Please see User_talk:Arcadian#Template:DiseaseDisorder_infobox. If this box is going to be used, I will support a limited form that gives easy access to ICD codes, but I oppose the "cause", "diagnosis", "treatment", "incidence", "prevalence". The information in these fields is often very subtle, has regional variation and would be almost impossible to reference from this box. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For psychiatric diagnoses, I would advocate a box that includes the DSM code in addition to the ICD. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning template:DiseaseDisorder infobox:

• Shall we move it to a shorter name?
• In the boxes you placed, each one says "hypoglycemia"
• Are we using ICD-9 codes (as you have done) or ICD-10 ones?

JFW | T@lk 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)

Per your questions: (1) "Shall we move it to a shorter name?" I wouldn't have a problem with moving it to a shorter name. I've seen lots of arguments about whether something was a disease or a disorder, and my goal was just to sidestep the argument by explictly incorporating both elements into the name. But if you wanted to move it to a new name, I wouldn't object. (2) "In the boxes you placed, each one says hypoglycemia". I apologize for my error. I was copying over the template, and forgot to substitute the name. It looks like you have already fixed this, and I thank you for doing so. (3) "Are we using ICD-9 codes (as you have done) or ICD-10 ones?" I see you have updated the template already, so that issue appears moot. I'll try to create a page List of ICD-10 codes, parallel to List of ICD-9 codes. Before I do so, do you know if 10 is free for us to use, and if there is a good site for us to get these codes? I know we had clearance on 9, per Talk:International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. --Arcadian 5 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

I cannot possibly imagine there would be restrictions of referencing to ICD-10 codes. There may be copyright issues on republishing the WHOLE list, which we may need to settle. All large health organisations use ICD-10 for coding, so I shouldn't think there would be a problem in using it.

Strictly speaking, do you think the box needs at the top? I'm open to persuation either way, but many articles have images at the top that would be cluttered with a box. On the other hand: where else would we put it? JFW | T@lk 5 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

For your question about should the infobox be on top -- I don't have a problem if it isn't at the top. On the other hand, if your concerns was that it would conflict with other pages that have an image near the top, then we could incorporate a location for the image directly into the template. This could help provide a more consistent interface for the diseases. For example, this is what is done with albums (see [[1]].) --Arcadian 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Per the 9/10 issue -- how would you feel if we added a second line to the template, so that we could store both the 9 and 10 code. The 9 codes are still commonly used in the United States, and we also have a more explicit release to use them than we have for the 10 codes. Also, another user left a message objecting to 10-centric (?) orientation at Talk:International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (scroll to bottom). We could address this by adding another line to the template, and in a few years, if 9 codes become fully deprecated, then we could update all the disease pages at once just by updating the template. Any thoughts/objections? --Arcadian 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Sounds OK JFW | T@lk 6 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the template to include both 9 and 10, and fixed the linked pages where I had the codes (I have a source for 9 but not for 10, so I left those blank for now.) For the image idea -- I'll give people a week or so to object, and if nobody does, then I'll put that in. Thanks again for your assistance and guidance. --Arcadian 6 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

I have put   instead of whitespace in ICD-9/10 code: because it tends to get broken into two lines if the text on the right hand side is sufficiently long (e.g. see Auditory processing disorder). Looks good to me now but feel free to revert if there's any trouble with this layout. GregorB 21:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks great! Thanks for the improvement Gregor! --Arcadian 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put ICD boxes on pages just dealing with a symptom[2]. This creates confusion and adds very little information. JFW | T@lk 06:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the Template:SignSymptom infobox to address your concerns. The ICD codes do add valuable information -- see the sections ICD 9 signs/symptoms and ICD 10 signs/symptoms. --Arcadian 15:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is continuing at the WikiProject Clinical medicine. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Process

• Should each infobox be discussed here before adding it to the page, or should we add them to the page and then improve them incrementally? --Arcadian 00:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting this, but sometimes a box clouds matters and could be discussed on talk. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then we may be on complete agreement on this, then, and can close the item. I'm presuming that when you say "could be discussed on talk", you're referring to the normal Wiki process of incremental improvement, and if so, then we have no disagreement. However, if you were referring to something else in your prior communication to me, please clarify (feel free to create a new header below if you feel I have paraphrased your prior objections inaccurately.) --Arcadian 14:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. JFW | T@lk 20:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases/Disorders vs. Signs/Symptoms

