This page 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. |
Template:Infobox medical condition has been nominated for merging with Template:Authority control. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Alakzi ( talk) 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hypertension | |
---|---|
Automated arm blood pressure meter showing arterial hypertension (shown a systolic blood pressure 158 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure 99 mmHg and heart rate of 80 beats per minute) |
The primary infobox for medical conditions has historically been Template:Infobox disease. There was recently a bit of confusion about why this infobox had been applied to medical conditions, like pregnancy, when pregnancy is not a disease. Obviously the answer is that when something works on Wikipedia then it gets reused beyond the purpose for which it was designed. So for the part of the problem where Infobox disease seems to have a use which does not match its name, I proposed a rename, but that is a small thing and I tell this only as background to a bigger issue.
Infobox disease has historically been used to present mostly authority control identifiers. See the hypertension infobox disease that I am sharing here for an example. Some people have questioned that the primary infobox for medical conditions should contain a set of sorting numbers and external links, when elsewhere on Wikipedia it is more expected that the infobox be readable by humans and to exist for the purpose of summarizing the data essential for understanding a thing.
I assert that the current infobox disease is not serving the purpose of a traditional infobox. Because of this, it is not serving Wikipedia readers in the way that they expect to be served. Beyond this, it is my opinion that few readers are interested in the kind of data currently presented here, and that these boxes would be better placed with less prominence in the articles. The most natural place for this kind of information is, in my opinion, the external links section of an article.
If infobox disease were redesigned to meet what I believe are reader expectations, then I think it should be modeled after other Wikipedia infoboxes, like perhaps the well-developed ones of WikiProject Military History, the sports Wikiprojects, or company infoboxes. None of those projects make boxes analogous to medical conditions, but at least none of those are mostly library cataloging numbers and external links.
As a model for new medical condition infoboxes to replace the cataloguing info boxes currently being used, I think Wikipedians should look at what Google has just introduced in their Knowledge Graph. On 10 February 2015 Google announced on their blog that Knowledge Graph would now cover health conditions. Google gets their information from various sources and Wikipedia might do well to consider this service as a competitor for audience. I expect that the way that they are covering medical issues is backed by extensive market research and the opinions of smart people, and my opinion is that they modeled what they are doing off the precedent established by most Wikipedia infoboxes other than the ones currently used for diseases and medical conditions. I think that it would be prudent to consider following Google's lead. In the long term I would like to see the medical condition infobox most prominently featured in the article to be populated with items from Wikidata, so that translation of terms can happen in Wikidata and then all Wikipedia articles in all languages can have the same basic infobox propagated out to give coverage of health conditions in all languages on all Wikipedias. I am not certain what information should be in this box, but probably authority controls are not best.
In the past, others have asked questions about this infobox which I feel are related.
One proposal for responding to the people who want reform could be as follows:
Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
We could split out the disease identifiers and put them in a box in the diagnosis section. However we do not really have anything to replace it with. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW the medication infobox contains even more identifiers. And the elements infoboxes contain a lot as well. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Speciality | Cardiology |
---|---|
Signs and symptoms | Often no symptoms |
Duration | Chronic |
Diagnosis method | Blood pressure measurements usually over several visits |
Lifestyle treatment | Exercise, dietary changes, quitting smoking, weight lose |
Drug treatment | Thiazide diuretics, beta blockers, ACE Inhibitor/ ARBs, calcium channel blockers, alpha blockers |
Disease frequency | Very common (> 10%) |
Other questions:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes so that is the question. Should we have a lead that is a summary of the article and than an infobox that is an ultra short summary of the lead? I am not sure. But yes that is what is being proposed here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to do this new formatting of the infobox I propose we do it via wikidata. In other words the parameters we decide on are added there and than auto linked into the box. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Infobox disease/Wikidata}}
into any section of any medical article and previewing it (please don't save!). It allows any parameter to be overwritten by a local value. I'd need to write extra Lua calls to deal with the multiple values in ICD-9 and ICD-10 and the way that the current eMedicine parameters don't match the values stored in Wikidata, but taking Hypertension as an example:{{Infobox disease/Wikidata | ICD9 = {{ICD9|401}} }}
|decription=
, |description_ref=
that allows a bot to grab the reference bare handed). What would go wrong if we add say five parameters to the box (descriptive ones, as is discussed here)? -
DePiep (
talk)
17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have presented some issues with a few of the possible parameters below. Yes google is doing this but they have a single box for symptoms and one for treatments that one navigates between by clicking separate tabs. Per accessibility we do not do this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If we go this route what exactly will we put in the box for this? The incidence (number of cases per year), the point prevalence (the percentage of people affected any given point in time), the lifetime prevalence (the percentage of people affected at some time in their life)? Are we going to go with only global numbers? Are will we also going to go with numbers from a specific country? Often only one or none of these exist. Some of the best data in the English world is in the United States but I think it reflect poorly on us as a global encyclopedia to give that data this prominence. Google Knowledge boxes of course just went with US data. They might regionalize eventually based on peoples IPs and they have the ability to do so. This is going to be the first problem with summarizing this sort of information in a couple of words. Next what do we do with conflicting estimates? Wikidata can handle all these particulars. I guess we could organize them there as a hierarchy. Take A first if it exists, if not take B, if neither exist take C, etc. But we would need an army of people willing to do data entry based on high quality sources. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Is hep C acute or chronic? While it is both. And it is now mostly curable if you are rich enough. With HIV, there is an acute infectious phase followed by a chronic phase. What about cancers? Some are acute and curable sometimes and other times not. Even strep throat can be followed by chronic problems. Lyme disease of course is famous for this. We have some that are easy like the common cold but that is the minority. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
How will we include the signs and symptoms of SLE or syphilis? What about those of cancer? These are hard enough to cover in a paragraph let alone with a few words. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this one would be doable. For those condition that are contagious one fills in a parameter for contagious with how it is so. So for HIV/AIDs = Mainly sexual contact. Hep C = Mainly IV drug use
Google however gets Hep C wrong here [5] Hep C is almost never spread by sexual contact Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata has a "short description" system that adds information similar to what we put on a disambiguation page. We could suck those descriptions down to our infobox, which would have two benefits: we'd get "information" in the "info"box, rather than just numbers, and we'd find it easier to keep an eye on the Wikidata descriptions. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/Concat|getDescription|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}
into a short section of any en-wp article and preview it (please don't save!), it will fetch the Wikidata description in the local language - i.e. English. So for example
Tuberculosis gives:
{{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/Concat|getDescription|FETCH_WIKIDATA|de}}
into
Tuberculosis and previewing gives:
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox medical condition has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In light of the recent rebranding/domain change of Patient UK, could this template be updated in order to reflect said changes, please? Patient UK has rebranded to Patient, and the domain has changed from http://www.patient.co.uk/ to http://patient.info/
Regards, The Patient.info Web Compliance Team 81.23.53.21 ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere, I haven't been able to find anything. The current infobox layout Gives ICD 10 (hyper linked to WHO ICD-10) followed horizontally with the article specific entry for the WHO ICD-10. On subsequent the line the term ICD-9 (hyper linked to US ICD-9-CM), followed horizontally with the article specific entry for US ICD-9-CM. This is confusing because ICD-9 refers to the previous WHO-ICD edition, which in some articles is referenced in the body of the article so that the page has tow ICD-9s refreing to seperate categorisations.
