Template talk:Infobox medical condition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Being discussed

Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sandboxing changes

Following this discussion about synonyms presentation (and more), I'm editing the template/sandbox. When I've reached a usable version, I'll propose it here. Until then, I just note changes. See /testcases for demo (pneumonia).

Track when Category:Medical condition not in Wikidata

Add |QID= to use a non-article-item from Wikidata.

Wikidata property readings (field, causes, medication, symptoms) by |QID=

rm |style= overwriting Wikidata input?!

link label differential diagnosis

rm |diff= from risk data row?!

above (title) default & self-document (also in Template:Infobox medical condition - live)

and of course: show synonyms in top, with label

later more

-DePiep (talk) 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup symptoms at the top with a label is a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata

Why did you restore Wikidata[1] User:DePiep? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Explained [2] at WT:MED. Enough of this. You only keep pushing your own stuff, and systematically obstructing stuff you don't like. I can only 'help' if you allow me. etc, etc. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There is enough of a consensus at WT:MED now to remove. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Unknown parameters

Unknown parameters are listed in Category:Pages using infobox medical condition with unknown parameters (7). -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

parameter testQID

I have added parameter |testQID=, to test Wikidata links when off-mainspace. On testpages, is can be entered by the editor (it is not added automatically). The parameter is ignored in mainspace, but it is used in all other spaces to simulate the article-QID and read its Wikidata values. So: in article space, the infobox uses the natural (implicit) QID to read the Wikidata item, and in Draft space, Template/testcases, Userspace, it uses testQID to read the item data. See testcases, where is set |testQID=Q12192 for pneumonia (this setting is also noted in the bottom row). -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

diffs with the (old) template

I am running some checks on this template. Boy, what a lot of differences between this (new) and the (old) template. Parameters not supported here:

| DiseasesDB | DiseasesDB_mult
| eMedicine_mult
| eMedicineSubj
| eMedicineTopic
| GeneReviewsID
| GeneReviewsNameourse, that is what the "(new"
| GeneReviewsName1 | GeneReviewsName2 | GeneReviewsName3 | GeneReviewsName4 | GeneReviewsName5 | GeneReviewsName6 | GeneReviewsName7
| GeneReviewsNBK | GeneReviewsNBK1 | GeneReviewsNBK2 | GeneReviewsNBK3 | GeneReviewsNBK4 | GeneReviewsNBK5 | GeneReviewsNBK6 | GeneReviewsNBK7
| ICD10
| ICD9
| ICDO
| MedlinePlus
| MedlinePlus_mult
| MeSH
| MeSH1 | MeSH2 | MeSH3 | MeSH4 | MeSH5 | MeSH6 | MeSH7 | MeSH8 | MeSH9
| MeshID
| MeshName
| MeshNumber
| MeshYear | MeshYear1 | MeshYear2 | MeshYear3 | MeshYear4 | MeshYear5 | MeshYear6 | MeshYear7 | MeshYear8 | MeshYear9
| OMIM | OMIM_mult
| Orphanet | Orphanet_mult

I don't mind, I just want to let you know. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This is intentional. None of this is useful for readers, and is moved to {{Medical resources}}. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course, that is what the "(new)" is about. A petscan says that in the 127 articles that have this template, 74 are missing the {{Medical resources}} template. Can I add that one blindly? -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, that would be great — as long as you have something to populate it with (or if it has something to call from Wikidata). Actually it might be a good idea to rewrite that template so that it is visible only if it has parameters to show, that way it could be added as an empty template to all medical articles. The best thing would be if we could automate this in some way, but in lieu of that it has to be done manually (which is probably the reason why that hasn't been done). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Scanned some, and discovered that Wikidata has almost nothing (Patient UK at most, not even ICDs). So it would be a manual job (or smart bot/AWB) to replace the old template & split the local enwiki input. Maybe some other day. -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This template calls Wikidata for several fields one field and an "edit on wikidata link. Where was consensus gained to use Wikidata in this template? Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC) ( redacted per below Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC) )

