yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmh649: Yes, my bad. Can you provide a list of articles in patient.co.uk so I can harvest it? :)Ladsgroup^بحث 18:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladsgroup: you can find listed by alphabet here http://www.patient.co.uk/patientplus/a.htm Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmh649: I just made a request in d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#Patientplus ID I hope it'll be done soon :)Ladsgroup^overleg 15:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fix redirect from "mesh2" to "MeSH2" in template, lines 34-43 (10 instances). This doesn't appear to have anything to do with capitalisation of parameters in articles, so it shouldn't affect the functionality of the template.

IS:

  | 1 = {{#if:{{{MeshID|{{{MeSH|{{{MeSH1|}}}}}}}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeshID|{{{MeSH|{{{MeSH1}}}}}}}}}| year= {{{MeshYear|{{{MeshYear1|}}}}}} }} }}
  | 2 = {{#if:{{{MeSH2|}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeSH2|}}}|year={{{MeshYear2|}}}}} }}
  | 3 = {{#if:{{{MeSH3|}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeSH3|}}}|year={{{MeshYear3|}}}}} }}
  | 4 = {{#if:{{{MeSH4|}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeSH4|}}}|year={{{MeshYear4|}}}}} }}
  | 5 = {{#if:{{{MeSH5|}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeSH5|}}}|year={{{MeshYear5|}}}}} }}
  | 6 = {{#if:{{{MeSH6|}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeSH6|}}}|year={{{MeshYear6|}}}}} }}
  | 7 = {{#if:{{{MeSH7|}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeSH7|}}}|year={{{MeshYear7|}}}}} }}
  | 8 = {{#if:{{{MeSH8|}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeSH8|}}}|year={{{MeshYear8|}}}}} }}
  | 9 = {{#if:{{{MeSH9|}}} | {{mesh2|{{{MeSH9|}}}|year={{{MeshYear9|}}}}} }}
  |10 = {{#if: {{{MeshName|}}} | ''{{mesh2 | name = {{{MeshName}}} | number = {{{MeshNumber|}}} }}'' }}

SHOULD BE:

  | 1 = {{#if:{{{MeshID|{{{MeSH|{{{MeSH1|}}}}}}}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeshID|{{{MeSH|{{{MeSH1}}}}}}}}}| year= {{{MeshYear|{{{MeshYear1|}}}}}} }} }}
  | 2 = {{#if:{{{MeSH2|}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeSH2|}}}|year={{{MeshYear2|}}}}} }}
  | 3 = {{#if:{{{MeSH3|}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeSH3|}}}|year={{{MeshYear3|}}}}} }}
  | 4 = {{#if:{{{MeSH4|}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeSH4|}}}|year={{{MeshYear4|}}}}} }}
  | 5 = {{#if:{{{MeSH5|}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeSH5|}}}|year={{{MeshYear5|}}}}} }}
  | 6 = {{#if:{{{MeSH6|}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeSH6|}}}|year={{{MeshYear6|}}}}} }}
  | 7 = {{#if:{{{MeSH7|}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeSH7|}}}|year={{{MeshYear7|}}}}} }}
  | 8 = {{#if:{{{MeSH8|}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeSH8|}}}|year={{{MeshYear8|}}}}} }}
  | 9 = {{#if:{{{MeSH9|}}} | {{MeSH2|{{{MeSH9|}}}|year={{{MeshYear9|}}}}} }}
  |10 = {{#if: {{{MeshName|}}} | ''{{MeSH2 | name = {{{MeshName}}} | number = {{{MeshNumber|}}} }}'' }}

 — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: per WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmh649 and Redrose64: can we fix this so the link doesn't overlap the text? I can post a screenshot, but it is currently overlapping the text in Linux Firefox. I would think a better solution would be to have a link in the Tools sidebar, or in the same general position used by {{coord}}? Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's set by the CSS declarations top:-7px; left:227px; but I don't know how those were arrived at. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were arrived at by putting in numbers until the text was in the right spot on Google chrome using the vector skin. Will try with the coord template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay figured it out. It does it on zoom scales of less than 90% with both firefox and chrome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will set to 245 for now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where people want to put it, but it's definitely not gonna be from a template like this. coord and top icons for protection are bad enough to support, let's not add more ways to break skins and other gadgets. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their is clear support for this on medical articles. Thus restored it. Plan is to trial it for three months to see if the concerns raised during the discussion are legitimate. If you have a better way to implement it happy to see it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about that. I care that it is BROKEN. And you are now forcing ME to write YOUR gadget ? —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if no one is opposed to doing it in less-broken ways, that'd be awesome. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I am not sure what the "Not BROKEN" way is? Would it be possible to edit the MediaWiki:Tagline with an if than statement? Such that if infobox disease than use this "tagline" else use the usual tagline? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "not broken" way was described at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Scope (post of 09:24, 2 September 2014) and also at User talk:TheDJ#Gadget. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this show a "contributors" link to our readers? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opt-in gadget, so each reader needs to follow those instructions. I did, and it works for me. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. So doesn't work for our purposes here but while look at creating one so that people can opt-out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the change. Even though I support the idea at VPP, you do not have consensus to make this change. If that discussion didn't exist and there were a wikiproject medicine discussion showing consensus I'd be sympathetic (though separating plumbing and porcelain is important), but it does exist and it's clear that there isn't consensus to add contributors to articles (yet). There are scenarios where project opinions can override general discussion but this isn't one of them. Protonk (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is an explicit consensus against this addition; as a general rule all that is not forbidden and in line with improving the encyclopedia is permitted (see also: WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, WP:WIARM). It is definitely not required to "show a wide consensus" for semi-experimental additions (to templates or otherwise). If I'm mistaken and someone has changed policy since I last looked (always possible), please point me to where.

The VPP discussion does not apply to first experimental steps, but rather the first steps towards discussing a wiki-wide change. Besides, for traditional policy making we need to show the change in action.

Actions de-facto have consensus if no-one acts against it. If you agree with an action, but act against it anyway, you break the system and create a horrible mess. (some of the most infamous disasters on en.wp came about due to people doing that :-P ).

In practice here, it becomes entirely impossible for me to convince you to stop reverting (WP:BRD) in any practical way within regular WP:CONSENSUS process: (if you agree with me, you revert "because (broken) process"; if you disagree with me, you revert "because against" ; in all other cases: you revert "because no consensus") , and therefore process is held hostage by you with no reasonable recourse for any single party. This makes it a behavioural antipattern.

Since you actually do agree with me and support this change, instead I request you act in line with your position and undo your revert. Let someone who does not support it revert it (as per WP:BRD). In that case there is a clear way forward to resolving disagreement, (if anyone actually disagrees to that degree). --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC) The one loophole: you could require participation of up to 100s of eikipedians to resolve your dispute. This is not exactly reasonable or proportinal; especially when you claim to not have a dispute. Also, the outcome in this case could be detrimental to your position, where no action is definitely in favor of your position. Therefore it is not the behavior of a rational agent. Idem (further) reverting here thwarts your own position, and is therefore also not the optimal rational behavior.[reply]

There's a difference between wanting a change to come about and determining whether or not that change is right. I'd like the community to adopt a contributors link. I know that the community has a longstanding (perhaps underexamined) practice of not doing so and that a request to evaluate this practice has generally received opposition. If instead I felt that this template should have that link but reverted it anyway that would be an antipattern. That's setting aside my other concerns (and the concerns of the first editor who reverted it) that this is not the way to implement such a change.

Also, bollocks to the notion that this is an experimental first step. It's a wikiproject changing presentation on articles they "OWN". Protonk (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if I read you right, you are opposed to this template having a contributors link, and you therefore reverted it; which is good and proper for half of it.