The US derogation (ICD-CM) will be updated later this year from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM. Is that change to be facilitated globally across the Infoboxes, or will each article have to be updated manually ? And can the ICD-CM designation be used ? It should be noted that from September the US and WHO numbering will unusually be in synq, so if the current format continues to be used there will be two ICD-10 entries one below the other but hyperlinked to differing locations and followed by differing category numbers. Also in the processof being updated the WHO ICD-11 is IIRC expected to be in place by 2017, so a further update to the infobox will need to be planned for. ICD-11 will have amore dynamic structure than ICD-10 and that may (sorry not to be clear) have implications for how the Infobox works, for example the same number category may appear under multiple disease descriptions.
Practical issue re: ICD/ICD-CM discussed at /info/en/?search=Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Time_to_split_G93.3_and_780.71_in_to_two_separate_articles_again -- In Vitro Infidelium ( talk) 15:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
wrt ICD-10-CM, on the whole it's the same as ICD-10 at the third character level (there are a few differences in the disease sections mainly around the pain categories). Most of the fourth character sub-categories are also the same. The main differences come with the addition of fifth, sixth and seventh characters to the base classification. We certainly won't need to use the seventh characters in this infobox, and I doubt that the sixth characters will be required either (they are for laterality or subtypes of diseases that won't have separate articles). If it's decided that ICD-10-CM is added as a field to the infobox (either as well as or instead of ICD-9-CM), then some automation should be possible, assuming a good and public domain mapping table. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please change field "ICD-9" to say "ICD-9-CM" since that is what is referenced and there is a large difference between the WHO's "ICD-9" and the US NCHS "ICD-9-CM" Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 22:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am part of a team funded by an NIH grant to help improve the structured content about diseases (and drugs and genes) on Wikipedia. We have thus far been working to incorporate the Human Disease Ontology into wikidata. You can see discussions and activities of the relevant bot on its wikidata page.
I would like to propose that Disease Ontology identifiers be added to the disease infobox and that this be carried out via a call to wikidata within this template. I understand the desire to rework the template so that its more informative and less of a list of external links as discussed above. I would support a modification to address that problem, but think that the DO ids have gained sufficient importance in biomedical research circles that they should be included in whatever identifier listing is settled on here. With regard to a transition to maintaining information like this in wikidata instead of directly in Wikipedia, our group is ready and willing to execute the bots that make that happen, including keeping things up to date over time. Our wikidata bot already incorporates disease ontology ids, orphanet ids, ICD-10, ICD9, MeSH, NCI and NCI thesaurus ids. For articles that have correct mappings to wikidata items, this content could be accessed from wikidata today using a template like the one proposed above by RexxS. Looking forward, one of the ways that our efforts might help improve the usability of this infobox is through automatic incorporation of content being added to the DO such as a structured representation of the symptoms associated with each disease. So, hello! and how can we help? Benjamin Good ( talk) 19:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
|style=
added in
this edit? seems like a very generic name, with a non-obvious purpose.
Frietjes (
talk)
16:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
|style=
(note, I am not asking about |field=
)?
Frietjes (
talk)
19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
:)
Ladsgroup
overleg
08:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to do everything possible to keep the first sentence easy to understand, in English, and to the point. As such I propose we move the pronunciation form the first sentence to the infobox.
This article does Roentgenium. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
See my "ICD codes.."-section here. About the docs here: "Index number in ICD10. Multiple codes are permitted." I understand that allowing more [than codes] – something not expressly permitted – must have limitations. I'm just not sure everything not permitted is forbidden, or should be.
I don't know if there is some page in WP I should read on medical pages or if its ok to just bring this up here. Am I opening some can of worms?
