This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

	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.

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:Ligulem#Template:Infobox Disease). I am puzzled. Thinking now what could be the cause for that (using my playgrounds User:Ligulem/work/Keratoconus/1 and User:Ligulem/work/Infobox Disease/1 in order not to disturb articles). --Ligulem 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. --Ligulem 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:Ligulem/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. --Ligulem 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]

They're identical in most cases, but there are a few times when they're different. Is there any procedure for those cases? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add the text "DSM" or "see article" into the ICD-9 field. Do you have an example? --Arcadian 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: why not get rid of the whole ICD-9 reference altogether? The current diagnostic standards come from the DSM-IV TR and the ICD-10 -- and someone has done a stupendous job putting together an ICD-10 template which references the World Health Organization directly. As far as I can tell, however, the only reason the ICD-9 (which dates from 1975) is even being included here is that a bunch of spam sites reproduce the old and out-of-date ICD-9 data and are now hoodwinking the Wikipedia into giving free links to their copies of the World Health Organization's ancient originals. In fact, if you look at the DSM-IV codes pages, you will find...not the correct DSM-IV codes...but rather those pesky old ICD-9 codes! Someone has cunningly used these to organize hundreds of extra references to icd9data.com, using the ICD9 template (which is in turn referenced by the Disease Infobox, yielding thousands more free links for icd9data.com). It seems to me that it would be better for users to be made aware that actually, this is the wrong code list altogether, and all those 'references' to ICD-9 data (there are no REAL references, as normally required by Wikipedia) just go to icd9data.com. Someone seems to have done a great job of pulling the wool over Wikipedia editors' eyes on this one -- bravo for whoever owns icd9data.com, but shame on Wikipedia for tolerating such serious inaccuracy. ThisGregM 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)ThisGregM[reply]

The ICD-9 link for Tourette syndrome is wrong, because it uses DSM-IV rather than DSM-IV-TR. ICD-10 is no better. The infobox has a lot of useless, inaccurate stuff in almost every link. I'm thinking it should be scrapped altogether. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the ICD-9 and DSM-IV-TR codes are the same in all cases, then the field name and display text should reflect that. But, if there are any cases where the coding systems differ, then they need to be different fields. And, we should keep ICD-9 coding, just for posterity, even if it isn't in widespread use anymore, I think it is important and interesting to record and study how the diagnostic systems have changed over time. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:28, 19 July 2008 (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]

{{editprotected}} 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]

Looks good, when will it be implemented? --Bob 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done now, please provide the exact text you wish to substitute in (and the text that needs to be replaced), then readd the editprotected tag. Proto::► 18:31, 5 February 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:DiseaseDisorder infobox", which is now a redirect. Colin°^Talk 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's invisible to readers - no need to go through the extensive work of re-naming it, even if Tourette syndrome is not a "disease". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 28 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]

I've added more explict details of the "template2"'s to use with teh "_mult" parameters. Hope this helps :-) David Ruben ^Talk 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ICD-9 line of the template automatically refers the reader to the ICD-9CM version currently used in the US. As a result of this, articles such as Chronic fatigue syndrome point to 9-CM listings while advertising (to the non-US eye) that the condition is listed as such (in this case 780.71) in the original ICD-9. However, CFS (the name) had not been invented when ICD-9 was adopted in 1975 and the original ICD-9 did not have 5-digit codes (CFS would fall under the original code 780.7). Therefore I'm proposing to add template code accommodating such instances (identical to the ICD9 but with ICD9CM as argument and ICD-9CM as displayed text). Another way might be to make it clear to the reader that the US version ICD-9CM is used. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 09:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using this new template in |OMIM_mult (but not in |OMIM) would reduce a lot of clutter. See an imperfect (due to no comma after |OMIM) demo at Albinism. This new {{OMIM4}} variant of {{OMIM2}} gets rid of the ext. link icon. After the first one, in |OMIM, we already know these are ext. links. Changes needed:

• Template documentation update to say to use {{OMIM4}} instead of {{OMIM2}} and to use ", " not " " between them (there are I believe three places this would need to change, one in the prose and two in examples).
• Template change, to use ", " after |OMIM instead of " ", when |OMIM_mult is also present (needs a "{{#if:...}"). Alternatively, just get rid of the distinction: Have just |OMIM but have it work like |OMIM_mult. This would have the benefit of making the template's usage less confusing, and its code much simpler and shorter.
• Note: |OMIM would continue to call {{OMIM2}}. In alt. version proposed above, first occurrence would use this, subsequent ones would call {{OMIM4}}.
• Similar plainlinks variants would need to be made for the non-OMIM templates this infobox uses similarly with _mult's, and similar changes made to the docs and template code, for consistency, though this change isn't dreadfully urgent.
• Full implementation would also probably require bot or AWB edits to many installed infoboxes.