However, it is not clear to me what your own grounded reasons for doing so are. All the reasons you put forward so far appear to be based on procedural grounds (procedural grounds as such not being a valid or-at-least-very-wise reason for reverting. )

Now you're an experienced wikipedian, so I figure I'm reading you wrong. Could you clarify why you are opposed to this template having said link, in the here-and-now?

In particular, what action(s) would one need to take to convince you to allow the link to stand? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a medical template that only occurs on disease related article and this is the local consensus [2] to have a link to contributors. Yes there is no consensus to have a link to contributors on all of Wikipedia but there's definitely consensus to apply it to medical articles. Currently we are looking to see if it generates any of the concerns that were brought up during discussion a WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's a bit unfair to rule out of hand the main reason for reverting the template then ask for reasons which fit this new qualifier, but I'll bite. As @TheDJ points out above, the template inserts information which should be in the UI (presentation of contributors) into the content of the page. It also hoists an external link to some random tool outside of Wikipedia to the top of the page. Both of those are reasons for concern, the former being more problematic. But the larger problem I have is presentation of content like this is fundamentally out of scope for a particular wikiproject, especially where such a presentation is out of step with longstanding community practice. If you want to link to contributors then the first step is to convince the community that such a practice is wrong. If you've failed to do that, then you don't get to do an end-run around the community and implement it on templates which are specific to a particular wikiproject.

Look, we get into fights like this all the time. Sometimes a particular project has a style they'd like to adopt which is at odds with the general style. In those cases there's a clash between editors seeking consistency and those within a project seeking sanity. We don't have a general rule on how to arbitrate those kinds of disputes but part of the discussion usually revolves around the centrality of the change to the project's goal. To pick an easy example, MED has much stronger reliable sources guidance than the project at large. Such guidance is clearly central to the goals of the project and is justified by the material difference between an article on a drug or disease and one on a pokemon. Listing contributors is not anywhere near as central. A case could be made that MED has a unique concern which can only (or most easily) be resolved by noting contributors on the article page but you have to make that case. It's not sufficient to say that MED has an interest in articles which are scoped under disease and medicine and therefore any decision by the project should stand against general practice and consensus.

finally, we're in the "discussion" step of BRD but the change is still live on the template. Attempts to revert the change by two different uninvolved editors have been reverted by one editor. That's not the end of the world and I don't want to insinuate that anyone is edit warring but it is out of step with our general practice and wouldn't happen on a template which wasn't under the umbra of a project like this. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick point of order: Change is no longer live on the template. Jmh649 was about to self revert on my recommendation, but got pre-empted by User:RexxS. Either way, that's covered now, I think :-)

I think we're back to the bold part of the cycle with RexxS's change now. He covers a lot of concerns wrt the technical side, I think. It may not 100% solve the problem Jmh seems to have been trying to solve though.

@User:Jmh649: did you already explain on-wiki somewhere what the required change is wrt mediacal articles, and why it would be useful?

My own concern would be to see whether having edit-counts etc upfront like this might lead to too much WP:OWN-ership. Without conducting the experiment there's no way to see which way the balance goes IRL. If it leads to better confidence/better understanding of article reliability (by medical professionals) without strong ownership issues, I might support technical roll-out (across the broader wiki). OTOH if we get too much OWNership and/or meatball:VestedContributor behaviour, I'd be against it.

I'm in favor of conducting a wider (this) experiment to see which happens. But not on the entire wiki in one go. Also, perhaps the tradeoff should lie differently for medical articles in general (even if we don't do this for all of the wiki), but that's an argument for Jmh649 to make.

Open question remains whether RexxS's changes (still) facilitate the experiment; or what else may yet be needed.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes concerns have been raised about people gaming this. I would love to have dozens of academics come and "game" a few dozen of our articles up to FA. The hope is to test this and see if it occurs.

