This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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 |
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)
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)
ICD-10 | J30.0 |
---|
Is it possible to insert more than one MedlinePlus links in the infobox? As implied in the talk page, I tried "MedlinePlus_mult = {{ MedlinePlus2}} |" but there is no Template and I do not know enough to create one. Finavon 18:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
Looks good, when will it be implemented? -- Bob 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The Merck Manual should be included in this template. [2] Thoughts? I don't understand how it can not be included (yet). -- Chussid 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
|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.|OMIM
would continue to call {{
OMIM2}}. In alt. version proposed above, first occurrence would use this, subsequent ones would call {{
OMIM4}}.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)
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)
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)
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)
iw tr is wrong and it should be replaced with this: tr:şablon:Hastalık Thanks for help.-- Plenumchamber 10:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
(transfer from Template talk:Infobox Disease/doc to here where others might see David Ruben Talk 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
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)
| Organs affected= | Age group = | Symptoms = | Causes = | Risk factors = | Diagnostic Measures= | Treatment = | Fatal = | Curable =
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)
{| 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)
Please add a interwiki link as follows: [[sv:Mall:Infobox sjukdom]] Best regards Ulner ( talk) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox clinical phobias. David Ruben Talk 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Why do you to add it to the infobox? -- WS ( talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I support placing clinical information within this template, contrary to what has been done before. This information can include:
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)
{{
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)
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)
*'''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.
Throwing this out there.. how about
Template:Infobox Medical diagnosis? --
Ned Scott 03:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Two of the editors opposing this are now on Wikibreak. I doubt anyone will close this early, but just in case anyone is thinking of doing so, please wait until they are active again. I honestly want to understand the objections here, and see if there is a way to find a solution that is satisfactory to them. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The eMedicine website has been restructured. The old use of the eMedicineSubj & eMedicineTopic parameters still works as the eMedicine website internally redirects to the new URLs
Hence in the past for the url http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic43.htm# we would set eMedicineSubj as 'emerg' and eMedicineTopic as '43'.
However anyone now searching for a suitable eMedicine article is going to be confronted with a rather different eMedicine url to use: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/806890-overview and so now set the eMedicineSubj parameter always to the fixed literal text of 'article' and eMedicineTopic gets set to the article page number of '806890'.
I was tempted to consider providing a new single parameter name of perhaps eMedicine but I think not as:
If people really, really feel that it would be better to code the infobox for new eMedicine structure by use of just a single eMedicine parameter, despite my objection points above, please let me know quickly before we need undo too many instances of others using the curent modified template. David Ruben Talk 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
Cleanup-ICHD}}
This banner has been added to the top of the page for Cluster headache, but there is no way to add an ICHD-2 Classification to the Disease Infobox. Could this be added? I have searched long and hard to find out how to add this and have seen no other way than through official modification from higher power above. Thanks.
Link to the official classification from IHS for ICHD-2: http://ihs-classification.org/en/02_klassifikation/02_teil1/03.01.00_cluster.html
--- Johngallias ( talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
please add interlink to italian wikipedia: [[it:Template:Infobox Malattia]] -- Luckyz Tell Me 10:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new sandbox for this template which contains some tweaks to the styling of this template to bring it into line with the defaults of other infoboxes. A comparison of old versus new can be found at the test cases page. Comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Requesting sync, then, as this helps on the road to further consistency / maintainability fixes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we add NHS Direct Online? Someone has been spamming it, but I think it should be in the infobox. Problem is their links aren't uniform... I've made some test edits but the problem was with two words, the link malfunctioned. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that the previous change has been rolled out, I've made a few more tweaks to the layout to bring it into line with other infobox templates (and to make it look more like {{ infobox Symptom}}. Comparison is on the test cases page again. After that it's just a cases of moving over to use {{ infobox}} directly, which will be straightforward. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Requesting sync with the sandbox again as there has is consensus for this change.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk 08:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
As per
WP:ALT I just now added
alt attributes to all but one of the images in
Autism, but since {{
Infobox Disease}} doesn't support this I couldn't do it for the lead image. I earlier ran into a similar problem with
Philitas of Cos and {{
Infobox Writer}} and made the obvious change to that template, which works; please see
Template talk:Infobox Writer #Alt attribute can now be correctly supported. To do the same thing here, please make the following change to {{
Infobox Disease}}:
! colspan=2 style="text-align: center" {{!}} [[File:{{{Image}}}|{{{Width|190}}}px|alt={{{Alt|}}}]]
I made the change to the sandbox and tested it there, using a new test case that I just added to Template:Infobox Disease/testcases. You can just install the current sandbox to the template. Thanks.
By the way, is there some procedure for saying "add alt attribute support to all infobox templates"? Perhaps I should post a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes? It's a bit tedious to have to compose these change requests for each individual infobox template. Eubulides ( talk) 20:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I've now converted the sandbox to use {{ infobox}}. Comparison between old and new is on the test cases page as before. Requesting sync as this is a low-impact change which helps considerably in future maintenance of the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
|Caption=
", but because it presented textual tabular data as an image instead of as natural form, which is a table. As per
WP:OUTBOX, often a better way to present info that isn't naturally supported by an infobox is to put a do-it-yourself infobox after the main infobox. I've just now
done this for
Nitrogen narcosis. One hacky example isn't a powerful argument against the change to this template, though of course if hacks like this are common that would be a different matter.