See Template talk:OMIM3 for some background, and another template making use of this idea (with {{OMIM5}}, the plainlinks variant of {{OMIM3}}).

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disease database is extremelly reliable yes? Because i am did quite a siginificant amount of changes and redirects according to the information it had given me (along with some of it's ICD9'S/10'S) in my last contributes articles. The disease article i created actually redirected (since 2004) to this other disease article that came from a different parasite, while the one that was redirected comes from another parasite (please tell me im making sense lol), so in essence there are 2 disease, from 2 different parasites..... according to disease database... and addition to this they just happened to be AKA'ed as 4398394 other names, so i had to make all these redirects, and hopefully they are correct. Please check my contributions and assure that I made the right creation/contributions/redirects. Wooh im feeling the wiki heat LoL. Thanks in advance. Ps as a side note... whats up with all the other random disease infobox templates.... shouldn't there be only one uniformed one?.. petze 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For the condition I'm most familiar with, the disease database is not only not reliable; it's wrong. It doesn't even contain the correct diagnosis. [13] I would not rely on its information being accurate. And, it carries an HONcode logo, which means nothing, by the way. I suggest you doublecheck your contributions, and use better sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming this template to Template:Infobox Disorder. Some object to the term disease to describe their condition. Example: Talk:Albinism#Disease infobox. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion 5 sections up. Editors can continue to use "Template:DiseaseDisorder infobox" if they wish (imagine a slash between the two words). The name of the template is invisible to readers. Even "Disorder" is disliked by some since it still implies there is something wrong. Colin°^Talk 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone describe how to use the MeshName field. Reviewing the code it seems to need a MeshNumber, that, as far as I can tell, does not exist, so that using the MeshName field produces mumbo-jumbo in the infobox. TIA --CrownofThorns 04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The default is now to use MeshID. MeshNumber and MeshName are not needed, though support for the fields still exists for legacy purposes. The MeshID can be obtained either from the DieasesDB site, or from the MeSH site (look for the field marked "Unique ID", near the bottom.) --Arcadian 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iw tr is wrong and it should be replaced with this: tr:şablon:Hastalık Thanks for help.--Plenumchamber 10:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have changed it. --Plenumchamber 11:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(transfer from Template talk:Infobox Disease/doc to here where others might see David Ruben ^Talk 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think there should be 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. Tatterfly 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above user suggested the following parameters:

 | Organs affected= 
 | Age group = 
 | Symptoms = 
 | Causes = 
 | Risk factors = 
 | Diagnostic Measures= 
 | Treatment = 
 | Fatal = 
 | Curable = 

• Weak oppose - My feeling is that may prove almost impossible to give suitably brief entries, without reducto ad absurdum (ie so brief as to be meaningless). Also would need rethink of parameter names ("Diagnostic Measures" is far too long if enough space in right-hand column is going to give details) David Ruben ^Talk 20:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The top of this box does not render correctly in all browsers (Safari 3.0.4 and Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9).

Instead of:

{| class="infobox" style="width: 200px; font-size: 95%; text-align: left;"
|+ style="background: {{{Background|lightgrey}}}; font-size: 95%;" | '''{{{Name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}'''<br />''Classification & external resources''

at the top of the coding, simply replace with:

{| class="infobox vcard" width="200" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 95%;"
!style="background: {{{Background|lightgrey}}}; font-size: 95%;" | '''{{{Name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}'''<br />''Classification & external resources''

as can be seen here.

Cheers. --Bob (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NCurse _work 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Bob, but the edit changed the whole table. I had to revert it. Please let me know if you can fix that bug and I make the required change. NCurse _work 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I forgot the colspan... Here is the code for the top two lines:

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

This should work. --Bob (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It seems to be good this time. Thank you for the bugfix. NCurse _work 09:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a interwiki link as follows: [[sv:Mall:Infobox sjukdom]] Best regards Ulner (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So added to teh /doc subpage.David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you correct french inter-wiki link? It should be fr:Modèle:Infobox Maladie instead of the current (incorrect) one. Jotunn (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once in a Blue Moon (talk · contribs) has made sensible suggestion for infobox for phobias (see Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox clinical phobias). In much the same way as Template:Drugbox allows for 3 "flavours", the presence of a few optional phobia parameters would seem easiest added to this infobox, rather than have multiple similar infoboxes to be maintained.

I've suggested a simplier method of coding using just 3 parameters, if anyone is intested please comment atWikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox clinical phobias.David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That infobox makes the classic error of trying to stuff unsuitable material into the box (e.g. explanations and proposed causes). JFW | T@lk 07:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already suggested removing the "proposed causes" leaving just the naming and classification as per Specific phobia#Categories of specific phobias - still appropriate for addition to the infobox or fatally flawed infobox intensions ? :-) David Ruben ^Talk 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to start floating an idea, how about a "Field of medicine" (or better phrased) parameter to indicate whether a disease comes under "Endocrinology", "Cardiology", "Neurology" etc? I weakly opposed adding specific clinical details, as suggested above in Template talk:Infobox Disease#Clinical information on infobox, but this is just for overall (noncontentious, I hope) classification.