Consensus may be implicit. Do you question the implementation? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata is not mature enough for its data to be spread throughout health content in WP. We need to get explicit consensus to include it, including in this template. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Not 'several fields', just one field (being, 'field'). 2. Quite probably, the consensus is inhereted from the '(old)' template. 3. If you think more explicit consensus is required, just start a discussion. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is just the "speciality" field, as well as the "edit on Wikidata" link. I do not welcome either of those. I would like to see both of those removed. Shall I just do it? Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would we need explicit consensus? These fields are autopopulated based off their ICD-codes. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Look at Abscess which is one of the articles using this template. Its Wikidata entry is here. There are three entries under "Speciality", two of them added manually, "general surgery" here and "infectious disease" here and one added by a bot, "dermatology", here. I don't see that any of the permissions granted to that bot including sweeping in things from ICD10, so i don't know what that run was doing. Oh, and there is only one ICD10 code listed, L02, which is the skin one and which leaves out K61 (anal or rectal abscess) and a whole slew of others. So even if a bot was autopopulating off the ICD10 field, that is not complete either. So - please make a response that accords with what is actually in Wikidata, and that makes sense in terms of the reliability of Wikidata. Jytdog (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Jytdog What Carl replied here. And: the edit-on-Wikidata link does not import data from Wikidata. It is an editor's help link, ~similar to the v-t-e box (and less far-off that an external link because it is a sister project). Now if someone wants to remove that, the argument 'Wikidata has bad info' does not apply.

Re removing the 'specialty' from reading P1995 (any local input overrules this btw): at least discuss this at the old, parental {{Infobox medical condition}} (talk) (8000 transclusions). Or better: on WT:MED, since there are more MED templates in this situation. As for remove-here-only: I object, for these reasons. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

i know what the "edit Wikidata" link is - it is spam and it has no place in WP. Fine I will open this at WT:MED. Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

We had a bot add specialties to Wikidata based on the ICD codes a while ago. The wikidata link than pulls this data. As not really medical information I am happy to see this information kept.

Also happy with the "edit on Wikidata" link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As I just noted the data in the "speciality" field is not from ICD10 and the ICD10 entries are not always accurate. This is not medicine (treatment/diagnosis etc) but it is medical and within WP:MED. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose formats (following 'old' template)

Last December, the "old" template {{Infobox medical condition}} was changed to present synonyms in a different form. In short: synonyms are to be in top of the infobox, as regular data with a labeltext (see this talk). Back then it was noted that this (new) template could follow. I propose to do so. See testcases with pneumonia, and (old) testcases to compare.

Other changes: internally, there was some reordering (also following the other template). -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Just do it, we don't need to discuss things this much. If someone dislikes it you will see that then... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I want to be careful though, in case I miss aspects/views/angles. A few days. -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Upright versus sizedefault

@Doc James: In your edit summary you say "made like other infobox" and remove upright=1.25 (which is 1.25*220px=275px for non logged in users) and replace it with sizedefault=300px. Your way makes the image smaller for some logged-in users which have default size=400px, and you are making it enormous for users with e.g. default=120px. Which other infoboxes uses sizedefault instead of upright for all images in infoboxes? MOS:IMGSIZE urges to use upright. If you want 300px, then change upright to (300/220) 1.36 Christian75 (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - "Deaths"

2. Surprised and a little worried about the "deaths" statistic. Mortality rate is such a complicated rate and needs to take into account preexisting risk factors, cause of disease, disease progress, treatment that is used, and country that a person is in. I don't think this can be represented in a single statistic. An accurate representation would be unsuitably long for an infobox. So I suggest this field is removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The GBD lists global deaths for 249 diseases[3] so yes there is a global high quality answer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, we should require that high quality source and description to be with it here. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree and we do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Content of a parameter not shown

The parameter "differential" does not work on some pages (I'm not sure if it works on any page). For example, Abscess, Bipolar disorder, Crohn's disease.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe. Any article with this problem may need a WP:NULLEDIT before it will show the parameter value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes the parameter works. There was a false warning that was the issue. Fixed now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Single parameter name

Hey User:DePiep two parameters allow either lower case or upper case to be used for the infobox terms. Using just lower case means upper case will not work.[4] which is a pain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No it introduces confusion for other editors. Parameters must be spelled right anyway. -DePiep (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Introduces confusion? Actually as an editor it is nice not to have to remember whether an uppercase or lowercase is required. And as both are commonly used and no bot goes around to make it consistently one of them this is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way Template:Infobox_medical_condition supports both upper and lower case. If we could get a bot to convert all templates to lower case than this would not be needed. But one is not allowed to have bots that do cosmetic changes (have asked for this in the past). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes confusion. Difference between the same template between articles. Simple: most templates use one spelling, mainly lowercase. Having multiple words for one value (field, specialty, speciality, ouch) even more so. Changing the old template is not to be done, but we should not introduce this in new templates. -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, two names can lead to a situation where one input is not shown(!). A few weeks ago I have build a check for this in the old template. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hum. We could try to get a tool to do the conversion again. I will ask User:Ladsgroup. If we can get a tool that does this simple formating than I am fine with just lower case. The problem is that without both it slows down converting articles from the old to new template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not propose to change all those pages. Would be trivial edits. We are only promoting lowercase in the documentation. The error I mentioned is tracked now (does not occur), and some situations are removed from the template (write {{{field|}}}{{{speciality|}}}, not {{{field|{{{speciality|}}}}}}). -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Per "The error I mentioned is tracked now (does not occur)". What is tracking? And what issue is created if it does not occur? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tracking is: to categorise. In this case: in Category:Pages with Infobox medical condition using multiple parameters for one. Background:

Possible error situation. (|field= and |specialty= are two parameters for the same data input).