Eubulides (
talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Gas |
Relative narcotic potency |
---|---|
Ne | 0.3 |
H2 | 0.6 |
N2 | 1.0 |
O2 | 1.7 |
Ar | 2.3 |
Kr | 7.1 |
CO2 | 20.0 |
Xe | 25.6 |
Width=0
is a good choice.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk 08:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
.../MB_cgi?field=uid&term={{{MeshID|}MeshID}}}]}}
Trevor MacInnis,
[4] There's a small bug; the MeshID only displays the link, excluding the number; should be {{{MeshID|}}}{{!}}{{{MeshID}}}]
ChyranandChloe (
talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems there's some kind of problem with this template when the eMedicine tags are missing, as at Neurasthenia. Can someone have a look at the issue? Thanks! -- RobinHood70 ( talk) 00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} When I used Special:Preferences to set my default thumb size to 250px, and then visited Autism, I noticed that the infobox image did not change in size, which meant that the relative sizes of images in that article were out of whack: the lead image in the infobox (because it remained at 190px) incorrectly appeared to be less important than the other images (which had grown from 180px to 250px), even though the lead image is the best image in the article and should appear to be more important.
To fix this, I modified this template (in the sandbox) to default the size to "|frameless|upright=1.06|
" instead of to "|190px|
". This way, the image size is now 1.06 times the default thumb size, and therefore adjusts more gracefully to changes in the default thumb size. There is no change in behavior unless the user has selected a thumb size other than the 180px default. Also, there is no change in behavior if the invoker of the template uses |Width=
to specify a size. Could you please install
the sandbox patch? Thanks.
Eubulides (
talk) 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Based upon the feedback above, I will be reverting this template to the last working version if the new version isn't fixed in the next week or so. -- Arcadian ( talk) 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Fixed in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
An IP address added a GeneReviews external link to FG syndrome, and after looking at it I thought that it'd be nicer to put this kind of link into the disease infobox. I propose adding support for GeneReviews to {{ Infobox disease}}. To help implement this I've made a patch to the sandbox and have tested the result in the autism infobox in the test cases. Eubulides ( talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Done, I'll leave the change to the documentation field to yourself. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I work over at radiopaedia.org where we are trying to create a wiki of radiology for radiologists. Lots of articles and cases with a growing userbase. Articles are becoming increasingly mature ( meningioma article). I wonder if there would be consideration of adding a link to radiopaedia articles where they (on merit) are considered a good external resource. Clearly, with a vested interest, I wouldn't make such a change, but wondered what people's thoughts were. Drjermy ( talk) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the
definition of the disorder....???
and
What are the
criteria to diagnosis it...???
--
222.64.16.239 (
talk) 08:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Could someone add these two traits into the infobox please -- 222.64.16.239 ( talk) 08:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There is an effort in place to add content from DECIPHER (the DatabasE of Chromosomal Imbalance and Phenotype in Humans using Ensembl Resources) to Wikipedia. My understanding is that it is essentially a genetic encyclopaedia of rare deletion/duplication syndromes, mapped to the human genome by a large international consortium. The editor involved in transferring the content across has asked about the possibility of including a link to the DECIPHER page in this infobox. It seems a good idea to me, as it gives those interested in these syndromes a direct link to DNA level information on which genes are affected, which is missing on OMIN. See, for example, DECIPHER's entry for 1p36 deletion syndrome versus OMIN's. Thoughts or objections? Rockpocke t 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to have multiple links for each line? I know we can do this for emedicine and the ICD stuff but even the disease database could sometimes use two links. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This designation should be ICD9-CM, the version used in the US, since ICD9 is superseded by ICD10? Ward20 ( talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a tool WP:AWB that put this thing to the right side of the text rather than the left. We need a consistent format across all pages. Should we move it in these templates? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
name = Foo | image = Bar | alt = | caption = Foobar |
as
| name = Foo | image = Bar | alt = | caption = Foobar
and especially where blank template is provided for copy&paste when spaces added for the "=" to line up too:
| name = Foo | image = Bar | alt = | caption = Foobar
While NCBI still hosts OMIM files, the official OMIM database has shifted to a new site: [5]. Would it be possible to change the infobox linking to reflect this change? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 01:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The ICD links should declared as [[International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems|ICD]] to bypass the redirects. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Can the template include links to the PubMed Health pages under NCBI? A couple of example pages: Esophageal atresia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001957/ Pleurisy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002347/ Catsintheattic ( talk) 23:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
These prompts display as follows:
where only the rare final one affixes a colon. The colon problem can be diagnosed on the
colorectal cancer page.
And why do I feel dumb typing that?
Varlaam (
talk) 03:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I wonder if you could pick up my changes on the Template:Infobox_disease. I have never tried to edit an infobox template before, so please let me know if I went about this in the wrong way.
I work at NCBI on the bookshelf, and our site serves the GeneReviews. Yesterday, I noticed that this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperkalemic_periodic_paralysis, has a broken link to GeneReviews. I dug a little, and found that the template uses an old form of our URLs, and the "ID" that was used in those URLs is no longer easy to figure out. So the individual used the "NBK" number, which is the correct ID, but doesn't work in the old URL format.
Since there are no doubt quite a few pages that correctly use the old URL format with the old-style IDs, I couldn't change the semantic meaning of GeneReviewsID. So, I invented a new field, called GeneReviewsNBK, which should be the prefered field.