I'm also tempted to suggest allowing the infobox to then automatically add the article to relevant categories, eg Category:Cardiology. A quick check though shows that many Category:Fields have sub-categories, and unless we have "Field" and "Subfield" this might get awkward ? David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a major undertaking, and may require help from a bot. Also, there are numerous conditions that involve lots of organ systems (e.g. sarcoidosis) and would need to be in lots of categories. 07:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

True - would sarcoidossis count, in respect of this proposal, then as primarily "immunological" or perhaps "multisystem" and so the classification could still have just the single (very basic, top-level) entry ? David Ruben ^Talk 14:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you to add it to the infobox? --WS (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I don't understand - was that meant why do we need to add it ? - thought was for classification purposes. One could expand idea from just affected target field of medicine (respiratory medicine, cardiology etc) to the surgical seive of mechanism of cause (infectious, inflammatory, etc), but that would be even more controversial in a lot of articles. As I said, it was just a float of a weak-idea to see what others felt, I appreciate there would be important issues to address if others thought useful :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support placing clinical information within this template, contrary to what has been done before. This information can include:

• Class(es) of disease (i.e. virus, autoimmune disorder)
• Age groups most commonly affected
• Gender most commonly affected
• (Common) symptoms
• (Common) causes
• (Common) methods of diagnosis
• (Common) methods of treatment
• Possible outcomes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatterfly (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ICD-10 links from the disease infobox at Dysmenorrhea do not work. Can anyone explain why this is? If you fix it, would you explain, here? Thank you. 98.217.45.218 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the links. (The explanation is complex, but if you want the details: first read the documentation at at Template:ICD10 and Template talk:ICD10. Then, go to the WHO ICD10 site, and search for "Dysmenorrhea", and click on the "Primary dysmenorrhoea" link. Then scroll to the top of the page. You'll see that "N80" is the first code on the page, so that's the value that needs to be in the last parameter.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I understand. 98.217.45.218 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've mildly highlighted this distinction (the code of the condition and the code at the top of the webpage that this is listed under) a little stronger in the description with underlining of "LinkMajor - The major coding at the top of webpage in which ..." - hope this helps with the WHO's complex addressing system and this external link template :-) David Ruben ^Talk 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}
To avoid editors having to type in "Name = {PAGENAME}", please replace every instance of

{{{Name}}}

with

{{{Name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}

Thanks, Smith609 Talk 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every instance (the one) of the {{{name}}} parameter in this template already defaults to {{PAGENAME}}. Nihiltres^{t.l} 06:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Disease → Template:Infobox condition — A better name for many uses that are not diseases. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) — Ned Scott 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Suppport, per discussion above. --Arcadian (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (very) Weak oppose - not needed. As previous discussion above highlighted (#Disease is inapropriate for many symptom-based neuropsychiatric conditions) the name of the template is immaterial as not shown to readers. I would (weakly) equally feel uneasy calling pneumonia a condition (on a par with baldness, freckles, obesity) rather than a disease. Clearly "Infobox medical conditions disorders and diseases" is just overpedantic and not needed, and "Infobox medical problem" feels awkward and perhaps limited to just social shyness or discomfort of having to wear a plaster cast in midst of summer. David Ruben ^Talk 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. WP Naming conventions don't apply as this is an editor-only name. No satisfactory catch-all PC term is available. Colin°^Talk 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that a valid reason to oppose? We re-name editor-only items all the time. Less experienced editors are likely to be confused by the template name, making this "editor only issue" worthy of a rename. A rename would require absolutely no effort from us and have several positive effects, so what's the hang up here? -- Ned Scott 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Perhaps Template:Infobox Medical condition might be less ambiguous? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note prior discussion #Disease is inapropriate for many symptom-based neuropsychiatric conditions, where point that name of template is hidden from reader makes this relatively unimportant. "Infobox Medical condition" indeed better disampiguation, howeverer as only 1st word normally capitalised then as "Infobox medical condition". I can still envisage some objecting to their situation being a "medical condition" at all, but as templates are not shown to readership, what counts is ease of use for editors (likewise {{fact}}-tagging is used not as an assertion that a point is true, but to highlight that a point needs a citation to verify). David Ruben ^Talk 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming this is a life or death situation. Being a back-burner issue is no reason to oppose a rename that requires no effort at all. The only reason I'm making a formal proposal is because the template is protected. Redirects cover all old uses, software automatically fixes any double redirects, so one only needs to press the button once. Given that this can and will help reduce editor confusion and avoid offending a great many others, I don't see why we shouldn't consider this. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]