Academics often raise the concern of not enough transparency by Wikipedia of who writes its medical content. This could potentially also increase our respect within academia. Discussion was here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Unanimous support at that location ( a rare thing on en.wp) , but as we can see, doesn't mean much on the ground, since the really important folks are the ones who actually revert you. <scratches head>

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup unanimous support is rare. But everyone wants their super protect except off course when they are on the other side of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. As User:Jmh649 suggested and talks in Wikidata. d:P:P1461 is created and my bot harvested all of information that it could. So Please replace content of Template:Infobox_disease/sandbox4 (see my last edits) with the template. I tested it and it was okay. You can check it too. Thank you :)Ladsgroup^overleg 22:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That would reinstate the floating contributors link, which is controversial - see above, also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 130#"Contributors" link and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Adding a link to "authors" in Wikipedia's by-line. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look. There is consensus to add this link to medical articles here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ladsgroup Ok, Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) :)Ladsgroup^overleg 00:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would some admin please add the repeatedly discussed |specialty= (or |field=, because that's easier to spell) to this template? It should accept and display regular wikitext. The idea is to be able to produce a line in the infobox at Cancer (and similar articles) that says something like

Medical specialty     Oncology

like the lines that are currently saying things like

"ICD-10      C00—C97"

I regret that I'm not able to tell you exactly what code to put in, character for character, but it seems like the sort of change that should be relatively simple for someone who knows how to write templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the utility of this proposal? At first glance it could well engender turf-wars as to which specialty a particular diagnosis or group of diagnoses belongs to. The example given of all the C-codes going to Oncology is not correct, given that C81 to C96 are haematological malignancies and therefore should be Haematology. If we look at the sub-section C15 to C26, there are multiple specialties who deal with digestive system neoplasia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in a minority of instances there will not be a short list of specialties. In some cases (e.g., hematological neoplasms) we'll add two (e.g., hematology and oncology). In a few cases, we'll omit it in favor of nothing at all. But in most cases, it's very simple to narrow down the list to one or two specialties that are typically the main choice. One might see many specialists in the course of treating (for example) digestive system neoplasia, but the main referrals appear to go to oncologists.

I think this is low-risk, and it's been discussed before, with little reason to believe that we'll see turf wars. (Of course, if we do, then we could always remove the code from the template again.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as there is not code ready to be merged to the template, discussion certainly should continue here, please reactivate the edit request once consensus for what the change should be is, and once code is ready to go live. I have synced the Template:Infobox disease/sandbox page where you can experiment. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Code ready in sandbox. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

@WhatamIdoing: All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

Thank you! It looks like it's all ready to just paste in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done. Frietjes (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing:, @Rich Farmbrough: I think this should probably have just one parameter name rather than 2. "field" seems more simple to me, unless you think that might be too ambiguous. If so, I'd prefer "specialty" rather than "speciality". Plus, "specialty" is used on most (all?) Wikipedia pages, including Specialty (medicine), the page the parameter label links to - not "speciality". --Scott Alter (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer simple. I will remove speciality/specialty unless there are objections, and change the displayed part to "Medical field". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

The label of the field that is displayed doesn't really make a huge difference to me, whether it be "Medical specialty," "Specialty," or "Field." This can always be changed easily. The parameter name though is much harder to change later. Upon reviewing other Infoboxes, there {{Infobox medical specialty}} uses fields "focus" and "specialist", {{Infobox medical details}}/{{Infobox medical person}} uses "field" and "specialism", and {{Infobox hospital}} uses "speciality". I think I still prefer "field" as the parameter, and maybe "Specialty" as the label (shorter than "Medical field", and if it's a surgical specialty, the label of "Medical field" might seem strange). --Scott Alter (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want will be fine with me. I just want to be able to add this information (when it makes sense). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I set the tag to "Specialty", the parameter name can be documented as "field", but if someone takes the tag as the name it will still work, as long as they don't mis-capitalize it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

I just updated the template to use "field" or "Field". The parameter name in the sandbox version still mixed specialty with speciality, and I think removing that option will make things easier. --Scott Alter (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A field for MalaCards was added.[5] Unfortunately the proposal for its addition was discussed in the wrong WikiProject (proposal|MCB) and WP:MED was never directly alerted.