I edited the template sandbox, the documentation page, and the test cases, and I created some more test cases in my user area. Klortho ( talk) 02:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Cutis laxa has four GeneReviews entries in External links "FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa", "ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa", "EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa", "ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders". I think Spinocerebellar ataxia also has a list. Would a GeneReviews_Mult form giving NBK,title pairs each on a separate line in the info box be worthwhile? OMIM_mult may use a helper OMIM template. RDBrown ( talk) 03:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
{{#if: {{{GeneReviewsNBK|}}} | [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/{{{GeneReviewsNBK}}}/ {{#if: {{{GeneReviewsName|}}} | {{{GeneReviewsName}}} | {{{GeneReviewsNBK}}} }}] {{{GeneReviews_mult|}}} }}
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/{{{1}}}/ {{#if: {{{2|}}} |{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}}}]<noinclude> {{documentation}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here. --> </noinclude>
Since I don't yet know how to use a Sandbox to write/test templates, so you'll need to ask or find the documentation. Hope this helps. RDBrown ( talk) 13:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please pick up my changes that are in [[Template::Infobox disease/sandbox]]? They were discussed in the section immediately prior to this one. I added the GeneReviews_mult field, to allow linking to multiple GeneReviews articles.
I made these changes:
I also created these two templates that are used by this:
Update: I also added the Mesh_mult field, per the request above. It is tested here (note the multiple entries for MeSH). It uses this new template:
Klortho ( talk) 01:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
plainlist
class instead of <br>
tags? You can do this using {{
plainlist}} or by adding the class in a div tag (see the plainlist template source code). Plainlist is more standards compliant, and most people on Wikipedia seem to prefer using it these days - we may as well code it in here from the start, rather than having to port the code over later. If you have any questions about implementing it, just let me know. —
Mr. Stradivarius (
have a chat) 12:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
GeneReviews_mult = {{plainlist| *{{NCBIBook2|NBK5200|ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK54467|EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK1413|ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders}} }}
which is slightly more verbose, but avoids the NCBIBook3 template and generalizes to provide multiline lists in other parameters if needed. Sounds good. RDBrown ( talk) 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
GeneReviewsNBK = NBK5201 | GeneReviewsName = FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa | GeneReviews_mult = {{plainlist| *{{NCBIBook3|NBK5200|ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook3|NBK54467|EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook3|NBK1413|ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders}} }}
GeneReviews_mult = {{plainlist| *{{NCBIBook2|NBK5201|FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK5200|ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK54467|EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK1413|ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders}} }}
GeneReviews = {{NCBIBook2|NBK5201|FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa}}
Hi, Mr. Stradivarius! I see that you restored the old version of the doc page, instead of pulling this edit request. Is there anything I can do to document this edit request more, so that it's clear what I did, to help you evaluate it? Was it okay to "deprecate" a commonly used field name, MeshID, in favor of a new one of my own invention, viz., MeSH? I think it's an improvement but others might not agree. Looking forward to your feedback! Klortho ( talk) 14:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
|MeSH2=
, |MeSH3=
etc. for MeSH and |GeneReviewsNBK2=
, |GeneReviewsName2=
, |GeneReviewsNBK3=
, |GeneReviewsName3=
etc. for GeneReviews. This way editors don't have to include external templates - it's all done in the infobox itself, which will make things flexible should anyone want to change them later on. Have a look at my
changes to the sandbox and my
changes to the testcases page and see what you think. If you think it would be better done another way, we can always work on that too. :) Best —
Mr. Stradivarius (
have a chat) 11:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
| MeSH = {{plainlist| * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} }}
| MeSH = * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} * {{MeSH2|xxxx}}
| MeSH = {{ubl | {{MeSH2|xxxx}} | {{MeSH2|xxxx}} | {{MeSH2|xxxx}} }}
{{CURRENTYEAR}}
, so I'll add that to the templates too. —
Mr. Stradivarius (
have a chat) 16:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
{{#if: {{{MeSH2|}}} | {{#if: {{{MeshID|}}}{{{MeSH|}}}{{{MeSH1|}}} | , {{mesh2 | {{{MeSH2|}}} | year = {{{MeshYear2|}}} }} | {{mesh2 | {{{MeSH2|}}} | year = {{{MeshYear2|}}} }} }} }}
{{#if: {{{MeSH2|}}} | {{#if: {{{MeshID|}}}{{{MeSH|}}}{{{MeSH1|}}} | , }} {{mesh2 | {{{MeSH2|}}} | year = {{{MeshYear2|}}} }} }}
Okay, these should be all done (again) now! Here are some notes on what I did with GeneReviews:
So these turned out to be simpler even than the MeSH part, which has to add the "," delimiters into the list.
I updated the Template:Infobox_disease/testcases, and if you agree with everything, please pick up these changes:
Thanks for all your help, I learned a lot from following your work! Klortho ( talk) 06:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
[[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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't we make it so the template can incorporate data from wikidata if available? Remember ( talk) 12:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Infobox medical condition (old)/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)
Hi all, I am Dr. Noa Rappaport, scientific leader of the MalaCards database of human diseases. Following a suggestion by Andrew Su ( /info/en/?search=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: /info/en/?search=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
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)
OK, is it worth adding a DSM IV TR field to the template? If so, how do I do it? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be slow responding. Still learning to use "watchlist" functionality.
Your point #1 is obviously correct. Allow me to restate:
Now, can someone please show me how to modify the template, or just do it and post a notice here so I can then USE it. It would be much appreciated, and it would help the readers of our articles on various mental illness diagnoses.
Tom Cloyd ( talk) 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
FIRST, it isn't only about codes. Even if they were perfect match, most USA people who come to these articles, I would readily bet, are NOT professionals, and do NOT know about ICD, in a mental health context - not in the USA, because it's not what we use. So, offering them ICD references is meaningless and useless. It makes no sense.
