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]

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)/Archive 113#Scope (post of 09:24, 2 September 2014) and also at User talk:TheDJ/Archive 10#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]

Bhny, how do you feel about {{chembox}}? That, too, is a list of numbers that many people don't understand. Is that also unencyclopedic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the chembox is only used on chemicals or molecules. The problem I'm trying to point out is that a reader may go to Pregnancy expecting information about biology or reproduction and there is an unexplained box there with a bunch of codes. There is nothing saying what this box is about (disease classifications!), not biology information but medical information. Bhny (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Oxygen. (The infobox is so huge it's actually a specialized copy.) Does that have the same problem as far as you're concerned?

As for your belief that Pregnancy is about "biology" rather than "medicine" (a somewhat artificial distinction, as all of medicine is about biology), that article is almost entirely about medicine. Most of the "biology" information is not human-specific and therefore belongs at Gestation or Pregnancy (mammals). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen is fine. Pregnancy just isn't a disease (in the common understanding of disease). I don't expect a disease box there so the codes are very confusing and the box doesn't state it is a disease infobox. (sorry to repeat myself) Bhny (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't mind the presence of incomprehensible numbers and unexplained, cryptic codes like "DE (MeV)", you mind the title of the infobox—which is in the wikitext, where no reader will ever see it? Well, whenever some WP:VOLUNTEER finds the time, {{Infobox medical condition}} will be merged and redirected here, and then you can change the wikitext at Pregnancy to say "Infobox medical condition" rather than "Infobox disease". It'll still be true that no reader will ever find out about this trivial change, but it sounds like that will solve your problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not obviously about a disease or a medical condition. The article begins "In human reproduction...". There is no hint on that box that this is a medical or disease infobox. It only says "Classification and external resources". If the article was about a disease (which it is not) then it would make sense that an unlabeled box was about a disease or medical condition. Bhny (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed that merger, which was quite straightforward. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from the following section, the merge has been reverted. Sorry, Bhny, WhatamIdoing|, I tried... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhny, help me out here. Here's a list of what you've said about {{Infobox disease}} at Pregnancy:

• Pregnancy is not a disease.
• The infobox does not say that pregnancy is a disease anywhere in the article.
• The template is confusing precisely because it does not say that pregnancy is a disease.

I'm not getting very far with this. You say that it "would make sense that an unlabeled box was about a disease", even though (a) the word disease is nowhere visible to the reader and (b) the article is not about a disease.

When I see a box (any box at all) specifically in the article Pregnancy, it seems to me that it would make sense if it contained information about pregnancy. Doesn't that seem reasonable to you, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These parameters were recently added:

1. Causes
2. Affected regions
3. Treatments
4. Further developments
5. Prevention

A total of two people weighted in on the discussion back in 2013 [6] This is insufficient discussion for the main template of WP:MED annd one that appears to have occured without notifying the project. I have reverted the addition to allow a proper discussion to occur.

Was previously discussed here [7] without much discussion either way. I remember greater discussion before but unable to find it.