{{Infobox medical condition
|field = ABC
|specialty = DEF
}}

Input "DEF" did not show at all! This would also happen when |field= is empty. (Code was changed recently, template now has {{{field|}}}{{{speciality|}}} Y so shows both "ABCDEF", not {{{field|{{{speciality|}}}}}} N would show "ABC").

After this change, any double input shows. However, that could give undesired effects (becuase: that situation was never seen by the editor, so unchecked). So I added that category to track (list) those doubles. It appeares that none were happening, so all is fine. The code is using: {{#invoke:ParameterCount|main|pattern1=^[Ss]peciality$|pattern2=^[Ss]pecialty$|pattern3=[Ff]ield$|checkblanks=no}}.

So we can mostly prevent and follow these errors without bothering the editors (and allowing multiple parameters for one), but it is a bit an extra for template maintaineers like you and me. And it actually was wrong all those years. -DePiep (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I am getting a tool that does the change to all lower case. It is unfortunate IMO that we do not allow bots that do "cosmetic changes" and instead require editors to make them one by one. Sort of defeats the purpose of bots. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether by bot or manual edit: an edit that does not change the resulting rendered page is called trivial and should not be done. Some exceptions are possible (asked beforehand; bots possibly). I use WP:AWB and it has the same warning (could get me my AWB-rights taken away). Best place to ask would be WP:BOTREQUEST? That would solve it legally beforehand.

For me, I don't mind this change. otoh, I could do it using AWB, if premits are given (which for now I will not look for). -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that we have two types of double-parameter:

uppercase/lowercase: |Field=, field=

second word |field=, specialty= (or third)

When making a new template, I try to choose the word that is in the labeltext, lowercase (would be |speciality= here). -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Field is what is most often used in the prior template and we have like 1000 uses of that. Someone added speciality latter, not sure who. Happy to see a bot change it to speciality and make it consistent for that and than we can move to just that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI: TemplateData produces this overview on parameter uses (outdated by now, April 1 will give a new overview). BTW, shouldn't this move to the other talkpage?-DePiep (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(coming in late to this discussion:) FWIW, three things:

1. The unknown parameter check at the end of the template checks for (some versions of the) lower-case parameters only. It is possible to change this list with simple editing of it, but any valid parameters that are not listed in this "check list" will cause a page to show up in Category:Pages using infobox medical condition with unknown parameters under the asterisk heading.
2. I have null-edited all articles in the above category just now, so any pages listed there should show an error message in "Preview" mode.
3. Bots are allowed to make "cosmetic edits", i.e. edits that do not changed the rendered page, as long as the task is approved through BRFA and it is understood that the task is to make these cosmetic edits. Many bots have been approved to make cosmetic edits to do things like standardizing parameter names so that redundant parameter names can be removed from templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Link Risk factors

I was just reading the discussion at Talk:Schizophrenia#Cannabis_as_a_.22risk_factor.22_of_Schizophrenia. An IP editor there seemed confused on the meaning of risk factor. If other readers are also confused (which I think is likely the case) it may be worthwhile to link the parameter title to risk factors. Sizeofint (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Good always. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, a specialist topic. -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sizeofint (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to have redundantly defined parameters juxtaposed like this...

I was initially going to add all of the parameters with different capitalization variants to the check for unknown parameters module, but I noticed an issue while going through the template source.

If "Width" and "width" are both defined on the same page and set to say 300, then the image is going to display with a size of 300300 pixels (i.e., absolutely ginormous). It looks like the same issue will occur if caption and Caption are defined: one caption is appended to the other. It'd avoid a lot of headaches if the parameter redundancy was removed from the template. If the capitalized parameters are to be kept, they'll all need to be added to the check for unknown parameters module. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I say "juxtaposed", I mean something like:

(1) {{{Synonym|}}}{{{synonym|}}}{{{Synonyms|}}}{{{synonyms|}}}

as opposed to "nested", like:

(2) {{{differential|{{{Differential|{{{Differential diagnosis|{{{differential diagnosis|{{{diff|{{{Diff|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

The first example creates a problem if more than 1 synonyms parameter is given an input when the template is transcluded (e.g., if |synonym= and |Synonyms= are defined with the same input, it'll display it twice). The second example will always output only the input of the leftmost parameter in that list of 6 parameters when several of them are used. So if |Differential=abc, |diff=waffles, and |Diff=efg when the template is called, then the output in the corresponding field is going to be "abc" Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I oppose adding twice-spelled parameters. That is not helping any future editor.