SECOND, while I believe most of the codes are identical or similar - where the diagnostic categories are, the list of categories, their names, and their descriptions, are meaningfully different. USA folks - my clients - do not WANT ICD. It's not relevant.
It simple: the ICD does not serve these people, in articles on mental illness diagnostic categories. For all others, I would assume it does. WHY NOT SERVE BOTH?
This not a large change, if it involves an option which has to be turned on to be used, and is only available for new uses or for those who take the trouble to update the template in given articles. All others would simply be unaffected.
What substantive objection can there be to this improvement? Tom Cloyd ( talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Late comment WHO have permitted Wikipedia to include ICD codes etc (see release here). Because we'd (ideally) end up with all conditions described in the DSM annotated with codes from the DSM, I think the APA would have to afford wiki a similar release; as I'm not sure that fair use would apply. Little pob ( talk) 17:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have created some basic code in the sandbox to pull additional values in from Wikidata. It currently does the job as expected, but there may be a bug, or possibly a feature depending on how you look at it. Using ICD-10 for example, here is the functionality:
|ICD10=
exists on the article's page when calling the template, then the value specified on the article's page will be used.|ICD10=
on the article's page, but there is an ICD10 value stored in Wikidata, then the Wikidata value will be used.|ICD10=
exists on the article's page, but it has no value (is blank), then nothing will show up - even if there is an ICD10 value stored in Wikidata.While setting a parameter to blank/nothing is a good way to suppress the Wikidata information (a feature), I am concerned that this might actually be more limiting. There are likely many articles that have blank values for many parameters because a default blank example was used to start the infobox, which was never populated with any values. However, the Wikidata may actually contain the data, which would be suppressed using the current code. What should the desired behavior be? Completely ignoring parameters with blank values should be possible, but requires much more extensive coding. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
|ICD10=
to "empty" (and have nothing displayed) rather than if the wikitext says |ICD10=
with nothing after it, then nothing gets displayed. |ICD10=
is often empty because someone copied the template's entire list of parameters over, not because someone meant for it to be blank.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 01:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)I came across this infobox on the Pregnancy article. It is completely unencyclopedic. It just has a bunch of codes and links. Can't we add some explanation to this box? Bhny ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an improvement, but it is still doesn't explain that these are medical classifications. I think of pregnancy as biological not medical; as human reproduction, not a disease(?!). I realize some of my issues are with the template and some with the way it is displayed in the article, but both need work. Bhny ( talk) 00:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Bhny, help me out here. Here's a list of what you've said about {{ Infobox disease}} at Pregnancy:
I'm not getting very far with this. You say that it "would make sense that an unlabeled box was about a disease", even though (a) the word disease is nowhere visible to the reader and (b) the article is not about a disease.
When I see a box (any box at all) specifically in the article Pregnancy, it seems to me that it would make sense if it contained information about pregnancy. Doesn't that seem reasonable to you, too? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
These parameters were recently added:
A total of two people weighted in on the discussion back in 2013 [10] This is insufficient discussion for the main template of WP:MED annd one that appears to have occured without notifying the project. I have reverted the addition to allow a proper discussion to occur.
Was previously discussed here [11] without much discussion either way. I remember greater discussion before but unable to find it.
My concern is that these cannot be dealt with in a infobox. The causes of HIV/AIDS are complicated. Yes the cause is the virus but there are also the causes of vertical transmission, unprotected sexual intercourse, the reuse of needles in the developing world, IVDU generally, etc etc. Treatment likewise for most conditions cannot be summarized as a simple list. Neither can the areas of the body affected nor prevention. We are writing an encyclopedia in prose. This appears to be an attempt to get around that and to provide a great deal of prominence by putting it in the leads of our articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus to merge {{Infobox medical condition}}
into this template, which I carried out yesterday, was reached in
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 22#Template:Infobox medical condition (which was closed by
User:Plastikspork). I have therefore redone it, having been reverted with an edit summary of "Need consensus first" (also becasue that revert broke articles using or formerly using the merged template). This does not preclude further discussion or improvements, such as changing the label from "cause" to "agent of cause" or suchlike.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
|death_date=
for BLPs. There are sufficient conditions which are purely and predictably inherited, not to mention other conditions (such as AIDS) whose causes are unambiguously known, that the parameter to express that is clearly justified.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)As a lay person, can I point out that the current template is quite useless? Beyond giving a lead image, it's not an infobox - it's an external links box. Looking at it doesn't give me any information about the desease, it just gives me a bunch of numbers that I can click on to find out information outside of Wikipedia. If it continues to exist in its current form, then it should really be moved to the external links section. I think it would make a lot of sense to add new parameters to it, perhaps more along the lines of "main causes" (which could be, say, up to the top 5 causes in complex cases), "Affected regions" (where only part of a body is affected by them), "Principal treatments" (where there are a few main ways of treating it), "carrier" (virus/bacteria name), discovery year/location, last known case/location (for rare diseases), number of people affected, main regions affected, and so on? That would then give the main information about a disease in a very concise way, without running into problems of oversimplification, which is what an infobox is meant to do. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|etymology=
, so, for example, for
Raynaud's phenomenon we could include a link to
Maurice Raynaud, as we in infoboxes for other subjects.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No, just no. This is an extreme example of unhelpful to even misleading proliferation of infobox parameters. And there is no consensus at the year-and-a-half old Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 22#Template:Infobox medical condition, and no reason to enact changes now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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 |
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)
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)
ICD-10 | J30.0 |
---|
Is it possible to insert more than one MedlinePlus links in the infobox? As implied in the talk page, I tried "MedlinePlus_mult = {{ MedlinePlus2}} |" but there is no Template and I do not know enough to create one. Finavon 18:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
Looks good, when will it be implemented? -- Bob 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The Merck Manual should be included in this template. [2] Thoughts? I don't understand how it can not be included (yet). -- Chussid 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
|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.|OMIM
would continue to call {{
OMIM2}}. In alt. version proposed above, first occurrence would use this, subsequent ones would call {{
OMIM4}}.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)
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)
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)
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)
iw tr is wrong and it should be replaced with this: tr:şablon:Hastalık Thanks for help.-- Plenumchamber 10:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
(transfer from Template talk:Infobox Disease/doc to here where others might see David Ruben Talk 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
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)
| Organs affected= | Age group = | Symptoms = | Causes = | Risk factors = | Diagnostic Measures= | Treatment = | Fatal = | Curable =
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)
{| 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)
Please add a interwiki link as follows: [[sv:Mall:Infobox sjukdom]] Best regards Ulner ( talk) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox clinical phobias. David Ruben Talk 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Why do you to add it to the infobox? -- WS ( talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I support placing clinical information within this template, contrary to what has been done before. This information can include:
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)
{{
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)
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)
*'''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.