My concern is that these cannot be dealt with in a infobox. The causes of HIV/AIDS are complicated. Yes the cause is the virus but there are also the causes of vertical transmission, unprotected sexual intercourse, the reuse of needles in the developing world, IVDU generally, etc etc. Treatment likewise for most conditions cannot be summarized as a simple list. Neither can the areas of the body affected nor prevention. We are writing an encyclopedia in prose. This appears to be an attempt to get around that and to provide a great deal of prominence by putting it in the leads of our articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Infoboxes lead to trouble when they try to cram over-complex material in. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, these should not be in the infobox. Cluttering the infoboxes with information is unproductive as it not only makes them difficult to navigate, but also gives a false sense of security that they even can cover the essentials of the topic. In addition this is very troubling for interwiki compatability during translation. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Infoboxes are a notoriously inappropriate venue for any information that isn't clear-cut and requires nuancing. These types of information are rarely straightforward and uncontroversial (eg even diseases that are heritable may require some sort of an environmental trigger). Apart from the (often) extreme difficulty in compiling the summary information in an NPOV way, the headings would likely act as a magnet to POV pushers. So, in practice they would be a nightmare, both to compile and maintain. 86.134.203.235 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Oppose adding those sections for the the above reasons. BakerStMD T|C 15:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to merge {{Infobox medical condition}} into this template, which I carried out yesterday, was reached in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 22#Template:Infobox medical condition (which was closed by User:Plastikspork). I have therefore redone it, having been reverted with an edit summary of "Need consensus first" (also becasue that revert broke articles using or formerly using the merged template). This does not preclude further discussion or improvements, such as changing the label from "cause" to "agent of cause" or suchlike. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the more specific issues, it would be absolutely preposterous to suggest that HIV is anything but a "key point" with regard to AIDS (or indeed, that that is "over complex"); as such, there needs to be a place to list it in the AIDS article's infobox. We have, for example, other medical conditions which are hereditary, but until this merge, no way to say that in the infobox. See also the points raised by User:Bhny in the section preceding this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the amount of support at [8]? ONE person supported a merge. It was done in some obscure location. The community of editors was not notified. That is not consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as cancers are concerned, which is about as far as my very limited knowledge extends, most cancers have a % of cases due to inherited genetics (sometimes other factors such as lifestyle acting with inherited genetics), but this is involved in a limited % of cases (see also 86's comments above). And there are several different gene mutations involved. It's all FAR too complex for an infobox. Personally, I'd be happy if the infobox contained a prose summary (say 30-60 words) of the main features of a disease, but realistically these are difficult to write and we don't have enough people to do a few thousand of them. Unless we can find another open source that has done this already... Standardized database fields are a lousy way to handle this. Different things are important for different diseases. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So don't use it in such cases. Just like we don't use {{Infobox person}}'s |death_date= for BLPs. There are sufficient conditions which are purely and predictably inherited, not to mention other conditions (such as AIDS) whose causes are unambiguously known, that the parameter to express that is clearly justified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Infoboxes are for short facts, not prose. There is no deadline, and the fields will be invisible if unpopulated, so that's not an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Experience shows that if the fields exist people try to fill them. Actually most "pure" Genetic disorders are relatively uncommon (for obvious reasons in many cases), & I don't think they represent a high % of all diseases. Does anyone know an approx %? Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in medical articles and I am just hearing about these changes as I saw new information being posted into the HIV article. I do not yet have an opinion on this matter but I do want a chance to comment before changes are made, and would like for this discussion to go on a bit longer before changing the infobox. Also, if anyone is ever seeking opinions on medical content, it would be diligent to ping WP:MED as many people there are likely to comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes changes to the most important template of Wikiproject Med cannot occur without clear consensus and notification of the project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a lay person, can I point out that the current template is quite useless? Beyond giving a lead image, it's not an infobox - it's an external links box. Looking at it doesn't give me any information about the desease, it just gives me a bunch of numbers that I can click on to find out information outside of Wikipedia. If it continues to exist in its current form, then it should really be moved to the external links section. I think it would make a lot of sense to add new parameters to it, perhaps more along the lines of "main causes" (which could be, say, up to the top 5 causes in complex cases), "Affected regions" (where only part of a body is affected by them), "Principal treatments" (where there are a few main ways of treating it), "carrier" (virus/bacteria name), discovery year/location, last known case/location (for rare diseases), number of people affected, main regions affected, and so on? That would then give the main information about a disease in a very concise way, without running into problems of oversimplification, which is what an infobox is meant to do. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I'd also suggest |etymology=, so, for example, for Raynaud's phenomenon we could include a link to Maurice Raynaud, as we in infoboxes for other subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The data in the info box does not work well as prose. The data proposed does not work well as an info box. Thus the formatting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to adding these parameters, except "further developments", which I don't understand. I'm not convinced that this would cause all sorts of disaster to ensue. I suspect that people could figure it out, and I think that for infectious diseases, the "Cause" item would actually be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel perhaps it is time to talk about moving this to the external links section. It is just a set of external links. And perhaps also it is time to have an infobox which gives layman information. Pigsonthewing Suppose that layman information were to be put into a box like this. Are we at a point where fields like the ones proposed could be stored in Wikidata, then migrated to Wikipedias through an automated process? If so, that might be a good prompt for proposing a reform and encouraging people to update the boxes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: We could certainly import from Wikidata for the most part (usual practice is to allow local override where deemed necessary). I wouldn't object to keeping the current identifiers in the infobox also; a good analogy is the {{Chembox}} template used for chemicals; for example that on Oxygen has identifiers and technical info, but also includes the information that it forms a pale blue liquid, was discovered by Scheele and was named by Lavoisier. Similarly {{Drugbox}}, as used on Paracetamol, has its common trade names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've had numerous discussions elsewhere about removing all of those external links from the infobox, and listing them in External links. They frequently contain outdated and inaccurate information, and should be evaluated as any other WP:EL. I agree with Blue about moving them to External links, and always have! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no. This is an extreme example of unhelpful to even misleading proliferation of infobox parameters. And there is no consensus at the year-and-a-half old Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 22#Template:Infobox medical condition, and no reason to enact changes now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The primary infobox for medical conditions has historically been Template:Infobox disease. There was recently a bit of confusion about why this infobox had been applied to medical conditions, like pregnancy, when pregnancy is not a disease. Obviously the answer is that when something works on Wikipedia then it gets reused beyond the purpose for which it was designed. So for the part of the problem where Infobox disease seems to have a use which does not match its name, I proposed a rename, but that is a small thing and I tell this only as background to a bigger issue.