• How should we handle conditions like Ataxia, which can be both diseases and signs? --Arcadian 00:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ataxia is a symptom, and it is caused by many diseases, ranging from inebriation to cerebellar infarcts and ataxia telangiectasia. It is not a disease in itself. The ICD-10 assigns an "R" code to symptoms that are not medical diagnoses. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you've stated. And I'd be happy to clearly identify symptoms in ways that made it clear that they were not diagnoses. But I do think there is benefit to providing clearer definitions of these symptoms and better distinctions between them, and I think that the ICD codes will help drive to that result. Was your objection to the perceived blurring between symptoms and diagnoses, or to the use of ICD codes on symptoms? Or something else? --Arcadian 14:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many symptom-related articles on Wikipedia that would not be associated with an ICD code. I think infoboxing symptom articles is best avoided, as it blurs the line between symptom and disease entity. Mentioning a symptom's ICD code is in itself not a problem... JFW | T@lk 20:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ranges

• How should we handle conditions like Leukemia, which is not a single disease with a single code but covers the ICD-10 range from C91-C95? --Arcadian 00:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view that putting a box on a page like this creates the impression that "leukemia" without a modifier is one disease (quod non). Chronic myelogenous leukemia should have a box, or acute promyelocytic leukemia, but not the disambiguation page. JFW | T@lk 07:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your view, but I can also think of some examples that would be ambiguous and hard to categorize. Could you help us come up with a way to define what constitutes one disease? --Arcadian 14:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. For a non-haematologist, "acute leukemia" is enough to scamper and call the haematologist on-call. For a haematologist, it may be of essential relevance whether the patient has ALL L1 and needs enrolling in UKALL-XII, or AML M3 and could end up on idarubicin and ATRA. Some articles have more than one associated ICD code, even though most doctors would agree that we're dealing with one disease. I can only recommend taking soundings at the WikiProject talk page if things are uncertain. JFW | T@lk 20:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There appears a reference numbering problem in articles that are making use of this infobox as well as ref/note templates (see Keratoconus). I have notified the last editor, but have left the infobox template in its last state for the time being. BillC 12:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could reproduce the problem described by BillC at User talk:Adrian Buehlmann#Template:Infobox Disease). I am puzzled. Thinking now what could be the cause for that (using my playgrounds User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Keratoconus/1 and User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Infobox Disease/1 in order not to disturb articles). --Adrian Buehlmann 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fixed with this edit. Strangely, after doing tests in my sandboxes, I found out that several pipes ("|") had to be removed in order to fix a false offset in reference numbering of Keratoconus. For example I had to change:

! [[Diseases Database|DiseasesDB]]
| [http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/ddb{{{DiseasesDB|}}}.htm {{{DiseasesDB|}}}]
|}<noinclude>

to:

! [[Diseases Database|DiseasesDB]]
| [http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/ddb{{{DiseasesDB}}}.htm {{{DiseasesDB}}}]
|}<noinclude>

I don't know why but I had to remove the pipes ("|") from {{{DiseasesDB|}}}. Very strange. I do not understand why, but it seems to be fixed now. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A research result: I did the following test: starting with my sandbox ok-version [3], I added one single pipe char. After that the references in my sandbox version of Keratoconus at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Keratoconus/1 started with #2 (instead of 1 as it should). If anybody has an idea why this is so, I would love to hear read that. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit, readers with limited exposure to medical industry terms may be confused by this infobox. Should it mention "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems" and link to its article? The Rod 00:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox already links directly to List of ICD-10 codes and List of ICD-9 codes, and the link you mentioned is at the top of those pages. However, if there is a creative way to make things more clear without taking up excessive real estate, I could certainly support that. --Arcadian 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a heading that is terse, accurate, and context-providing:

• Too verbose: "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems for {{{Name}}}"
• Potentially inaccurate: "International Classification of Diseases for {{{Name}}}"
• Insufficient context: "ICD for {{{Name}}}"