Doc James hasn't answered. I notice
pregnancy, code: Z33 would say "Pregnant state, incidental" possibly including:
"Incl.:
Pregnant state NOS"
I can see how "Pregnant state" migh not be helpful, and "incidental" or more being just confusing.. but allowing the name with the code in the case I originally had might be ok? I'm not asking for required. comp.arch ( talk) 13:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this infobox meant to display ICD-10 or ICD-10-CM codes? It's a bit confusing because it is using the US CM codes for ICD-9 (and the hyperlinks go to a US ICD-9-CM lookup site) but it appears to be meant to display WHO ICD-10 codes (hyperlinks go to who.int lookup site) versus the new ICD-10-CM codes. Now that the ICD-10-CM is in effect, there are conditions which have a new code in the ICD-10-CM that don't exist in the ICD-10. Should we be using WHO ICD-10 codes or US ICD-10-CM codes in this infobox? Anal0gue ( talk) 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox Disease has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following index to the Infobox medical condition:
|- {{#if: {{{Derm101|}}}| ! [[Derm101|Derm101]] {{!}} [http://www.derm101.com/therapeutic/{{{Derm101}}}/ {{{Derm101}}}] {{{Derm101_mult|}}}}} |-
Gman45708 ( talk) 22:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
Qed237
(talk)
22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
With reference to this version [7] of the Multicystic dysplastic kidney page; is there call to add the EUROCAT extension of ICD-10 chapter XVII?
Does there need to be a way look up ( verify) the codes beyond this pdf? [8] Little pob ( talk) 08:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Since it seems that we have reached the point of remodeling the infobox (see above), I would like to propose to add the Disease Ontology (DO) ID to the classification field (
P699 in Wikidata). It is updated maintained by the DO team and imported into Wikidata by the
ProteinBoxBot. It is used to annotate data by a variety of projects, e.g.
Zebrafish Information Network (ZFIN),
WormBase.
Disease names, synonyms, ICD10 codes, OMIM IDs and others are constantly updated in DO and subsequently imported into Wikidata. All this information will be (is being) fed back into Wikipedia, so it makes sense to include the DO identifier into the classification field. --
emitraka (
talk)
21:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Publications about DO:
this edit, moved the tracking category inside the parser logic. I have now corrected the problem. Frietjes ( talk) 16:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Field
capitalization inconsistenciesSo it is a pretty common thing to use "-ologies" in fields; it is also common to capitalize or leave their first letters lowercased. I feel that, perhaps, we ought to seek a consensus for a consistent case, and I think that it must be lowercased.
Gamingforfun365
(talk)
00:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In a variation of previous proposals, I propose moving links and catalog data contained in this infobox to the bottom of Wikipedia articles. This serves these purposes:
I said "I propose" because I am writing the proposal, but this idea comes from lots of others and a long history of discussion with dozens of participants. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
For context, here are some related background proposals:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Here are the conceptual points in this proposal -
Here is how this proposal would be technically implemented -
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Doc James who provided {{ Medical condition classification and resources}} and Emitraka who has done so much to connect English Wikipedia infoboxes to Wikidata, including developing this prototype.
See this live at this version of the gout article. Note the top infobox and the box in external links.
Gout (also known as podagra when Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
==Section(s)==
==References==
==External links==
Thanks to Mr. Stradivarius for developing this at Help talk:Template.
Note that the regular infobox in the demo page (including the picture) is an image because it pulls from Wikidata. Click show to see it rendered here.
| ||
---|---|---|
This is what the box looks like when it is applied elsewhere. The localization can be edited in Wikipedia, while certain other kinds of data are managed in Wikidata.
Here is code for this. Wikidata knows that gout is from the specialty "rheumatology", and that its symptom is "joint pain", so this information comes from there. Also these terms are translated in Wikidata so that all languages pulling from Wikidata get the same basic information. {{Infobox medical condition(new) | Name = Gout | Image = The gout james gillray.jpg | Alt = A small fierce creature with sharp teeth is biting into a swollen foot at the base of the big toe | Caption = ''The Gout'' ([[James Gillray]], 1799) depicts the pain of the artist's gout as a [[demon]] or [[dragon]].<ref>{{cite book---- omitted for clarity}}</ref>}} }} |
Infobox medical condition (old)/Archive 3 | |
---|---|
Specialty | Rheumatology |
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
==Data sheet==
. This will (must) show in both views desktop and mobile, and in m.view will nicely collapse for being a section. However, for this {{
Infobox medical condition}} I see few data points that are candidate for this. -
DePiep (
talk)
08:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
[[#classifiers+el|codes]]
. Clicking brings the cursor to the bottom template (same as one clicks from TOC to a section). Problematic: if the bottom tempalte is not poresent, the link is idle. -
DePiep (
talk)
23:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
References
In the encyclopedia, the manual of style recommends the following with regards synonyms:
[...] the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses
— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Usage in first sentence
Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line
— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Separate_section_usage
Medical conditions frequently have many synonyms (e.g. Burning mouth syndrome).
The idea of including a list of synonyms in the infobox medical condition started on WT:MED (permalink here: [18]). James has kindly made a preview, seen here: Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. Another idea for dealing with the list of synonyms is to have them as a footnote (e.g. geographic tongue, this method discussed on WT:MED here: [19]).
If there is support for the above idea, then this raises other questions: should the list of synonyms replace entirely the list of synonyms in the lead, or elsewhere in the article? Or should the infobox be in addition to a list of synonyms in the lead or in a section within the article?