Infobox disease has historically been used to present mostly authority control identifiers. See the hypertension infobox disease that I am sharing here for an example. Some people have questioned that the primary infobox for medical conditions should contain a set of sorting numbers and external links, when elsewhere on Wikipedia it is more expected that the infobox be readable by humans and to exist for the purpose of summarizing the data essential for understanding a thing.

I assert that the current infobox disease is not serving the purpose of a traditional infobox. Because of this, it is not serving Wikipedia readers in the way that they expect to be served. Beyond this, it is my opinion that few readers are interested in the kind of data currently presented here, and that these boxes would be better placed with less prominence in the articles. The most natural place for this kind of information is, in my opinion, the external links section of an article.

If infobox disease were redesigned to meet what I believe are reader expectations, then I think it should be modeled after other Wikipedia infoboxes, like perhaps the well-developed ones of WikiProject Military History, the sports Wikiprojects, or company infoboxes. None of those projects make boxes analogous to medical conditions, but at least none of those are mostly library cataloging numbers and external links.

As a model for new medical condition infoboxes to replace the cataloguing info boxes currently being used, I think Wikipedians should look at what Google has just introduced in their Knowledge Graph. On 10 February 2015 Google announced on their blog that Knowledge Graph would now cover health conditions. Google gets their information from various sources and Wikipedia might do well to consider this service as a competitor for audience. I expect that the way that they are covering medical issues is backed by extensive market research and the opinions of smart people, and my opinion is that they modeled what they are doing off the precedent established by most Wikipedia infoboxes other than the ones currently used for diseases and medical conditions. I think that it would be prudent to consider following Google's lead. In the long term I would like to see the medical condition infobox most prominently featured in the article to be populated with items from Wikidata, so that translation of terms can happen in Wikidata and then all Wikipedia articles in all languages can have the same basic infobox propagated out to give coverage of health conditions in all languages on all Wikipedias. I am not certain what information should be in this box, but probably authority controls are not best.

In the past, others have asked questions about this infobox which I feel are related.

• A lot of people have asked for additional identifiers and authority control systems to be added to this box. [9] [10] [11] In retrospect, I think that many of these requests were refused because of the high value of real estate this box has so long as it is the primary medical condition box and the limited space it has in this location, and if it were elsewhere on the page, then perhaps the listings for authority controls could be added more freely.
• In 2007 Tatterfly asked that this box contain "basic clinical information on the disease infobox, such as symptoms, causes, and treatments. This would help someone who is visiting the page just to obtain that info to get it instantly." Davidruben replied saying that this would be difficult to do.
• deletion discussion about Infobox medical condition, September 2013
• In September 2013, Remember, Beeswaxcandle and RDBrown discussed populating boxes like this with Wikidata. I agree that this should happen when it is possible.
• Bhny said that this infobox is incomprehensible and Pigsonthewing, WhatamIdoing commented. Further discussion about adding human readable information to the box got comment from Doc James, CFCF, Bakerstmd, Johnbod, Mike Peel, and SandyGeorgia.

One proposal for responding to the people who want reform could be as follows:

1. Move the current infobox disease, which is not human readable and contains cataloguing information and external links, out of the top of the Wikipedia article to make it less prominent
2. Somehow consider making a new primary medical condition infobox, which contains information which is human readable. This could be based on other Wikipedia infoboxes and Google's competing medical Knowledge Graph "infobox". It will not be obvious to determine what kind of fields should go into such a box, and likely a mess will be created in designing this. Still, Google thinks it is a good idea, and I think I do also.

Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your proposal solves the problems. No matter where we place it in the article, the infobox introduces inaccurate information to articles. I'd support a proposal to delete the infobox, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What wrong information does the hypertension infobox disease contain? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Doc, I was speaking generally, not specifically. And even more generally, almost all infoboxes (not just medical) introduce potentially intolerable errors ... My point was it doesn't matter if we imbed the box or use it at the top, same problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "almost all infoboxes introduce errors", or did you mean "it is possible to introduce an error to almost any infobox"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few clarifications

The current box contains a) name of condition b) picture and caption c) disease identifiers d) links to other sources

The google box contains a) name of condition b) picture and caption c) definition d) frequency in the US d) links to other sources. When one clicks further details appear

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could split out the disease identifiers and put them in a box in the diagnosis section. However we do not really have anything to replace it with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James I think that everything below "Classification and external resources" should not be on the top of the page. This includes the ICD links to the MeSh links. None of that should be at the top.

I do not entirely like the Google layout, but I like that humans can read it. In the case of hypertension, Google says things like "very common, treatable by a doctor, requires a diagnosis, chronic, no obvious symptoms, can be treated with (lists drugs) and (lists lifestyle changes)". That could be one model for change. SandyGeorgia is correct that infoboxes introduce inaccurate information, and Doc James is right that we do not have anything to replace the current system because we lack the data to populate infoboxes in a new way. If the problem is reducing inaccurate information, then removing the infobox works. If the problem is not meeting audience need, then I would tolerate inaccurate information so long as there is a plan and schedule to improve it. I saw Google's infoboxes and mostly liked them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Wikipedia contains inaccurate data and not just in the infobox. The request was WHAT inaccurate data does the hypertension disease infobox contain?

I have already found inaccurate info in googles boxes. Their treatment of strep throat is not that good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the medication infobox contains even more identifiers. And the elements infoboxes contain a lot as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertension

Automated arm blood pressure meter showing arterial hypertension (shown a systolic blood pressure 158 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure 99 mmHg and heart rate of 80 beats per minute)
Speciality	Cardiology
Signs and symptoms	Often no symptoms
Duration	Chronic
Diagnosis method	Blood pressure measurements usually over several visits
Lifestyle treatment	Exercise, dietary changes, quitting smoking, weight lose
Drug treatment	Thiazide diuretics, beta blockers, ACE Inhibitor/ARBs, calcium channel blockers, alpha blockers
Disease frequency	Very common (> 10%)

Nothing is inaccurate about the current infobox disease. It all can be kept. I just think it should be moved to the external links section. Here is a model of something that I would like at the top of the article.

Since the medicine and elements infoboxes are also not human readable, maybe they should be changed also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this infobox could be made to look like {{Authority control}} and placed underneath navboxes, so that the new medical condition infobox would take its place at the top of the article. Alakzi (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakzi Yes, that is what I am imagining. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to go with this design the ordering of sections should at least match that of the articles. However this infobox contains inaccuracies. "doctor consultation" not needed for the diagnosis for example. Have made some corrections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about what should be covered or in what order. I took this content from Google's Knowledge Graph infobox. Whatever inaccuracies this may have contained was the best information that Google could present on the topic. With you so directly challenging Google's health information I wonder on what other points anyone might disagree with Google's service, and I wonder how it could compare with Wikipedia's quality. I think that also shows that making these would not be easy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Knowledge is basically Mayo Clinic info and US centric.

We will also need to define: very rare, rare, uncommon, common, and very common. We have these definitions for side effects from medications [12]. I think the same can be applied to diseases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the US at least there is a legal definition of "rare": "A rare disease or disorder is defined in the U.S. as one affecting fewer than 200,000 Americans", per the Rare Diseases Act of 2002. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other questions:

1. should we reference this? IMO yes.
2. should we keep some of the links to simple language content? one of the criticisms we often receive is that our content is too complicated, maybe one UK and one US such as pubmed and patients.co.uk if they are not poor
3. were should we put the identifiers? IMO a box in the diagnosis section is best.
4. how should this be rolled out? If acceptable to the wider community IMO slowly by gradually replacing the current version with this one. Maybe put together 10 or so as examples of what they would look like. The Google ones are not of very high quality