As it stands, though, disease articles now begin with ICD codes that are only explained after clicking through. Maybe we'll just have to let the user click through to see what "ICD" means, despite the manual of style. The Rod 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about ICD 9 and ICD 10? --Arcadian 09:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion is terse, but since it does not expand "ICD", I do not think it clarifies the infobox for the uninitiated. The Rod 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Rod on this point. I also feel that putting the name of the disease at the top of the box in articles such as Kwashiorkor and AIDS is redundant. However, in the case of Nasopharyngitis it becomes poignant as the article is named Common cold. --Bob 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could make the title an optional field, so the line doesn't display if it is left blank? --Arcadian 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It most definetly should. This was also raised in a peer review recently - this box is confusing to non-experts. Please add a heading explaining what this box is for.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I am copying your second sentence into a new section below, since it appears to be addressing a different issue. --Arcadian 13:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a heading explaining what this box is for.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily object to this proposal, but please provide more information, and describe in more detail what you would like to see. Or if you can provide an example of a different infobox that you like, I'd be happy to try to emulate the appearance. But if it is a significant change, we should probably let the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine know about the proposal. This infobox used to contain more fields with content rather than just codes, and in my opinion was more self-explanatory then, but some users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine had concerns about it, and User:Jfdwolff kept reverting use of the infobox until the number of fields was negotiated down (you can catch the tail end of that debate at the top of this page). I'd definitely like to see this infobox improved, but I'd rather avoid a repeat of that incident if possible. And in any case, a proposed change will be easier to sustain if there is broad support for it, so to anyone else reading this, I encourage you to offer your opinions on what you want for this infobox in the future. --Arcadian 13:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see something in the header telling me what on earth this box is telling me. For the uninitiated it's bizzare to see a box just containing codes and nothing telling me what the codes are all about so I can't decide if it has anything that will help me understand topic on the page any better. If it's too complicated for the header, then a footer in small italic type with a short description would be fine. --60.228.33.249 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree an explanation of the infobox would be helpful. How about a footer "Various Classifications of Diseases and Further Information"? It is intuitive that the names lead to descriptions of the database and the codes lead to more about the disease? Finavon 17:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:McDutchie today added fields for DSM-IV. This might not be necessary, because ICD9 codes and DSM-IV codes are identical in almost all cases, but I'd like to know what other people think. --Arcadian 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the DSM-IV line. --Arcadian 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know they are identical in almost all cases. I wonder if that could be indicated somehow, since I doubt I'm the only one who didn't know that. McDutchie 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images that are not in an infobox have the option of having a thumbnail indicator (small box/large box to the right of caption), which tells the user if the picture on the target page is the same size or larger than the picture on the disease page. This is a nice feature for users, who are probably going to be more likely to click if the target picture is larger. When images are in an infobox, there doesn't seem to be a way to add an optional thumbnail indicator. Any advice?

See User_talk:Arcadian for prior discussion --HMD 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- with the examples you provided, I now understand more clearly what you are looking for. Unfortunately, I don't know how to implement that, and it's not standard on Wikipedia articles (for example, larger versions of the lead image are available at Abbey Road (album), Gone with the Wind (film), Aspirin, and Abraham Lincoln, but no thumbnail indicator is provided.) But your idea is a good idea, and if someone more skilled than I knows how to implement it, I would welcome its inclusion. Per the broader issue you communicated on my talk page (if moving an image into an infobox eliminates the thumbnail indicator, should we leave the lead image outside of the infobox so people can still see the indicator?) -- in my opinion, Wikipedia precedent comes down on the side of including the lead image in the infobox, but I can see both sides of the issue. Before today, there wasn't really a good place to discuss issues like this, but per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Moving_content_to_own_page, we now have a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions which would be very well suited for discussing formatting issues and defining standards. --Arcadian 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to get these to work -- can anyone help? The DiseaseDB and OMIM info on TS is woefully inaccurate, so I don't want to add it. There are two articles on eMedicine ... one has already been added, but I want to add the other (multiple entry), and can't make it work. And, I can't figure out how to add the MedLinePlus info on TS. Please see note here. [4] TIA! Sandy 19:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've got them working now, but if you have other questions, don't hesitate to ask. --Arcadian 22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Arcadian ... I got part working, still don't know how to add the MedlinePlus info ... Sandy 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added the Medline link. --Arcadian 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks !! Sandy 00:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article hard to understand: here is a sample found by another editor. Crigler-Najjar syndrome Sandy 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to see the SNOMED classification [5] added to the Infobox disease template. SNOMED is an alternate to ICD9 and ICD10 and appears (at least to me) to be superceding them. There are freely available tools to help convert between the different taxonomies and a very good site for looking up a SNOMED classification such as this one [6]

Thanks

Brian 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

SNOMED is a big list of names, and in the latest incarnation SNOMED-CT doesn't seem to be in any order, so IMO is less appropriate for a box like this although it might be nice. They can also get very long as you can add an enormous level of detail. And it looks like there would be licensing issues.