Ping to anyone who has expressed opinion on this so far. JakobSteenberg, Little pob, Johnbod, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, Boghog, TylerDurden8823, Looie496, Barbara (WVS). Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 19:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I am hoping KEGG disease DB to be incorporated in the table. にょろん ( talk) 05:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The
http://omim.org/entry/{{{OMIM}}} and
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/{{{MedlinePlus}}}.htm and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/{{{GeneReviewsID}}}/ links appear to support HTTPS. Given the practice of implementing
HTTPS by default on Wikimedia sites and the potential for increased privacy and security for visitors, it would seem useful to use HTTPS for these links in the template by changing line 29 of the template from
| data8 = {{#if:{{{OMIM|}}}|[http://omim.org/entry/{{{OMIM}}} {{{OMIM}}}] {{{OMIM_mult|}}} }}
to
| data8 = {{#if:{{{OMIM|}}}|[https://omim.org/entry/{{{OMIM}}} {{{OMIM}}}] {{{OMIM_mult|}}} }}
instead, changing line 35 of the template from
| data10 = {{#if:{{{MedlinePlus|}}}|[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/{{{MedlinePlus}}}.htm {{{MedlinePlus}}}] {{{MedlinePlus_mult|}}} }}
to
| data10 = {{#if:{{{MedlinePlus|}}}|[https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/{{{MedlinePlus}}}.htm {{{MedlinePlus}}}] {{{MedlinePlus_mult|}}} }}
instead, and changing line 64 of the template from
* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/{{{GeneReviewsID}}}/ {{#if: {{{GeneReviewsName|}}}|{{{GeneReviewsName}}}|{{{GeneReviewsID}}}}}]}}}}{{#if: {{{GeneReviewsNBK2|}}}|
to
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/{{{GeneReviewsID}}}/ {{#if: {{{GeneReviewsName|}}}|{{{GeneReviewsName}}}|{{{GeneReviewsID}}}}}]}}}}{{#if: {{{GeneReviewsNBK2|}}}|
instead. Thanks. --
Elegie (
talk)
10:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to propose that a new parameter be added to the infobox. It would be |Wikidata = <ref>url</ref>. This will provide a lot of good additional information like the same topic in other languages, a list of synonyms and links to other disease databases that we don't currently use in the info box. Best Regards,
I would like to propose a new parameter: Wikidata = unique Q id number linking to the url of the wikidata page about the disease</ref> These Wikdata pages provide information from other databases, a list of synonyms, the same article in other languages. With the parameter installed, some adept code writer could make this parameter entered automatically by referring to the title of the article and inserting the 'Q' link even on all the already-existing disease infoboxes. The wikidata page also provides information about the same disease on other language wikis.
Wikidata has a field for anatomical location. Currently most medical conditions don't have it but /info/en/?search=Colorectal_cancer for example has the information that Colorectal cancer is about the colon and that information could be displayed in the infobox. ChristianKl ( talk) 09:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Synonyms currently display weirdly in a typewriter-like format without a side heading. See infectious mononucleosis for an example. It seems that the edits of 2016-07-23 ("moving synonyms to subheader") messed up the formatting somehow. Can someone fix this? I cannot edit this page. Quercus solaris ( talk) 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The size of images in the infobox appears to have recently been decreased. Wondering how and if we can increase the size to 250px? Appears to be set at 220px or so. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
|width=
that can be used to override the default -
Template:Infobox medical condition/doc #Images says that's 190px. Try adding something like |width=250px
to the infobox in one of the articles that you think needs a bigger image. Ping me if that doesn't fix it for you. if you want the default to be bigger, that will need quite a bit more work (and consensus because it would make the default infobox wider), so let me know. --
RexxS (
talk)
01:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
|upright=1.106 -> |upright=1.15
). Does that fix the issue for you? You might have to clear the cache to see the new size. --
RexxS (
talk)
02:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)|upright=
, it lost its connection with portrait-aspect (upright) images years ago. It's now used as part of the
WP:Image syntax only to set the image size relative to the default size of 220px (or whatever is set in your Preferences). --
RexxS (
talk)
17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
|upright=1.35
(nominally 300px wide) per
Wikipedia:Picture tutorial #Thumbnail sizes. There's no reason that I can see why an infobox image shouldn't be as wide as 250px. --
RexxS (
talk)
18:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Earlier this year, the NCBI site
transitioned to HTTPS. Among other things, the page about the transition stated that HTTP URLs would be redirected to HTTPS equivalents. Indeed, accessing (as an example) the URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/mma/
(where GeneReviewsID is mma
) generates a 301 Moved Permanently redirect to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/mma/
instead. In the template, please change http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/
to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/
instead. --
Elegie (
talk)
07:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The template contains a URL for MedlinePlus. Accessing, for example, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000151.htm
leads to a 301 Moved Permanently redirect to https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000151.htm
which leads to another 301 Moved Permanently redirect to https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000151.htm
. In the template, please change http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/
to https://medlineplus.gov/
(including the trailing slash) instead. Aside from reducing the number of redirects, using an HTTPS URL for MedlinePlus would provide increased privacy and security for users. Thanks. --
Elegie (
talk)
05:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The OMIM site supports HTTPS. (In the source of
this page, for example, there is a "Crawler Warning" comment which references HTTPS links such as
https://omim.org/help/agreement and
https://omim.org/contact.)Please use HTTPS for the OMIM link by changing http://omim.org/entry/
in the template to https://omim.org/entry/
instead. Thanks. --
Elegie (
talk)
10:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{OMIM|}}}|[http://omim.org/entry/{{{OMIM}}}
in which the change should be made. --
Elegie (
talk)
12:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)See for example [22] Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
version 11 Dec [24] | version proposed | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
demo | bg color | Contrast | demo | bg color | Contrast | ||||
title bar | Title text
|
#cccccc
|
13.08 | AAA pass | Title text
|
#ededed
|
17.94 | AAA pass | |
header bar | Header text
|
#eeeeee
|
18.1 | AAA pass | Header text
|
#eeeeee
|
18.1 | AAA pass |
Notes:
I can't believe you two are edit warring over colors on a high use template. I do hope it won't be necessary to fully-protect the template. The other alternative is removing user rights. Please act responsibly and no more changes without consensus. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
As User:CFCF has chosen not to participate in this discussion I have reverted to the status quo ante with regards to the color — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Template:Infobox medical condition has been nominated for merging with Template:Authority control. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Alakzi ( talk) 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hypertension | |
---|---|
Automated arm blood pressure meter showing arterial hypertension (shown a systolic blood pressure 158 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure 99 mmHg and heart rate of 80 beats per minute) |
The primary infobox for medical conditions has historically been Template:Infobox disease. There was recently a bit of confusion about why this infobox had been applied to medical conditions, like pregnancy, when pregnancy is not a disease. Obviously the answer is that when something works on Wikipedia then it gets reused beyond the purpose for which it was designed. So for the part of the problem where Infobox disease seems to have a use which does not match its name, I proposed a rename, but that is a small thing and I tell this only as background to a bigger issue.