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: first of all, many proposed paramteres, such as Signs and symptoms, Duration, Diagnosis and Disease frequency would essentially repeat what's already contained in the authority identifier entries, as well as what's already in the article's lead summary (thus inflating the infobox, as I assume the identifiers aren't that prone to linkrot/deadlinking). Also, the Drug treatment parameter may tread on medical disclaimer and may be viewed as a pharmacological advertisement. And burying the identifiers under the external links isn't a good idea, IMO. But I support renaming the infobox to Infobox Medical condition or something like that, the current name is quite narrow. Brandmeister^talk 23:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should repeat information found in the article. You can think of infoboxes as a structured summary of the article or its lead. Alakzi (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so that is the question. Should we have a lead that is a summary of the article and than an infobox that is an ultra short summary of the lead? I am not sure. But yes that is what is being proposed here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox ("wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content") I would stay with the current parameters, with possible additions of other authority identifiers. Brandmeister^talk 00:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the first sentence? "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article." An authority control listing isn't the purpose of the infobox. Alakzi (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's tricky. I don't like having so many classification links, but I don't think they should go to the bottom of the page. Could they go into a show/hide box? Do we really need all of them? They are jumbled up with the patient info links of MedLine Plus and emedicine=Medscape (has it changed its name?). These are both American - personally I think for patient info NHS Choices (Hypertension Intro page) is probably better than either of these. I'd be for a summary that (only) described in very broad terms what the condition is or does, how serious it is, and how common. That's it. The rest (causes, symptoms, treatment) is all way too complicated for a box, and that's the job of the lead. A line for other names, then maybe 2-3 patient info external links, and a show/hide box with the classification links. Something like that. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show / hide links are discouraged by the accessibility people. They do not function well with screen readers.

Yes eMedicine has changed its name to Medscape. Both bought by WebMD.

How would we classify the severity of a disease?

Yes NHS choices is fine aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Show/hide option is not present in mobile view at all. Mobile users always see the Show. (btw, from a desktop screen one can always check the mobile view via a link on the very last row of a wikipage). -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks for that User:DePiep. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary break)

If we are going to do this new formatting of the infobox I propose we do it via wikidata. In other words the parameters we decide on are added there and than auto linked into the box. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support pause pending Wikidata modeling I see no reason to replace the current template until we have something better. It would be a huge amount of work to replace this with something better, and the way forward will eventually be importing parameters from Wikidata. Anyone could do that now, but learning the Wikidata import template functions is still difficult as will be identifying appropriate Wikidata properties to import. If someone had a model template and 3-4 properties to populate it then I think this could be modeled, and not before then. I do not think it would be useful to trial this only with content on English Wikipedia, and would like to wait for a Wikidata solution. I estimate that this this may take up to two years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2013 we created a module that would import Wikidata into infoboxes (Module:Wikidata) and I was able to demonstrate a simple auto-populating infobox at Template:Infobox video game series/Wikidata in August 2013, so there's already quite a bit of work done. I've just made a first draft demo at Template:Infobox disease/Wikidata. You can see the sort of thing that's already possible by pasting {{Infobox disease/Wikidata}} into any section of any medical article and previewing it (please don't save!). It allows any parameter to be overwritten by a local value. I'd need to write extra Lua calls to deal with the multiple values in ICD-9 and ICD-10 and the way that the current eMedicine parameters don't match the values stored in Wikidata, but taking Hypertension as an example:

{{Infobox disease/Wikidata
|  ICD9           = {{ICD9|401}}
}}

That will display the template with the single value of ICD-9 as it appears in Hypertension at present, rather than the three values that are fetched from Wikidata.

You need to look at what is being stored in Wikidata (e.g. d:Q41861 is hypertension) to see what parameters are available to fetch from Wikidata. These are mainly the ones used in the current infobox - which is no surprise as Wikidata is largely populated by bots scraping the contents of infoboxes.

I'm all in favour of Mike's suggestion of having an infobox that succinctly summarised the key points of a condition, but you won't be able to auto-fetch that data from Wikidata until somebody/somebot puts it there. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re Blue Rasberry. Two years is a long time to keep a bad infobox. And more important, I don't think it is wise to wait for wikidata to produce the infobox content. We don't want to be dependent on a thing that is out of our (enwiki) reach. Sure technically properties can be read (as RexxS notes). But I still have not seen a wikidata-fying process complete. The repeated add-source-improve-edit steps that make wiki pages grow better is not yet happening in wikidata. I have no feeling with its quality control. Instead, we one could add better parameters to this infobox, to be edited old style locally. Then when d: does have detail info, it can take over. (And, inversely, a bot can read enwiki infobox data and put it in wikidata). Some background: last December we edited the 36 Template:Medicine_navs (from abbr & codes into readable text). There was no support from wikidata in sight (as a database; nothing about the d:people ;-) ). Note: I am working with {{drugbox}} and {{chembox}} these days, and I see similar issues. Including the questions with external links & authority, lots of data that better be below, and article maintenance. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to someone else drafting better infoboxes here on English Wikipedia, but I am not ready to endorse or promote such a project. If someone volunteers to do that then fine, but when I think of that project, I think of a large amount of very boring data entry that will have to be re-done as soon as it is possible to migrate the information into Wikidata.