Throwing this out there.. how about
Template:Infobox Medical diagnosis? --
Ned Scott 03:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Two of the editors opposing this are now on Wikibreak. I doubt anyone will close this early, but just in case anyone is thinking of doing so, please wait until they are active again. I honestly want to understand the objections here, and see if there is a way to find a solution that is satisfactory to them. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The eMedicine website has been restructured. The old use of the eMedicineSubj & eMedicineTopic parameters still works as the eMedicine website internally redirects to the new URLs
Hence in the past for the url http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic43.htm# we would set eMedicineSubj as 'emerg' and eMedicineTopic as '43'.
However anyone now searching for a suitable eMedicine article is going to be confronted with a rather different eMedicine url to use: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/806890-overview and so now set the eMedicineSubj parameter always to the fixed literal text of 'article' and eMedicineTopic gets set to the article page number of '806890'.
I was tempted to consider providing a new single parameter name of perhaps eMedicine but I think not as:
If people really, really feel that it would be better to code the infobox for new eMedicine structure by use of just a single eMedicine parameter, despite my objection points above, please let me know quickly before we need undo too many instances of others using the curent modified template. David Ruben Talk 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
Cleanup-ICHD}}
This banner has been added to the top of the page for Cluster headache, but there is no way to add an ICHD-2 Classification to the Disease Infobox. Could this be added? I have searched long and hard to find out how to add this and have seen no other way than through official modification from higher power above. Thanks.
Link to the official classification from IHS for ICHD-2: http://ihs-classification.org/en/02_klassifikation/02_teil1/03.01.00_cluster.html
--- Johngallias ( talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
please add interlink to italian wikipedia: [[it:Template:Infobox Malattia]] -- Luckyz Tell Me 10:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new sandbox for this template which contains some tweaks to the styling of this template to bring it into line with the defaults of other infoboxes. A comparison of old versus new can be found at the test cases page. Comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Requesting sync, then, as this helps on the road to further consistency / maintainability fixes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we add NHS Direct Online? Someone has been spamming it, but I think it should be in the infobox. Problem is their links aren't uniform... I've made some test edits but the problem was with two words, the link malfunctioned. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that the previous change has been rolled out, I've made a few more tweaks to the layout to bring it into line with other infobox templates (and to make it look more like {{ infobox Symptom}}. Comparison is on the test cases page again. After that it's just a cases of moving over to use {{ infobox}} directly, which will be straightforward. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Requesting sync with the sandbox again as there has is consensus for this change.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk 08:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
As per
WP:ALT I just now added
alt attributes to all but one of the images in
Autism, but since {{
Infobox Disease}} doesn't support this I couldn't do it for the lead image. I earlier ran into a similar problem with
Philitas of Cos and {{
Infobox Writer}} and made the obvious change to that template, which works; please see
Template talk:Infobox Writer #Alt attribute can now be correctly supported. To do the same thing here, please make the following change to {{
Infobox Disease}}:
! colspan=2 style="text-align: center" {{!}} [[File:{{{Image}}}|{{{Width|190}}}px|alt={{{Alt|}}}]]
I made the change to the sandbox and tested it there, using a new test case that I just added to Template:Infobox Disease/testcases. You can just install the current sandbox to the template. Thanks.
By the way, is there some procedure for saying "add alt attribute support to all infobox templates"? Perhaps I should post a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes? It's a bit tedious to have to compose these change requests for each individual infobox template. Eubulides ( talk) 20:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I've now converted the sandbox to use {{ infobox}}. Comparison between old and new is on the test cases page as before. Requesting sync as this is a low-impact change which helps considerably in future maintenance of the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
|Caption=
", but because it presented textual tabular data as an image instead of as natural form, which is a table. As per
WP:OUTBOX, often a better way to present info that isn't naturally supported by an infobox is to put a do-it-yourself infobox after the main infobox. I've just now
done this for
Nitrogen narcosis. One hacky example isn't a powerful argument against the change to this template, though of course if hacks like this are common that would be a different matter.