Next: serialising same-parameters (juxtapositioning) has this big advantage: the editor gets feedback on their input always, and double input is visible so easy to solve. Nested parameters OTOH may hide editors input (when both params are used), whithout even hinting the editor what might have gone wrong. This also may occur with different-named parameters (|field= and |specialism=). -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If we had a bot that would auto deal with the caps than I would be satisfied. Right now if we remove one or the other a lot of templates will break. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Then, Doc James, let's not add those capitalisations in the first place. Agree? ;-) ;-) -DePiep (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea of having a bunch of different parameters serving the same function, but I also don't really care enough to make a big fuss about it. I suppose the quickest way to fix the capitalized parameter issue in the "Check for unknown parameters" module is to just copy/paste the list and change the capitalization of the pasted list. I don't think all of the spelling variants are currently in there though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We want to make the templates easier for people to use. Not all realize that lower case should generally be used and we have templates used with capital letters. How do we autoconvert to lower case when upper case is used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Easier = less sp variants (especially no capitals), and no unnecessary 2nd words like |diff= next to |differential=. The pair |field= and |specialism= could be an exception. Always keep in mind: one param for one value is best for editor & documentation, and its 1st name option is: the lefthand labeltext from the infobox. Only very experience editors (like us 3?) know enough. (Remaining issue: useful plural effect between |synonym= and |synonyms=; TBD: any better solution for this?).

Howto: 1. Remove from Check for unknown parameters-list in the template, articles will appear in Category:Pages using infobox medical condition with unknown parameters (7). They still show as intended, nothing broken! 2. Ask permission to make those trivial edits (change from |Synonym= into |synonym= is WP:TRIVIAL ie no visible effect, so 'forbidden'). 3. If OK, ask a bot or AWB operator (like me) to do the edits. 4. When clean, actually remove the parameters from template code. -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is unfortunate a bot cannot do this work. If no caps are used than I guess. I am not clear what benefit results from just using lower case? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It can be done, this new template is not used that much. (the old {{Infobox medical condition}} meanwhile...).

The advantage is that all article editors can easily recognise that single parameter they are looking for/editing on. Just think what a drag it is having to go to the /documentation and search for a 2nd name you don't know the name of! Even that lc/uc difference may be overlooked. Hence: lc always, wiki-wide. Also, such a documentation page is very hard to design keeping it useful & accessible.

Just think of how easy it is to edit a {{cite web}} reference knowing that lc is always OK. -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been using a gadget to help with the conversion. Could look at running it WPMED wide. My programmer is busy looking for a country right now unfortunately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't need a "gadget". We need consensus here on the changes & the process. If WP:MED wide (for other templates), then consensus at WT:MED. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We have consensus at WPMED to update from the old Template:Infobox medical condition to the Template:Infobox medical condition (new). I have been fixing the caps during the update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean "from old Template Infobox medical condition (new)" I assume? Anyway, that would be for creating the new one. What's needed is agreement to remove those extra parameters. IIRC, not discussed at WT:MED. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What is needed first is removing the need for these extra parameters. Than consensus for their removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we probably need consensus first and then someone willing to use AWB or a similar automated editing program to go through and replace all parameters with duplicates with a single un-capitalized parameter from the list of alternatives for a given field. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to use AWB on my laptop for a while, so I can't do it myself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We need to include different capitalizations, however we could just clear it from the width parameter. There are multiple reasons for this, I can get back to that later. Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - "similar conditions"

Have encountered this template on one of our medical articles. A vast improvement above the current mess. Will provide some feedback about areas of concern: 1. "Similar conditions" - saw this on Heart failure. Currently listed are "kidney failure, thyroid disease, liver disease, anemia, obesity". For most people, I think that "Similar conditions" would imply similar diseases, rather than similar symptoms. I suggest that this title is reworded to make this clearer. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you suggest? These are disease that may appear similar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Doc, but is this this relevant for an encyclopedia? Top infobox even? Looks more like a self-diagnose help page. (BTW, shouldn't this be at {{Infobox medical condition}} (talk)?). -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The differential diagnosis of a condition is useful information and encyclopedic. We have books and websites of nothing but differentials. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Then why not label it “Differential diagnosis”?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Per below their was a request to use something different. I personally do not have a strong position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Differential Diagnosis