RexxX's proposal might be viable now. If that model can be used to bring only a few properties here from Wikidata, then that would be the first step to a permanent solution to this problem, and I expect that it would be no more difficult and probably even easier to do the data entry in Wikidata than it would be to do it into English Wikipedia. I am not convinced that it would be easier to start in English Wikipedia then have a migrate migrate entries from here to there.

In my opinion, the biggest barrier for making an infobox either here in English Wikipedia or in Wikidata is finding good sourcing. Ideally, some database already exists which could act as a reference for a given property of many diseases, but otherwise, perhaps these things would need to be referenced individually. If they are referenced individually then that would be a lot of work in any case, but if they can be referenced with a dataset it would be a lot easier to use Wikidata.

I see no way to immediately go forward with Wikidata or English Wikipedia, because I am not so interested in using individual sources. Is that what you were imagining doing? That would take at least hundreds of hours, and I am almost sure that some spreadsheet should exist somewhere which has already compiled this kind of information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As RexxS described, it is not an 'either here or there' (en: or d:) choice. The setup is: fetch a d: value, or a local (enwiki) parameter value will overwrite that in the article's infobox. Then four times a year a bot comes by and copies all local data to wikidata. (all can be v.v., when we choose to set it up that way: d: could lead). This way: al available data is used, and additions are used right away. There is no need to wait till site d: or en: is 'ready' with data. As for the sourceing (-quality): yes, that is a point. Either way. (Elsewhere I have introduced parameters like: |decription=, |description_ref= that allows a bot to grab the reference bare handed). What would go wrong if we add say five parameters to the box (descriptive ones, as is discussed here)? -DePiep (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what happens, nothing would go wrong with anyone adding 3-5 parameters to an English Wikipedia infobox for about 10 articles as a trial. I predict that if the outcome is minimally workable then it would get community support almost immediately (within 2 weeks?) for a broader trial to the extent that anyone wants to make more infoboxes for more articles. I support the idea of infoboxes of this sort being tested; the uncertainty for me is the extent to which I want to endorse the idea of volunteers investing time in a system which may not be lasting. I very much would like to see someone trial anything, though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. That would be a template "infobox disease/extra" for 10 articles then? I won't initiate it, I'm just trying to get rid of that 'let's wait for wikidata' idea. (And I'm anxious to see how such an enwiki—wikidata co-development would roll). Maybe RexxS likes to give it a try. Candidate parameters? -DePiep (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure if someone want to create "infobox disease/extra" and then trial it on 10 articles we can discuss further with a wider audience. I do suggest that we use Wikidata for at least some of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

I have presented some issues with a few of the possible parameters below. Yes google is doing this but they have a single box for symptoms and one for treatments that one navigates between by clicking separate tabs. Per accessibility we do not do this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disease frequency

If we go this route what exactly will we put in the box for this? The incidence (number of cases per year), the point prevalence (the percentage of people affected any given point in time), the lifetime prevalence (the percentage of people affected at some time in their life)? Are we going to go with only global numbers? Are will we also going to go with numbers from a specific country? Often only one or none of these exist. Some of the best data in the English world is in the United States but I think it reflect poorly on us as a global encyclopedia to give that data this prominence. Google Knowledge boxes of course just went with US data. They might regionalize eventually based on peoples IPs and they have the ability to do so. This is going to be the first problem with summarizing this sort of information in a couple of words. Next what do we do with conflicting estimates? Wikidata can handle all these particulars. I guess we could organize them there as a hierarchy. Take A first if it exists, if not take B, if neither exist take C, etc. But we would need an army of people willing to do data entry based on high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we'll need to label whatever numbers we do add. Different articles might take different approaches, depending on what information is available. For hundreds of articles, I think that just saying "it's a rare disease" is going to be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree. We will need a clear definition of what this means though. But doable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acute versus chronic

Is hep C acute or chronic? While it is both. And it is now mostly curable if you are rich enough. With HIV, there is an acute infectious phase followed by a chronic phase. What about cancers? Some are acute and curable sometimes and other times not. Even strep throat can be followed by chronic problems. Lyme disease of course is famous for this. We have some that are easy like the common cold but that is the minority.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could just label those diseases that are potentially chronic with just that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and symptoms