Infobox disease has historically been used to present mostly authority control identifiers. See the hypertension infobox disease that I am sharing here for an example. Some people have questioned that the primary infobox for medical conditions should contain a set of sorting numbers and external links, when elsewhere on Wikipedia it is more expected that the infobox be readable by humans and to exist for the purpose of summarizing the data essential for understanding a thing.
I assert that the current infobox disease is not serving the purpose of a traditional infobox. Because of this, it is not serving Wikipedia readers in the way that they expect to be served. Beyond this, it is my opinion that few readers are interested in the kind of data currently presented here, and that these boxes would be better placed with less prominence in the articles. The most natural place for this kind of information is, in my opinion, the external links section of an article.
If infobox disease were redesigned to meet what I believe are reader expectations, then I think it should be modeled after other Wikipedia infoboxes, like perhaps the well-developed ones of WikiProject Military History, the sports Wikiprojects, or company infoboxes. None of those projects make boxes analogous to medical conditions, but at least none of those are mostly library cataloging numbers and external links.
As a model for new medical condition infoboxes to replace the cataloguing info boxes currently being used, I think Wikipedians should look at what Google has just introduced in their Knowledge Graph. On 10 February 2015 Google announced on their blog that Knowledge Graph would now cover health conditions. Google gets their information from various sources and Wikipedia might do well to consider this service as a competitor for audience. I expect that the way that they are covering medical issues is backed by extensive market research and the opinions of smart people, and my opinion is that they modeled what they are doing off the precedent established by most Wikipedia infoboxes other than the ones currently used for diseases and medical conditions. I think that it would be prudent to consider following Google's lead. In the long term I would like to see the medical condition infobox most prominently featured in the article to be populated with items from Wikidata, so that translation of terms can happen in Wikidata and then all Wikipedia articles in all languages can have the same basic infobox propagated out to give coverage of health conditions in all languages on all Wikipedias. I am not certain what information should be in this box, but probably authority controls are not best.
In the past, others have asked questions about this infobox which I feel are related.
One proposal for responding to the people who want reform could be as follows:
Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
We could split out the disease identifiers and put them in a box in the diagnosis section. However we do not really have anything to replace it with. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW the medication infobox contains even more identifiers. And the elements infoboxes contain a lot as well. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Speciality | Cardiology |
---|---|
Signs and symptoms | Often no symptoms |
Duration | Chronic |
Diagnosis method | Blood pressure measurements usually over several visits |
Lifestyle treatment | Exercise, dietary changes, quitting smoking, weight lose |
Drug treatment | Thiazide diuretics, beta blockers, ACE Inhibitor/ ARBs, calcium channel blockers, alpha blockers |
Disease frequency | Very common (> 10%) |
Other questions:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes so that is the question. Should we have a lead that is a summary of the article and than an infobox that is an ultra short summary of the lead? I am not sure. But yes that is what is being proposed here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to do this new formatting of the infobox I propose we do it via wikidata. In other words the parameters we decide on are added there and than auto linked into the box. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Infobox disease/Wikidata}}
into any section of any medical article and previewing it (please don't save!). It allows any parameter to be overwritten by a local value. I'd need to write extra Lua calls to deal with the multiple values in ICD-9 and ICD-10 and the way that the current eMedicine parameters don't match the values stored in Wikidata, but taking Hypertension as an example:{{Infobox disease/Wikidata | ICD9 = {{ICD9|401}} }}
|decription=
, |description_ref=
that allows a bot to grab the reference bare handed). What would go wrong if we add say five parameters to the box (descriptive ones, as is discussed here)? -
DePiep (
talk)
17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have presented some issues with a few of the possible parameters below. Yes google is doing this but they have a single box for symptoms and one for treatments that one navigates between by clicking separate tabs. Per accessibility we do not do this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If we go this route what exactly will we put in the box for this? The incidence (number of cases per year), the point prevalence (the percentage of people affected any given point in time), the lifetime prevalence (the percentage of people affected at some time in their life)? Are we going to go with only global numbers? Are will we also going to go with numbers from a specific country? Often only one or none of these exist. Some of the best data in the English world is in the United States but I think it reflect poorly on us as a global encyclopedia to give that data this prominence. Google Knowledge boxes of course just went with US data. They might regionalize eventually based on peoples IPs and they have the ability to do so. This is going to be the first problem with summarizing this sort of information in a couple of words. Next what do we do with conflicting estimates? Wikidata can handle all these particulars. I guess we could organize them there as a hierarchy. Take A first if it exists, if not take B, if neither exist take C, etc. But we would need an army of people willing to do data entry based on high quality sources. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Is hep C acute or chronic? While it is both. And it is now mostly curable if you are rich enough. With HIV, there is an acute infectious phase followed by a chronic phase. What about cancers? Some are acute and curable sometimes and other times not. Even strep throat can be followed by chronic problems. Lyme disease of course is famous for this. We have some that are easy like the common cold but that is the minority. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
How will we include the signs and symptoms of SLE or syphilis? What about those of cancer? These are hard enough to cover in a paragraph let alone with a few words. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this one would be doable. For those condition that are contagious one fills in a parameter for contagious with how it is so. So for HIV/AIDs = Mainly sexual contact. Hep C = Mainly IV drug use
Google however gets Hep C wrong here [5] Hep C is almost never spread by sexual contact Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata has a "short description" system that adds information similar to what we put on a disambiguation page. We could suck those descriptions down to our infobox, which would have two benefits: we'd get "information" in the "info"box, rather than just numbers, and we'd find it easier to keep an eye on the Wikidata descriptions. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/Concat|getDescription|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}
into a short section of any en-wp article and preview it (please don't save!), it will fetch the Wikidata description in the local language - i.e. English. So for example
Tuberculosis gives:
{{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/Concat|getDescription|FETCH_WIKIDATA|de}}
into
Tuberculosis and previewing gives:
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox medical condition has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In light of the recent rebranding/domain change of Patient UK, could this template be updated in order to reflect said changes, please? Patient UK has rebranded to Patient, and the domain has changed from http://www.patient.co.uk/ to http://patient.info/
Regards, The Patient.info Web Compliance Team 81.23.53.21 ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere, I haven't been able to find anything. The current infobox layout Gives ICD 10 (hyper linked to WHO ICD-10) followed horizontally with the article specific entry for the WHO ICD-10. On subsequent the line the term ICD-9 (hyper linked to US ICD-9-CM), followed horizontally with the article specific entry for US ICD-9-CM. This is confusing because ICD-9 refers to the previous WHO-ICD edition, which in some articles is referenced in the body of the article so that the page has tow ICD-9s refreing to seperate categorisations.