Eubulides (
talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Gas |
Relative narcotic potency |
---|---|
Ne | 0.3 |
H2 | 0.6 |
N2 | 1.0 |
O2 | 1.7 |
Ar | 2.3 |
Kr | 7.1 |
CO2 | 20.0 |
Xe | 25.6 |
Width=0
is a good choice.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk 08:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
.../MB_cgi?field=uid&term={{{MeshID|}MeshID}}}]}}
Trevor MacInnis,
[4] There's a small bug; the MeshID only displays the link, excluding the number; should be {{{MeshID|}}}{{!}}{{{MeshID}}}]
ChyranandChloe (
talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems there's some kind of problem with this template when the eMedicine tags are missing, as at Neurasthenia. Can someone have a look at the issue? Thanks! -- RobinHood70 ( talk) 00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} When I used Special:Preferences to set my default thumb size to 250px, and then visited Autism, I noticed that the infobox image did not change in size, which meant that the relative sizes of images in that article were out of whack: the lead image in the infobox (because it remained at 190px) incorrectly appeared to be less important than the other images (which had grown from 180px to 250px), even though the lead image is the best image in the article and should appear to be more important.
To fix this, I modified this template (in the sandbox) to default the size to "|frameless|upright=1.06|
" instead of to "|190px|
". This way, the image size is now 1.06 times the default thumb size, and therefore adjusts more gracefully to changes in the default thumb size. There is no change in behavior unless the user has selected a thumb size other than the 180px default. Also, there is no change in behavior if the invoker of the template uses |Width=
to specify a size. Could you please install
the sandbox patch? Thanks.
Eubulides (
talk) 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Based upon the feedback above, I will be reverting this template to the last working version if the new version isn't fixed in the next week or so. -- Arcadian ( talk) 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Fixed in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
An IP address added a GeneReviews external link to FG syndrome, and after looking at it I thought that it'd be nicer to put this kind of link into the disease infobox. I propose adding support for GeneReviews to {{ Infobox disease}}. To help implement this I've made a patch to the sandbox and have tested the result in the autism infobox in the test cases. Eubulides ( talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Done, I'll leave the change to the documentation field to yourself. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I work over at radiopaedia.org where we are trying to create a wiki of radiology for radiologists. Lots of articles and cases with a growing userbase. Articles are becoming increasingly mature ( meningioma article). I wonder if there would be consideration of adding a link to radiopaedia articles where they (on merit) are considered a good external resource. Clearly, with a vested interest, I wouldn't make such a change, but wondered what people's thoughts were. Drjermy ( talk) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the
definition of the disorder....???
and
What are the
criteria to diagnosis it...???
--
222.64.16.239 (
talk) 08:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Could someone add these two traits into the infobox please -- 222.64.16.239 ( talk) 08:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There is an effort in place to add content from DECIPHER (the DatabasE of Chromosomal Imbalance and Phenotype in Humans using Ensembl Resources) to Wikipedia. My understanding is that it is essentially a genetic encyclopaedia of rare deletion/duplication syndromes, mapped to the human genome by a large international consortium. The editor involved in transferring the content across has asked about the possibility of including a link to the DECIPHER page in this infobox. It seems a good idea to me, as it gives those interested in these syndromes a direct link to DNA level information on which genes are affected, which is missing on OMIN. See, for example, DECIPHER's entry for 1p36 deletion syndrome versus OMIN's. Thoughts or objections? Rockpocke t 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to have multiple links for each line? I know we can do this for emedicine and the ICD stuff but even the disease database could sometimes use two links. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This designation should be ICD9-CM, the version used in the US, since ICD9 is superseded by ICD10? Ward20 ( talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a tool WP:AWB that put this thing to the right side of the text rather than the left. We need a consistent format across all pages. Should we move it in these templates? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
name = Foo | image = Bar | alt = | caption = Foobar |
as
| name = Foo | image = Bar | alt = | caption = Foobar
and especially where blank template is provided for copy&paste when spaces added for the "=" to line up too:
| name = Foo | image = Bar | alt = | caption = Foobar
While NCBI still hosts OMIM files, the official OMIM database has shifted to a new site: [5]. Would it be possible to change the infobox linking to reflect this change? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 01:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The ICD links should declared as [[International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems|ICD]] to bypass the redirects. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Can the template include links to the PubMed Health pages under NCBI? A couple of example pages: Esophageal atresia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001957/ Pleurisy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002347/ Catsintheattic ( talk) 23:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
These prompts display as follows:
where only the rare final one affixes a colon. The colon problem can be diagnosed on the
colorectal cancer page.
And why do I feel dumb typing that?
Varlaam (
talk) 03:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I wonder if you could pick up my changes on the Template:Infobox_disease. I have never tried to edit an infobox template before, so please let me know if I went about this in the wrong way.
I work at NCBI on the bookshelf, and our site serves the GeneReviews. Yesterday, I noticed that this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperkalemic_periodic_paralysis, has a broken link to GeneReviews. I dug a little, and found that the template uses an old form of our URLs, and the "ID" that was used in those URLs is no longer easy to figure out. So the individual used the "NBK" number, which is the correct ID, but doesn't work in the old URL format.
Since there are no doubt quite a few pages that correctly use the old URL format with the old-style IDs, I couldn't change the semantic meaning of GeneReviewsID. So, I invented a new field, called GeneReviewsNBK, which should be the prefered field.