How will we include the signs and symptoms of SLE or syphilis? What about those of cancer? These are hard enough to cover in a paragraph let alone with a few words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contagious

I think this one would be doable. For those condition that are contagious one fills in a parameter for contagious with how it is so. So for HIV/AIDs = Mainly sexual contact. Hep C = Mainly IV drug use

Google however gets Hep C wrong here [13] Hep C is almost never spread by sexual contact Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Wikidata has a "short description" system that adds information similar to what we put on a disambiguation page. We could suck those descriptions down to our infobox, which would have two benefits: we'd get "information" in the "info"box, rather than just numbers, and we'd find it easier to keep an eye on the Wikidata descriptions. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like definitions? What would this look like? Can you put together a mock up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy and paste this {{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/Concat|getDescription|FETCH_WIKIDATA}} into a short section of any en-wp article and preview it (please don't save!), it will fetch the Wikidata description in the local language - i.e. English. So for example Tuberculosis gives:

• Infectious disease caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Looking forward, I've allowed it to look at descriptions in other languages if they exist, so pasting {{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/Concat|getDescription|FETCH_WIKIDATA|de}} into Tuberculosis and previewing gives:

• Bakterielle Infektionskrankheit

which is what I would expect the first version to return if used on the German Wikipedia. Obviously I can't test that directly because the module doesn't exist in German yet. Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what part of the infobox are we suggesting to put this? For gout it says "medical condition". Not terribly useful but maybe a start. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gout will now say "Medical condition usually characterized by recurrent attacks of acute inflammatory arthritis", but we can quickly edit the Wikidata entry d:Q133087 to whatever is thought best. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified it some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox medical condition has been nominated for merging with Template:Authority control. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating for a merge can you explain why? What problem does this solve? What will the final product look like? Changes to the primary template of Wikiproject medicine (which is on nearly 5000 of our most viewed articles) needs significant discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would look exactly like {{Authority control}}. There's been plenty of discussion above (#Perhaps this infobox should not be the primary medical condition infobox, #Adding further parameters and #This infobox is incomprehensible). We can continue the discussion at TfD. Alakzi (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion yes. Consensus for changes no. Taking this discussion off to some poorly watched none medical page is not appropriate. Discussion should be here or at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I've not claimed that there's consensus for any particular change. (b) That's not very convincing. I left a note about the proposal right—well, here. I will do so at WT:MED as well. Why stir up a fuss about the venue? Alakzi (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakzi, can we not start a new discussion on yet another page? A fragmented discussion is less likely to reach a consensus. I suggest keeping all discussion here for now ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin I agree with you that it would be better to have some discussions closed before we start new ones, but I completely disagree that discussing a merge of templates should be done here rather than on templates for discussion. What do you believe templates for discussion is for if not discussing templates? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec; this also replies to Martijn H) I do not see any advantage in discussing such a merge at TfD. TfD is more confrontational and technical, and less suited for ideas development. (This template only just returned on the TfD discussion to "merge" that was not feasible and not fleshed out in the first place). The topic is so overwhelming in content (say, parameter meanings) for both templates, that I'd like to hear from people in the know first. For example, would the TfD close with a "merge", I predict big issues with adding the first non-person's authorities in there. This imposing a merge (yes I know) on a template is not the way to go. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical details of a merge are a perfect fit for talk page discussion, and don't really belong on a wider community discussion at templates for discussion IMO, though they're not unwelcome there. It's exactly the wider content discussion that templates for discussion is for. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I add: opening a TfD while this page has a discussion going is forumshopping. -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I earnestly prepared a more concrete proposal, which built on the preliminary discussion we've had here. I posted it on the forum where proposals of the sort are discussed. This is unequivocally not "forum shopping". Alakzi (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say any non-earnestness is involved. I'm saying is is not the best route to discuss the topics involved. Also, it is not because of wikilawyering I mention the forumshopping word, I mention it because it has inherent problems: discussion split over multiple pages and simultaneously. And I note that the discussion here was not finished, nor preliminary. -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the point Martin makes above, and which Martijn has already addressed. Alakzi (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of my points was mentioned above. That is why this sub thread is indented as it is. And no #1, Martijn H did not address forumshopping issue I explicitly mention. And no #2, I was responding to your newer points too. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You recognise that TfD is apparently confrontational, but you're—indeed—fuelling the confrontation by responding in this manner. I put forth a proposal, which you could've critiqued; instead, we're arguing about imaginary fragmentation (the two discussions are not concurrent, and, though they do overlap to some degree, the former is a brainstorm; the latter, an implementation proposal) and "forum shopping" (an original proposal was posted at what seemingly is the appropriate venue; and there was no deceit on my part). Alakzi (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can offer no more than that I disagree this is forum shopping. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as "forum-shopping," which often carries an implication of bad-faith stretching of the rules to gain access to a forum that is more likely to render an opinion more favorable to one party or the other. In this case, I don't see either the TfD or the template talk page as more advantageous to the proposal, and I certainly don't see any bad faith on Alakzi's part. So, perhaps we should just focus on the merits of the proposal and where we should have that discussion on the merits. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic now is split over multiple places. Whatever you may think of that, is does not produce a good discussion. Full stop. Dirtlawyer1, above I already refuted the BF suggestion, and I pointed out that there are true factual and practical issues with a multiple-place discussion. I see no use in your re-opening a BF suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the nom; you can leave me alone now. Alakzi (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is closed without fringes by now. I suggest this be archived. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere, I haven't been able to find anything. The current infobox layout Gives ICD 10 (hyper linked to WHO ICD-10) followed horizontally with the article specific entry for the WHO ICD-10. On subsequent the line the term ICD-9 (hyper linked to US ICD-9-CM), followed horizontally with the article specific entry for US ICD-9-CM. This is confusing because ICD-9 refers to the previous WHO-ICD edition, which in some articles is referenced in the body of the article so that the page has tow ICD-9s refreing to seperate categorisations.