The US derogation (ICD-CM) will be updated later this year from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM. Is that change to be facilitated globally across the Infoboxes, or will each article have to be updated manually ? And can the ICD-CM designation be used ? It should be noted that from September the US and WHO numbering will unusually be in synq, so if the current format continues to be used there will be two ICD-10 entries one below the other but hyperlinked to differing locations and followed by differing category numbers. Also in the processof being updated the WHO ICD-11 is IIRC expected to be in place by 2017, so a further update to the infobox will need to be planned for. ICD-11 will have amore dynamic structure than ICD-10 and that may (sorry not to be clear) have implications for how the Infobox works, for example the same number category may appear under multiple disease descriptions.
Practical issue re: ICD/ICD-CM discussed at /info/en/?search=Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Time_to_split_G93.3_and_780.71_in_to_two_separate_articles_again -- In Vitro Infidelium ( talk) 15:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
wrt ICD-10-CM, on the whole it's the same as ICD-10 at the third character level (there are a few differences in the disease sections mainly around the pain categories). Most of the fourth character sub-categories are also the same. The main differences come with the addition of fifth, sixth and seventh characters to the base classification. We certainly won't need to use the seventh characters in this infobox, and I doubt that the sixth characters will be required either (they are for laterality or subtypes of diseases that won't have separate articles). If it's decided that ICD-10-CM is added as a field to the infobox (either as well as or instead of ICD-9-CM), then some automation should be possible, assuming a good and public domain mapping table. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please change field "ICD-9" to say "ICD-9-CM" since that is what is referenced and there is a large difference between the WHO's "ICD-9" and the US NCHS "ICD-9-CM" Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 22:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am part of a team funded by an NIH grant to help improve the structured content about diseases (and drugs and genes) on Wikipedia. We have thus far been working to incorporate the Human Disease Ontology into wikidata. You can see discussions and activities of the relevant bot on its wikidata page.
I would like to propose that Disease Ontology identifiers be added to the disease infobox and that this be carried out via a call to wikidata within this template. I understand the desire to rework the template so that its more informative and less of a list of external links as discussed above. I would support a modification to address that problem, but think that the DO ids have gained sufficient importance in biomedical research circles that they should be included in whatever identifier listing is settled on here. With regard to a transition to maintaining information like this in wikidata instead of directly in Wikipedia, our group is ready and willing to execute the bots that make that happen, including keeping things up to date over time. Our wikidata bot already incorporates disease ontology ids, orphanet ids, ICD-10, ICD9, MeSH, NCI and NCI thesaurus ids. For articles that have correct mappings to wikidata items, this content could be accessed from wikidata today using a template like the one proposed above by RexxS. Looking forward, one of the ways that our efforts might help improve the usability of this infobox is through automatic incorporation of content being added to the DO such as a structured representation of the symptoms associated with each disease. So, hello! and how can we help? Benjamin Good ( talk) 19:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
|style=
added in
this edit? seems like a very generic name, with a non-obvious purpose.
Frietjes (
talk)
16:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
|style=
(note, I am not asking about |field=
)?
Frietjes (
talk)
19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
:)
Ladsgroup
overleg
08:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to do everything possible to keep the first sentence easy to understand, in English, and to the point. As such I propose we move the pronunciation form the first sentence to the infobox.
This article does Roentgenium. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
See my "ICD codes.."-section here. About the docs here: "Index number in ICD10. Multiple codes are permitted." I understand that allowing more [than codes] – something not expressly permitted – must have limitations. I'm just not sure everything not permitted is forbidden, or should be.
I don't know if there is some page in WP I should read on medical pages or if its ok to just bring this up here. Am I opening some can of worms?