BTW, I can't get to the ontology site from this (NHS) network - any ideas?

Claus Diff 09:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried that link, and found it failed for me as well, though I believe it was okay a couple of days ago. Does anyone else have a live link? (And if there aren't any live links to real codes, then perhaps we should hold off on adding SNOMED for now.) --Arcadian 12:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am out-of-town right now but will address both concerns when I am back on Friday. As far as I know, licensing is not an issue, SNOMED codes are freely available and freely usable - I will provide references on Friday. Also, I'll find out what's wrong with the links and provide an update - they were working when I posted them - I'll go find out what happend. THanks, Brian 12:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

I've just had another look, [7] may be relevent - I can't parse all that legalese. It looks like a structured code-base as well; I got the impression that merging concepts from Read Clinical Terms would have broken that, but apparently not.

Claus Diff 08:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a transitional solution, we could add a new optional field called "other codes" or something like that. Then, if users wanted to add SNOMED, or anything else, they could go into that field. --Arcadian 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am currently attempting to implement this box on the Psychology Wiki. This is a site that is attempting to use the wikipedia ideal to construct an academic site for the knowledge domain of psychology. I have copied the template over onto this page [8]and as you can see I seem to have spare code. The site is running the latest version MediaWiki software but my knowledge of templates is limited and I havent been able to work out how to correct it I would be gratful if someone could help me make it work. I am happy to answer any questions about the site on my talk page

On another note with this appearing in the Dissociative identity disorder page

Due to copyright infringement issues and editorial concerns, the American Psychiatric Association has requested that specific reference to the DSM-IV-TR by Wikipedia be outlinked. The current diagnostic criteria for Dissociative identity disorder published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders may be found here:

DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria: Dissociative identity disorder (DID)

I think it would be important to include DSM code links, as it looks as if we will have to take out the descriptions in the text. Does anyone know anymore about this.

Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer.Lifeartist 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is repaired now - thanks.

I just added this infobox to Nail-patella syndrome and encountered two technical problems: (1) if there are no ICD codes for a disease, how do I get it to omit those entries? and (2) if there are multiple eMedicine articles for a disease (see [9] [10]), how can I link to them both?  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diff should show how to add multiple eMedicine links to a single page. For the other issue -- for now, the ICD9/10 currently display whether or not they are populated, but I wouldn't object if that was changed. However, in this case, I did find codes for ICD9 and ICD10, so I added them to the article. --Arcadian 04:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICD9 and 10 are now optional. --WS 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to link to more than 2 eMedicine articles? E.g. rabies has 3 articles on emedicine. --WS 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - just add a line with "eMedicine_mult = {{eMedicine2|w|x}} {{eMedicine2|y|z}} |", and then substitute the parameters for the second emedicine link into w and x, and the third link into y and z. --Arcadian 19:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --WS 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the CPT-4 codes added to the infobox, it would make it more applicable for subjects such as Colonoscopy, which is a procedure, rather than a disease (with a range of CPT-4 codes... does that make it impossible/more difficult to do?). Although I do edit many medical articles, I'd be way over my head with editing infoboxes, and have no desire to dive that deep into the Wiki functions.Carl 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response at Template talk:Interventions infobox. --Arcadian 23:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vasomotor rhinitis

ICD-10	J30.0
ICD-9	477.9
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) code information

Here's my suggestion for how to clarify what on earth this box is for. (not-The) Rod --60.228.33.249 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See also earlier comments under #Header.