The US derogation (ICD-CM) will be updated later this year from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM. Is that change to be facilitated globally across the Infoboxes, or will each article have to be updated manually ? And can the ICD-CM designation be used ? It should be noted that from September the US and WHO numbering will unusually be in synq, so if the current format continues to be used there will be two ICD-10 entries one below the other but hyperlinked to differing locations and followed by differing category numbers. Also in the processof being updated the WHO ICD-11 is IIRC expected to be in place by 2017, so a further update to the infobox will need to be planned for. ICD-11 will have amore dynamic structure than ICD-10 and that may (sorry not to be clear) have implications for how the Infobox works, for example the same number category may appear under multiple disease descriptions.

Practical issue re: ICD/ICD-CM discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Time_to_split_G93.3_and_780.71_in_to_two_separate_articles_again --In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ICD11 was supposed to be out in 2015 but I guess they have pushed it back a couple of years.

We typically organize our articles around the usual technical name. There can be a number of classification systems that redirect to a single technical term. So yes ICD 11 will likely be added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beta draft for ICD-11 is currently undergoing field trials and is still expected for final release in 2017. However, it will be a couple of years after that before any member country implements it for either mortality or morbidity. This delay will give us time to look at the structure in more detail before implementing it into this infobox.

wrt ICD-10-CM, on the whole it's the same as ICD-10 at the third character level (there are a few differences in the disease sections mainly around the pain categories). Most of the fourth character sub-categories are also the same. The main differences come with the addition of fifth, sixth and seventh characters to the base classification. We certainly won't need to use the seventh characters in this infobox, and I doubt that the sixth characters will be required either (they are for laterality or subtypes of diseases that won't have separate articles). If it's decided that ICD-10-CM is added as a field to the infobox (either as well as or instead of ICD-9-CM), then some automation should be possible, assuming a good and public domain mapping table. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just for clarity will it be the case that the letters CM will appear in the infobox ? For non US readers this twin listing of ICD number is very confusing and having the addition of the CM as signifier would help. --In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A further question - Not all the changes from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM will be a simple translation, some of the old codes will branch to two new codes - will the Infobox display both new codes or will just one display and what will be the priority choice ? This has implications for WP articles because the multiple numbering will need to be explained, and if only one number appears in the infobox, that would need to be acknowledged in the article body. --In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got this situation with the "pure" ICD-10 codes. Multiple codes for a disease concept has been treated in two different ways: a) a range of categories (e.g. Diabetes Mellitus); b) the categories listed out (e.g. Pneumonia). A style decision should probably be made for the contiguous ranges as to which way is preferable. At present there is little to no explanation of the ICD classification system in the disease articles, and I'm not sure that there needs to be a lot of detail provided as to why a single ICD-9-CM code (or category) is now represented by multiple codes in ICD-10-CM. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scottalter, User:RexxS and other tech-minded people might want to look into this announcement of changes in the Wikidata module. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WAID. The Module:Wikidata was updated last week to use the new call and I'm working through some of the problems that can arise as a result. --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]