Doc James hasn't answered. I notice
pregnancy, code: Z33 would say "Pregnant state, incidental" possibly including:
"Incl.:
Pregnant state NOS"
I can see how "Pregnant state" migh not be helpful, and "incidental" or more being just confusing.. but allowing the name with the code in the case I originally had might be ok? I'm not asking for required. comp.arch ( talk) 13:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this infobox meant to display ICD-10 or ICD-10-CM codes? It's a bit confusing because it is using the US CM codes for ICD-9 (and the hyperlinks go to a US ICD-9-CM lookup site) but it appears to be meant to display WHO ICD-10 codes (hyperlinks go to who.int lookup site) versus the new ICD-10-CM codes. Now that the ICD-10-CM is in effect, there are conditions which have a new code in the ICD-10-CM that don't exist in the ICD-10. Should we be using WHO ICD-10 codes or US ICD-10-CM codes in this infobox? Anal0gue ( talk) 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox Disease has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following index to the Infobox medical condition:
|- {{#if: {{{Derm101|}}}| ! [[Derm101|Derm101]] {{!}} [http://www.derm101.com/therapeutic/{{{Derm101}}}/ {{{Derm101}}}] {{{Derm101_mult|}}}}} |-
Gman45708 ( talk) 22:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
Qed237
(talk)
22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
With reference to this version [7] of the Multicystic dysplastic kidney page; is there call to add the EUROCAT extension of ICD-10 chapter XVII?
Does there need to be a way look up ( verify) the codes beyond this pdf? [8] Little pob ( talk) 08:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Since it seems that we have reached the point of remodeling the infobox (see above), I would like to propose to add the Disease Ontology (DO) ID to the classification field (
P699 in Wikidata). It is updated maintained by the DO team and imported into Wikidata by the
ProteinBoxBot. It is used to annotate data by a variety of projects, e.g.
Zebrafish Information Network (ZFIN),
WormBase.
Disease names, synonyms, ICD10 codes, OMIM IDs and others are constantly updated in DO and subsequently imported into Wikidata. All this information will be (is being) fed back into Wikipedia, so it makes sense to include the DO identifier into the classification field. --
emitraka (
talk)
21:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Publications about DO:
this edit, moved the tracking category inside the parser logic. I have now corrected the problem. Frietjes ( talk) 16:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Field
capitalization inconsistenciesSo it is a pretty common thing to use "-ologies" in fields; it is also common to capitalize or leave their first letters lowercased. I feel that, perhaps, we ought to seek a consensus for a consistent case, and I think that it must be lowercased.
Gamingforfun365
(talk)
00:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In a variation of previous proposals, I propose moving links and catalog data contained in this infobox to the bottom of Wikipedia articles. This serves these purposes:
I said "I propose" because I am writing the proposal, but this idea comes from lots of others and a long history of discussion with dozens of participants. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
For context, here are some related background proposals:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Here are the conceptual points in this proposal -
Here is how this proposal would be technically implemented -
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Doc James who provided {{ Medical condition classification and resources}} and Emitraka who has done so much to connect English Wikipedia infoboxes to Wikidata, including developing this prototype.
See this live at this version of the gout article. Note the top infobox and the box in external links.
Gout (also known as podagra when Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
==Section(s)==
==References==
==External links==
Thanks to Mr. Stradivarius for developing this at Help talk:Template.
Note that the regular infobox in the demo page (including the picture) is an image because it pulls from Wikidata. Click show to see it rendered here.
| ||
---|---|---|
This is what the box looks like when it is applied elsewhere. The localization can be edited in Wikipedia, while certain other kinds of data are managed in Wikidata.
Here is code for this. Wikidata knows that gout is from the specialty "rheumatology", and that its symptom is "joint pain", so this information comes from there. Also these terms are translated in Wikidata so that all languages pulling from Wikidata get the same basic information. {{Infobox medical condition(new) | Name = Gout | Image = The gout james gillray.jpg | Alt = A small fierce creature with sharp teeth is biting into a swollen foot at the base of the big toe | Caption = ''The Gout'' ([[James Gillray]], 1799) depicts the pain of the artist's gout as a [[demon]] or [[dragon]].<ref>{{cite book---- omitted for clarity}}</ref>}} }} |
Infobox medical condition (old)/Archive 3 | |
---|---|
Specialty | Rheumatology |
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
==Data sheet==
. This will (must) show in both views desktop and mobile, and in m.view will nicely collapse for being a section. However, for this {{
Infobox medical condition}} I see few data points that are candidate for this. -
DePiep (
talk)
08:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
[[#classifiers+el|codes]]
. Clicking brings the cursor to the bottom template (same as one clicks from TOC to a section). Problematic: if the bottom tempalte is not poresent, the link is idle. -
DePiep (
talk)
23:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
References
In the encyclopedia, the manual of style recommends the following with regards synonyms:
[...] the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses
— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Usage in first sentence
Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line
— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Separate_section_usage
Medical conditions frequently have many synonyms (e.g. Burning mouth syndrome).
The idea of including a list of synonyms in the infobox medical condition started on WT:MED (permalink here: [18]). James has kindly made a preview, seen here: Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. Another idea for dealing with the list of synonyms is to have them as a footnote (e.g. geographic tongue, this method discussed on WT:MED here: [19]).
If there is support for the above idea, then this raises other questions: should the list of synonyms replace entirely the list of synonyms in the lead, or elsewhere in the article? Or should the infobox be in addition to a list of synonyms in the lead or in a section within the article?