The offered footer is fine if ICD9 or 10 is required (which I prefer), but something more general is appropriate for the other databases. Finavon 17:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classifications and Further Information
Random horrible disease

ICD-10†	J30.0
ICD-9†	477.9
OMIM‡	161800 256030 605355
DiseasesDB	31991 33448 33447
MedlinePlus	001648
eMedicine	ent/402
MeSH§	D012223
† International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems code
‡ Mendelian Inheritance in Man database code
§ Medical Subject Headings descriptor

Take 2

Yea, you're right, I didn't really notice/understand that this box is way more generic. Here's another go at making it more interesting using footnotes, could also use numbers (the <ref/> way) but it might be good to keep it distinct from the standard references. Some nice characters that can be used to indicate footnotes are: "†", "‡", "§", "*", "††", "‡‡", "§§", "**", "†††", "‡‡‡", "§§§", "***". Would make the template logic flow a tiny bit more complicated, but such is the price of sensificationality. (Rod) --60.228.33.249 23:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that a wikilink exists for each line of the template, I'm not sure how much benefit there would be to including footnotes. On the other hand, the ICD-10 line currently links to List of ICD-10 codes and ICD-9 links to List of ICD-9 codes, and neither of those pages provide much explanation. True, there is a link to ICD right at the top of each of those pages, but I wouldn't object if somebody wanted to point these links directly to ICD. --Arcadian 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that the uninitiated have no idea if this box can give them more information about the topic they are looking at. That was how I've ended up here, it's currently just an odd box with some strange codes with links to lists of stuff that I have to go clicking through multiple levels to figure out if I've wasted my time doing the clicking in the first place. You should be able to know if the infobox can offer you actual helpful further information just by looking at it, not by having to click through it. Therefore, the footnotes would provide some of that information and give you hints about what you're going to find if you go on the click trail. Of course, the header also helps out towards this, I think this is needed at a minimum. (Rod) --60.228.33.249 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This box seems to be less intuitive than many, despite going through a number of incarnations. It seems a good way to concisely provide access to further information in a standard format while still being useful to those in the know. I support the addition to the header and would like some form footer. Finavon 07:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible condition
Classifications and external resources

ICD-10	J30.0

I quite like the idea of putting some sort of explanation in the templates header explaining what is for. However, I think the name of the condition needs come first and most prominantly, with the templates purpose then shown as a subheading. I also propose a slight tweak of the description given (1) to indicate that these are for external links and (2) now fit on single line. Anyone object to:David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --Arcadian 10:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for ICD-9 & ICD-10, why not link both ways, ie the ICD to ICD and the 9 or 10 to the relevant list. Hence ICD-10 and ICD-9 ? David Ruben ^Talk 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - done. --Arcadian 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at the conditional coding needed to provide explanatory footnotes. The coding is at Template:Add code (for now) and the effect is shown at Template talk:Add code (which is where one should experiment with various parameters being undefined. (An alternative would have been to give the explanatory description immediately below each item, but that looked very cluttered). David Ruben ^Talk 23:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it all, lets get the header and footers done then eh? (ie: vote +1 from me) --203.51.90.231 05:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (Rod)[reply]

Is it possible to insert more than one MedlinePlus links in the infobox? As implied in the talk page, I tried "MedlinePlus_mult = Template:MedlinePlus2 |" but there is no Template and I do not know enough to create one. Finavon 18:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - it did not exist. This should now be fixed. --Arcadian 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eMedicine_mult is fine if just a few additional eMedicine links need be added, but search eMedicine for Neuropathy comes up with 40 articles. Clearly we are not going to add links to all 40, but it would be nice to at least provide some sort of link to show eMedicine's resources on the topic. I have therefore allowed the eMedicine parameters to show instead a direct link to eMedicine's search pages for a topic:

Set eMedicineSubj = search and eMedicineTopic to the term to be searched for.

As far as I can tell, my coding has not upset the normal use of this template in other articles. I'm sure we could do similar for MedlinePlus but I'm not sure on wisdom of doing so - its search pages provide links away from its "article" series and to other sites. David Ruben ^Talk 02:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small problem encountered - using search string with spaces. eMedicine needs to be passed a search string with % 2 0 replacing any space (else the space is taken as the start of alternative display text - e.g. [http://www.example.com Displayed]). However then showing this search string (with asci code for space) looks messy. Hence I have altered instructions to editors to insert the '% 2 0' and the template shows instead "topic list". As an example see this version of Shaken baby syndrome (an anon editor repeatedly removing any attempt to apply cite.php footnotes in favour of inline hyperlinks unconnected to manually maintained reference list). David Ruben ^Talk 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, would it be possible to make the width of this box the same as the width of the Taxoboxes? Human papillomavirus is an example of what these two boxes look like when stacked, and I think it would be much more attractive if the widths matched. Thank you! jengod 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK switched from width of 20em to 200px (does not seem much of a change on my computer). Can be reverted back if anyone disagrees. David Ruben ^Talk 03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the rendering of the box on the latest version of Safari, the title section is a different width to the rest of the box making it look very very untidy. Easily sorted though... just replace the top with something more standard like this:

