Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox disease/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit request

[edit]

There is a pending TfD merge proposal involving this template @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Template:Infobox medical condition. Will someone with the template editor bit please add the required TfD notice template? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Nominator withdrew TfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ICD-O prompt

[edit]

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

What about alternate names?

[edit]

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

bot maintenance of disease infoboxes

[edit]

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]

Wikidata

[edit]

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]

Request edit for multiple images

[edit]
Infobox disease/Archive 2

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]

Add MalaCards to Disease Box

[edit]

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]

Infectious agent(s), NCBI TaxonID

[edit]

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]

Emedicine

[edit]

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]

Add NCI id to the template

[edit]

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. :)Ladsgroupبحث 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 :)Ladsgroupبحث 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? :)Ladsgroupبحث 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 :)Ladsgroupoverleg 15:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 23 August 2014

[edit]

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|}}} }}'' }}

 — QuicksilverT @ 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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]
Suggestion to combine this into the MediaWiki:Tagline
Per WP:MULTI, please discuss at WP:VPR. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal situation would be to combine this into the MediaWiki:Tagline. Maybe once we have evidence that it does not cause any issues on medical pages. Still need to gather more support here at the village pump. Will likely need a RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmh649: it was still overlapping the text, so I adjusted it to the minimum amount that would not overlap, but better, would probably be to just float it to the right of the page instead. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer it associated with "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Hopefully we will add it to the Tagline eventually. Thanks for the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:34, 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]

Add Pateint UK to the template

[edit]

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 :)Ladsgroupoverleg 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 :) :)Ladsgroupoverleg 00:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical specialty

[edit]
Infobox disease/Archive 2

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]
Infobox disease/Archive 2
SpecialtyOncology
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]

Template-protected edit request on 3 November 2014

[edit]

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]

Requested move 17 February 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. There was consensus to move this template, with the understanding that its name may change again in the future if the purpose changes as a result of other discussions on this talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox disease → Template:Infobox medical condition – Template:Infobox medical condition already redirects here, and there is agreement that the purpose of this infobox is to cover medical conditions and not only diseases. Everyone agrees that this is the right template to use at pregnancy, even though pregnancy is not a disease, and is better called a "medical condition". Support this move to confirm the following:

  1. "Disease" is not the ideal name for all the medical conditions covered by this infobox
  2. "Medical condition" is a good new name if this is moved
  3. The complicated renaming process should happen eventually in ~5,000 articles, but until then, renaming the template and redirecting to the new name works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We could get a bot to change the same in all the articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alakzi If those are to use what is currently infobox disease, then the infobox would need to be completed from the start. There is nothing started in the infobox disease classification scheme so there nothing to fix. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep I think that I do doubt the usefulness of this proposal now, but I am still sympathetic of this box doing unintended things like calling "pregnancy" a "disease". If this renaming is delayed, the other reforms may takes weeks, months, or years, and the label problem could be fixed in a day just with a rename. Perhaps giving this a different name would be the best way forward - perhaps "Medical condition external links". I think this box will continue to cover medical conditions, and right now this seems to be exclusively an external links infobox. Naming it "Medical condition infobox" is not appropriate though considering the other options. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently a DRV to restore Template:Infobox medical condition, so we can't quite proceed with the move. Alakzi (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oversee the whole. Out of my depth so I won't !vote. -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not to restore, off course. The TfD closed as merge. The merge was never implemented. The DRV seeks to overturn the mandate to merge. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to restore? So we're gonna have no merge, but we're not gonna get Template:Infobox medical condition back, either? Alakzi (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to use that template. So no reason to restore either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template was used in a number of articles, so there must've been some kind of consensus, be it a passive one. If you do not believe that it should be used, then you should nominate it for deletion. Alakzi (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know. The point is: what is the template? And: what is a Redirect? (and of course: does a Redirect cover the target template? -- here content does matter). -DePiep (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

MalaCards

[edit]

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]

Wikidata module

[edit]

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]

Template-protected edit request on 27 July 2015

[edit]

Since I moved all the data from Wikipedia to Wikidata about medical speciality, now it would be really good if you use Wikidata information when there is no information in infobox. I made the change in infobox (Special:PermaLink/673294845). Please add it to the infobox. Thanks. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 12:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been  Done – Paine  16:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms not showing up

[edit]

I can't see why this is happening, but when I tried to add a synonym to a new infobox at Mouth and genital ulcers with inflamed cartilage syndrome it didn't show up. I can't really figure out what causes this issue... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my own fault, archiving. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_disease/Archive_2&oldid=1077574664"