Ping to anyone who has expressed opinion on this so far. JakobSteenberg, Little pob, Johnbod, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, Boghog, TylerDurden8823, Looie496, Barbara (WVS). Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 19:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I am hoping KEGG disease DB to be incorporated in the table. にょろん ( talk) 05:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The
http://omim.org/entry/{{{OMIM}}} and
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/{{{MedlinePlus}}}.htm and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/{{{GeneReviewsID}}}/ links appear to support HTTPS. Given the practice of implementing
HTTPS by default on Wikimedia sites and the potential for increased privacy and security for visitors, it would seem useful to use HTTPS for these links in the template by changing line 29 of the template from
| data8 = {{#if:{{{OMIM|}}}|[http://omim.org/entry/{{{OMIM}}} {{{OMIM}}}] {{{OMIM_mult|}}} }}
to
| data8 = {{#if:{{{OMIM|}}}|[https://omim.org/entry/{{{OMIM}}} {{{OMIM}}}] {{{OMIM_mult|}}} }}
instead, changing line 35 of the template from
| data10 = {{#if:{{{MedlinePlus|}}}|[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/{{{MedlinePlus}}}.htm {{{MedlinePlus}}}] {{{MedlinePlus_mult|}}} }}
to
| data10 = {{#if:{{{MedlinePlus|}}}|[https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/{{{MedlinePlus}}}.htm {{{MedlinePlus}}}] {{{MedlinePlus_mult|}}} }}
instead, and changing line 64 of the template from
* [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/{{{GeneReviewsID}}}/ {{#if: {{{GeneReviewsName|}}}|{{{GeneReviewsName}}}|{{{GeneReviewsID}}}}}]}}}}{{#if: {{{GeneReviewsNBK2|}}}|
to
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/{{{GeneReviewsID}}}/ {{#if: {{{GeneReviewsName|}}}|{{{GeneReviewsName}}}|{{{GeneReviewsID}}}}}]}}}}{{#if: {{{GeneReviewsNBK2|}}}|
instead. Thanks. --
Elegie (
talk)
10:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to propose that a new parameter be added to the infobox. It would be |Wikidata = <ref>url</ref>. This will provide a lot of good additional information like the same topic in other languages, a list of synonyms and links to other disease databases that we don't currently use in the info box. Best Regards,
I would like to propose a new parameter: Wikidata = unique Q id number linking to the url of the wikidata page about the disease</ref> These Wikdata pages provide information from other databases, a list of synonyms, the same article in other languages. With the parameter installed, some adept code writer could make this parameter entered automatically by referring to the title of the article and inserting the 'Q' link even on all the already-existing disease infoboxes. The wikidata page also provides information about the same disease on other language wikis.
Wikidata has a field for anatomical location. Currently most medical conditions don't have it but /info/en/?search=Colorectal_cancer for example has the information that Colorectal cancer is about the colon and that information could be displayed in the infobox. ChristianKl ( talk) 09:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Synonyms currently display weirdly in a typewriter-like format without a side heading. See infectious mononucleosis for an example. It seems that the edits of 2016-07-23 ("moving synonyms to subheader") messed up the formatting somehow. Can someone fix this? I cannot edit this page. Quercus solaris ( talk) 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The size of images in the infobox appears to have recently been decreased. Wondering how and if we can increase the size to 250px? Appears to be set at 220px or so. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
|width=
that can be used to override the default -
Template:Infobox medical condition/doc #Images says that's 190px. Try adding something like |width=250px
to the infobox in one of the articles that you think needs a bigger image. Ping me if that doesn't fix it for you. if you want the default to be bigger, that will need quite a bit more work (and consensus because it would make the default infobox wider), so let me know. --
RexxS (
talk)
01:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
|upright=1.106 -> |upright=1.15
). Does that fix the issue for you? You might have to clear the cache to see the new size. --
RexxS (
talk)
02:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)|upright=
, it lost its connection with portrait-aspect (upright) images years ago. It's now used as part of the
WP:Image syntax only to set the image size relative to the default size of 220px (or whatever is set in your Preferences). --
RexxS (
talk)
17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
|upright=1.35
(nominally 300px wide) per
Wikipedia:Picture tutorial #Thumbnail sizes. There's no reason that I can see why an infobox image shouldn't be as wide as 250px. --
RexxS (
talk)
18:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Earlier this year, the NCBI site
transitioned to HTTPS. Among other things, the page about the transition stated that HTTP URLs would be redirected to HTTPS equivalents. Indeed, accessing (as an example) the URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/mma/
(where GeneReviewsID is mma
) generates a 301 Moved Permanently redirect to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/mma/
instead. In the template, please change http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/
to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/gene/
instead. --
Elegie (
talk)
07:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The template contains a URL for MedlinePlus. Accessing, for example, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000151.htm
leads to a 301 Moved Permanently redirect to https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000151.htm
which leads to another 301 Moved Permanently redirect to https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000151.htm
. In the template, please change http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/
to https://medlineplus.gov/
(including the trailing slash) instead. Aside from reducing the number of redirects, using an HTTPS URL for MedlinePlus would provide increased privacy and security for users. Thanks. --
Elegie (
talk)
05:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The OMIM site supports HTTPS. (In the source of
this page, for example, there is a "Crawler Warning" comment which references HTTPS links such as
https://omim.org/help/agreement and
https://omim.org/contact.)Please use HTTPS for the OMIM link by changing http://omim.org/entry/
in the template to https://omim.org/entry/
instead. Thanks. --
Elegie (
talk)
10:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{OMIM|}}}|[http://omim.org/entry/{{{OMIM}}}
in which the change should be made. --
Elegie (
talk)
12:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)See for example [22] Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
version 11 Dec [24] | version proposed | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
demo | bg color | Contrast | demo | bg color | Contrast | ||||
title bar | Title text
|
#cccccc
|
13.08 | AAA pass | Title text
|
#ededed
|
17.94 | AAA pass | |
header bar | Header text
|
#eeeeee
|
18.1 | AAA pass | Header text
|
#eeeeee
|
18.1 | AAA pass |
Notes:
I can't believe you two are edit warring over colors on a high use template. I do hope it won't be necessary to fully-protect the template. The other alternative is removing user rights. Please act responsibly and no more changes without consensus. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
As User:CFCF has chosen not to participate in this discussion I have reverted to the status quo ante with regards to the color — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)