{| class="infobox" cellspacing="0" style="width: 200px; font-size: 95%; text-align: left;"" |- | colspan="2" align="center" style="font-size:1.3em; style="background: {{{Background|lightgrey}}}" | '''{{{Name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}'''<br>''Classifications and external resources'' |-

--Bob 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera9 has a problem with it too - the caption part is narrower than the rest of the table. Why don't you replace the caption with a normal table row? -- Boris 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to that. Try it and see if it helps. --Arcadian 23:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I played a bit but as far as my "style" knowledge gets me i couldn't make it look good at two browsers (Opera and FF) at the same time - if it looked good on one it would be awefull on the other. Normally i go around by using JavaScript (some people preffer PHP, or some other way) which would detect the browser and change the the style accordingly but we can't do it here. I don't really see why you guys would want to use the <caption> element for the header. If it because there is no white area around the heading then the caption alone could be inside a normal table with no padding, sitting on a second table that hold all the info and both these are nested inside a third one which positions them on the screen, but that's too unnecessary. So a very good and simple solution is what Bob has proposed and i agree with him [11]. I also addded another row of two cells that is just under the header, that row keeps the rest of the content as away from the header as away are the table borders surrounding the header, plus it gives an easy way to control the width of the cells that hold the content. For the table's padding (5px) and width (280px) i used the same style definitions we have for the drugbox. -- Boris 10:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Merck Manual should be included in this template. [12] Thoughts? I don't understand how it can not be included (yet). --Chussid 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, I'd be reluctant to add yet more links to this prominent info box. Many info boxes actually provide information, not just a collection of terse external links. A brief review of the above resource revealed mixed results. Some topics were considerably less comprehensive than the Wikipedia article and hence don't meet WP:EL policy. Other topics were well covered but the lack of a named author for the topic, or any references, reduces its usefulness. Colin°^Talk 17:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked, the Merck Manual was outrageously inaccurate with respect to Tourette syndrome - we've got enough inaccurate info in the info box already - please, let's not add more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either the category must be renamed or autism, Aspergers, ADHD, Tourette, Bipolar and probably several other conditions should *not* link to it. These are generally not viewed as diseases. --Rdos 05:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a category, but an Infobox template. The template does not add any category to the articles it is used in, nor does it anywhere describe the condition/disorder/disease/ill by any particular title (only the article's own name is used if not directly specified). The choice of terms disease/illness/conditions is largely interchangeable and somewhat arbitary, although some terms are associated with stereotypes that some might wish to avoid. I both do not see a need to change name of the template, and certainly nothing in how it displays that needs changing. David Ruben ^Talk 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created as "Template:DiseaseDisorder infobox", and it was renamed to "Template:Infobox Disease" by User:Netoholic on 8 January 2006. I could support something like a rename to "Template:Infobox Medical condition". --Arcadian 13:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus becomes to rename, would we need a bot to rename in the thousands of articles currently used in (to overcome redirect load and apply some uniformity across articles), if so how would thi sbe arranged ? David Ruben ^Talk 13:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much need to change since the name of this template is invisible to readers. Is the inappropriateness of "disease" due to not be specific (syndromes and injuries also use this template) or because the term may cause offence if applied to certain people-groups who don't regard their condition as being a medical problem. If the latter, then the box fails on more than just the name, since it links to medical resources.

BTW: There are approx 2,100 links to this template and 1,200 links to the old "Template:Infobox Disease", which is now a redirect. Colin°^Talk 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a bogus blank entry at the begining of the OMIM_multi, at Albinism. Any ideas why? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. (The "OMIM_multi" is only when you have more than one; the "OMIM" field is used for the first one.) --Arcadian 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Might want to make that clearer in the documentation. Thanks for the quick fix.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]