The methodology behind MalaCards was described in 2013 (doi:10.1093/database/bat018) and some of the data comes from Wikipedia. I am unsure whether the time is ripe to link to this project. I see that WikiData may start linking to it. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I do not think it is established enough to be in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An advantage would be that Mala-cards would have a stable link with Wikipedia articles, if they are moved, for example. Arguably this link will exist through Wikidata. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

Now in Wikidata: P1583. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes happy to see it added to Wikidata. Before we add it to Wikipedia though we need consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While also happy to see this on Wikidata, I can't see significant current benefits to readers of adding Malacards to disease infoboxes, and I can see no consensus, at least at WTMED, for doing this, whether automatically or otherwise. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I don't think Noa.rappaport has been alerted to this discussion. Agree that currently consensus is lacking. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, "MalaCard" link was added to the disease info box template. Please note that the name of the database is "MalaCards" with a trailing "s". Please change accordingly. Thanks, Noa Rappaport Noa.rappaport (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created some basic code in the sandbox to pull additional values in from Wikidata. It currently does the job as expected, but there may be a bug, or possibly a feature depending on how you look at it. Using ICD-10 for example, here is the functionality:

1. If the parameter |ICD10= exists on the article's page when calling the template, then the value specified on the article's page will be used.
2. If there is no |ICD10= on the article's page, but there is an ICD10 value stored in Wikidata, then the Wikidata value will be used.
3. If the parameter |ICD10= exists on the article's page, but it has no value (is blank), then nothing will show up - even if there is an ICD10 value stored in Wikidata.
4. If there is no parameter and no Wikidata value, then nothing will display.

While setting a parameter to blank/nothing is a good way to suppress the Wikidata information (a feature), I am concerned that this might actually be more limiting. There are likely many articles that have blank values for many parameters because a default blank example was used to start the infobox, which was never populated with any values. However, the Wikidata may actually contain the data, which would be suppressed using the current code. What should the desired behavior be? Completely ignoring parameters with blank values should be possible, but requires much more extensive coding. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably there would be an empty/ignore value to specifically suppress wikidata results when needed. --WS (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How accurate are the ICD-10 codes on Wikidata? Are there nosologists or clinical coders who have checked them? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beeswaxcandle About as reliable as everything else on Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 19:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most ICD-10's that are currently on there are probably imported from the English Wikipedia articles. --WS (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The codes here on enWP I'm reasonably confident about as I've been checking them as I move through various articles (it's part of what I do in RL). Therefore as long a value on Wikidata doesn't override one here, then the proposed change should be OK. However, the concept of blanking the value so as to suppress the Wikidata value seems odd to me as it has the potential to lose/hide information. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that he meant that you should be able to set |ICD10= to "empty" (and have nothing displayed) rather than if the wikitext says |ICD10= with nothing after it, then nothing gets displayed. |ICD10= is often empty because someone copied the template's entire list of parameters over, not because someone meant for it to be blank. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this infobox on the Pregnancy article. It is completely unencyclopedic. It just has a bunch of codes and links. Can't we add some explanation to this box? Bhny (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the "Classification " subheading to below the image; that may help to alleviate the problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the "classification" subheading should go below the image but above the "speciality". What speciality something belongs to is a form of classification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree placing it below the image is a good idea. But why place it below speciality? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement, but it is still doesn't explain that these are medical classifications. I think of pregnancy as biological not medical; as human reproduction, not a disease(?!). I realize some of my issues are with the template and some with the way it is displayed in the article, but both need work. Bhny (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]