I edited the template sandbox, the documentation page, and the test cases, and I created some more test cases in my user area. Klortho ( talk) 02:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Cutis laxa has four GeneReviews entries in External links "FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa", "ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa", "EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa", "ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders". I think Spinocerebellar ataxia also has a list. Would a GeneReviews_Mult form giving NBK,title pairs each on a separate line in the info box be worthwhile? OMIM_mult may use a helper OMIM template. RDBrown ( talk) 03:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
{{#if: {{{GeneReviewsNBK|}}} | [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/{{{GeneReviewsNBK}}}/ {{#if: {{{GeneReviewsName|}}} | {{{GeneReviewsName}}} | {{{GeneReviewsNBK}}} }}] {{{GeneReviews_mult|}}} }}
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/{{{1}}}/ {{#if: {{{2|}}} |{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}}}]<noinclude> {{documentation}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here. --> </noinclude>
Since I don't yet know how to use a Sandbox to write/test templates, so you'll need to ask or find the documentation. Hope this helps. RDBrown ( talk) 13:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please pick up my changes that are in [[Template::Infobox disease/sandbox]]? They were discussed in the section immediately prior to this one. I added the GeneReviews_mult field, to allow linking to multiple GeneReviews articles.
I made these changes:
I also created these two templates that are used by this:
Update: I also added the Mesh_mult field, per the request above. It is tested here (note the multiple entries for MeSH). It uses this new template:
Klortho ( talk) 01:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
plainlist
class instead of <br>
tags? You can do this using {{
plainlist}} or by adding the class in a div tag (see the plainlist template source code). Plainlist is more standards compliant, and most people on Wikipedia seem to prefer using it these days - we may as well code it in here from the start, rather than having to port the code over later. If you have any questions about implementing it, just let me know. —
Mr. Stradivarius (
have a chat) 12:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
GeneReviews_mult = {{plainlist| *{{NCBIBook2|NBK5200|ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK54467|EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK1413|ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders}} }}
which is slightly more verbose, but avoids the NCBIBook3 template and generalizes to provide multiline lists in other parameters if needed. Sounds good. RDBrown ( talk) 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
GeneReviewsNBK = NBK5201 | GeneReviewsName = FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa | GeneReviews_mult = {{plainlist| *{{NCBIBook3|NBK5200|ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook3|NBK54467|EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook3|NBK1413|ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders}} }}
GeneReviews_mult = {{plainlist| *{{NCBIBook2|NBK5201|FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK5200|ATP6V0A2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK54467|EFEMP2-Related Cutis Laxa}} *{{NCBIBook2|NBK1413|ATP7A-Related Copper Transport Disorders}} }}
GeneReviews = {{NCBIBook2|NBK5201|FBLN5-Related Cutis Laxa}}
Hi, Mr. Stradivarius! I see that you restored the old version of the doc page, instead of pulling this edit request. Is there anything I can do to document this edit request more, so that it's clear what I did, to help you evaluate it? Was it okay to "deprecate" a commonly used field name, MeshID, in favor of a new one of my own invention, viz., MeSH? I think it's an improvement but others might not agree. Looking forward to your feedback! Klortho ( talk) 14:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
|MeSH2=
, |MeSH3=
etc. for MeSH and |GeneReviewsNBK2=
, |GeneReviewsName2=
, |GeneReviewsNBK3=
, |GeneReviewsName3=
etc. for GeneReviews. This way editors don't have to include external templates - it's all done in the infobox itself, which will make things flexible should anyone want to change them later on. Have a look at my
changes to the sandbox and my
changes to the testcases page and see what you think. If you think it would be better done another way, we can always work on that too. :) Best —
Mr. Stradivarius (
have a chat) 11:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
| MeSH = {{plainlist| * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} }}
| MeSH = * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} * {{MeSH2|xxxx}} * {{MeSH2|xxxx}}
| MeSH = {{ubl | {{MeSH2|xxxx}} | {{MeSH2|xxxx}} | {{MeSH2|xxxx}} }}
{{CURRENTYEAR}}
, so I'll add that to the templates too. —
Mr. Stradivarius (
have a chat) 16:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
{{#if: {{{MeSH2|}}} | {{#if: {{{MeshID|}}}{{{MeSH|}}}{{{MeSH1|}}} | , {{mesh2 | {{{MeSH2|}}} | year = {{{MeshYear2|}}} }} | {{mesh2 | {{{MeSH2|}}} | year = {{{MeshYear2|}}} }} }} }}
{{#if: {{{MeSH2|}}} | {{#if: {{{MeshID|}}}{{{MeSH|}}}{{{MeSH1|}}} | , }} {{mesh2 | {{{MeSH2|}}} | year = {{{MeshYear2|}}} }} }}
Okay, these should be all done (again) now! Here are some notes on what I did with GeneReviews:
So these turned out to be simpler even than the MeSH part, which has to add the "," delimiters into the list.
I updated the Template:Infobox_disease/testcases, and if you agree with everything, please pick up these changes:
Thanks for all your help, I learned a lot from following your work! Klortho ( talk) 06:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
[[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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't we make it so the template can incorporate data from wikidata if available? Remember ( talk) 12:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Infobox medical condition (old)/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)
Hi all, I am Dr. Noa Rappaport, scientific leader of the MalaCards database of human diseases. Following a suggestion by Andrew Su ( /info/en/?search=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: /info/en/?search=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
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)
OK, is it worth adding a DSM IV TR field to the template? If so, how do I do it? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be slow responding. Still learning to use "watchlist" functionality.
Your point #1 is obviously correct. Allow me to restate:
Now, can someone please show me how to modify the template, or just do it and post a notice here so I can then USE it. It would be much appreciated, and it would help the readers of our articles on various mental illness diagnoses.
Tom Cloyd ( talk) 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
FIRST, it isn't only about codes. Even if they were perfect match, most USA people who come to these articles, I would readily bet, are NOT professionals, and do NOT know about ICD, in a mental health context - not in the USA, because it's not what we use. So, offering them ICD references is meaningless and useless. It makes no sense.
SECOND, while I believe most of the codes are identical or similar - where the diagnostic categories are, the list of categories, their names, and their descriptions, are meaningfully different. USA folks - my clients - do not WANT ICD. It's not relevant.
It simple: the ICD does not serve these people, in articles on mental illness diagnostic categories. For all others, I would assume it does. WHY NOT SERVE BOTH?
This not a large change, if it involves an option which has to be turned on to be used, and is only available for new uses or for those who take the trouble to update the template in given articles. All others would simply be unaffected.
What substantive objection can there be to this improvement? Tom Cloyd ( talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Late comment WHO have permitted Wikipedia to include ICD codes etc (see release here). Because we'd (ideally) end up with all conditions described in the DSM annotated with codes from the DSM, I think the APA would have to afford wiki a similar release; as I'm not sure that fair use would apply. Little pob ( talk) 17:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have created some basic code in the sandbox to pull additional values in from Wikidata. It currently does the job as expected, but there may be a bug, or possibly a feature depending on how you look at it. Using ICD-10 for example, here is the functionality:
|ICD10=
exists on the article's page when calling the template, then the value specified on the article's page will be used.|ICD10=
on the article's page, but there is an ICD10 value stored in Wikidata, then the Wikidata value will be used.|ICD10=
exists on the article's page, but it has no value (is blank), then nothing will show up - even if there is an ICD10 value stored in Wikidata.While setting a parameter to blank/nothing is a good way to suppress the Wikidata information (a feature), I am concerned that this might actually be more limiting. There are likely many articles that have blank values for many parameters because a default blank example was used to start the infobox, which was never populated with any values. However, the Wikidata may actually contain the data, which would be suppressed using the current code. What should the desired behavior be? Completely ignoring parameters with blank values should be possible, but requires much more extensive coding. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
|ICD10=
to "empty" (and have nothing displayed) rather than if the wikitext says |ICD10=
with nothing after it, then nothing gets displayed. |ICD10=
is often empty because someone copied the template's entire list of parameters over, not because someone meant for it to be blank.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 01:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)I came across this infobox on the Pregnancy article. It is completely unencyclopedic. It just has a bunch of codes and links. Can't we add some explanation to this box? Bhny ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an improvement, but it is still doesn't explain that these are medical classifications. I think of pregnancy as biological not medical; as human reproduction, not a disease(?!). I realize some of my issues are with the template and some with the way it is displayed in the article, but both need work. Bhny ( talk) 00:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Bhny, help me out here. Here's a list of what you've said about {{ Infobox disease}} at Pregnancy:
I'm not getting very far with this. You say that it "would make sense that an unlabeled box was about a disease", even though (a) the word disease is nowhere visible to the reader and (b) the article is not about a disease.
When I see a box (any box at all) specifically in the article Pregnancy, it seems to me that it would make sense if it contained information about pregnancy. Doesn't that seem reasonable to you, too? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
These parameters were recently added:
A total of two people weighted in on the discussion back in 2013 [10] This is insufficient discussion for the main template of WP:MED annd one that appears to have occured without notifying the project. I have reverted the addition to allow a proper discussion to occur.
Was previously discussed here [11] without much discussion either way. I remember greater discussion before but unable to find it.
My concern is that these cannot be dealt with in a infobox. The causes of HIV/AIDS are complicated. Yes the cause is the virus but there are also the causes of vertical transmission, unprotected sexual intercourse, the reuse of needles in the developing world, IVDU generally, etc etc. Treatment likewise for most conditions cannot be summarized as a simple list. Neither can the areas of the body affected nor prevention. We are writing an encyclopedia in prose. This appears to be an attempt to get around that and to provide a great deal of prominence by putting it in the leads of our articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus to merge {{Infobox medical condition}}
into this template, which I carried out yesterday, was reached in
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 22#Template:Infobox medical condition (which was closed by
User:Plastikspork). I have therefore redone it, having been reverted with an edit summary of "Need consensus first" (also becasue that revert broke articles using or formerly using the merged template). This does not preclude further discussion or improvements, such as changing the label from "cause" to "agent of cause" or suchlike.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
|death_date=
for BLPs. There are sufficient conditions which are purely and predictably inherited, not to mention other conditions (such as AIDS) whose causes are unambiguously known, that the parameter to express that is clearly justified.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)As a lay person, can I point out that the current template is quite useless? Beyond giving a lead image, it's not an infobox - it's an external links box. Looking at it doesn't give me any information about the desease, it just gives me a bunch of numbers that I can click on to find out information outside of Wikipedia. If it continues to exist in its current form, then it should really be moved to the external links section. I think it would make a lot of sense to add new parameters to it, perhaps more along the lines of "main causes" (which could be, say, up to the top 5 causes in complex cases), "Affected regions" (where only part of a body is affected by them), "Principal treatments" (where there are a few main ways of treating it), "carrier" (virus/bacteria name), discovery year/location, last known case/location (for rare diseases), number of people affected, main regions affected, and so on? That would then give the main information about a disease in a very concise way, without running into problems of oversimplification, which is what an infobox is meant to do. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|etymology=
, so, for example, for
Raynaud's phenomenon we could include a link to
Maurice Raynaud, as we in infoboxes for other subjects.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No, just no. This is an extreme example of unhelpful to even misleading proliferation of infobox parameters. And there is no consensus at the year-and-a-half old Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 22#Template:Infobox medical condition, and no reason to enact changes now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)