I would propose that Differential Diagnosis field be rendered as "Differential Diagnoses" instead of "Similar Conditions", especially since the hyperlink is to the differential diagnosis page. The term "Similar Conditions" sounds to both lay and professional audiences as conditions related etiologically, as well as descriptively, to the instant disease. "Similar conditions" confuses, rather than clarifies, what the field means. My suggestion arose in the application of the infobox to Schizophrenia. Vrie0006 (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This was a suggestion by User:Hildabast. She felt that it was an appropriate simplification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree this could be a problem too. Alternatives could be to call it differential diagnoses, with a link to the Wikipedia page. (Or, derived from the definition there, call it "Similar Features".) Using "Amazon-shopping-type" language, "Can be confused with", isn't it?, but from a lay person's point of view "differential diagnoses" just sounds like different ones, aka synonyms. Hildabast (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Good points. I would be partial to either calling it what it is--"Differential Diagnoses"--with link to that page, but I also really like the amazon suggestion. I wonder if "Features similar to" is too grammatically weird? Or "May present like", or "May appear like". Or maybe we leave well enough alone. Vrie0006 (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Oh, I just noticed others (above) are asking similar questions about "similar conditions". So maybe leave well enough alone isn't the best option here. Vrie0006 (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"May appear like" is very nice plain english for "differential diagnosis" (which is kind of bad, as it is not clear if that should contain the tests with which one differentiates, or the conditions that need to be differentiated) Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How about "Appears like" as shorter? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion. The uncertainty denoted by the "may" is important, IMO, especially in teh SCZ case because Huntington's is SO different from SCZ (as is "substance misuse" and "autism", most of the time). FWIW, "May appear like" has fewer characters (15) than "Similar conditions" (18), and an additional break the phrase can wrap, so we're actually better off than before. Vrie0006 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Generally want it over two lines. If others are okay with this we could try it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I vote for Differential Diagnosis. If a lay reader does not know what it means, they can click on the link and learn something new. It is not a particularly complicated term for an encyclopedia.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yah I am leaning towards "differential diagnosis" aswell if people are unhappy with "similar conditions". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Differential diagnosis" sounds like a good plan by me. Vrie0006 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Treatments - Medications

Why is it only Medication options that get their own field in addition to the Treatments field? Jingoizle (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

As opposed to what else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think, James that Jingoizle means that treatments might include any combination of medication(s), surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, manipulation, physical exercise, CBT, psychoanalysis, and so on. But one of those, medication, has its own separate field in the infobox, while the others don't. The answer, I believe, is that most of the other treatments are fairly unambiguous labels, but there are many thousands of medications available, so it is reasonable to have an extra field to add the extra specificity. HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Very confusing "edit on Wikidata"

This infobox has a link at the bottom of it that says "edit on Wikidata" regardless of whether or not the infobox is actually using Wikidata. This edit button confuses prospective editors into thinking they are supposed to edit the infobox by clicking on this instead of the "Edit" at the top of the page. So they click on the link, edit something over at Wikidata, come back, and wonder why they can’t see their change on the page. This is, of course, because only a single rarely used field actually pulls information from Wikidata! Can someone please remove this always-on footnote which does not actually allow the editing of the infobox? I see that other "Wikidata" infoboxes use Module:WikidataIB which cleverly adds a little pencil after the relevant field. 1.144.111.223 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have also found this confusing. Natureium (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I also found this bewildering. Jingoizle (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made an amended version at Template:Infobox medical condition (new)/sandbox which uses a call to WikidataIB to generate the pen icon (Wikidata link) and removes the "edit at Wikidata" at the bottom. You can test it out in any article from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox medical condition (new) – just edit the article and change Infobox medical condition (new) to Infobox medical condition (new)/sandbox, then preview (but please don't save!) the article. Any local parameters supplied to the infobox (|field=something, |speciality=something, etc.) will display rather than the Wikidata value. You'll need to generate consensus here before implementing a change, of course. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think that anyone would object to this. I will propose the change below and we will see if anyone objects. 121.217.216.148 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to modify template

I propose that the template be changed to this revision. It replaces the always-on "edit on Wikidata" link with a pencil icon after the fields which can actually be edited at Wikidata. If you object to this then please do so now or forever hold your peace. 121.217.216.148 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please replace

| label10 = [[Specialty (medicine)|Specialty]]

| data10 = {{#if:{{{field|}}}{{{Field|}}}{{{specialty|}}}{{{Specialty|}}}{{{Speciality|}}}{{{speciality|}}} |{{{field|}}}{{{Field|}}}{{{specialty|}}}{{{Specialty|}}}{{{Speciality|}}}{{{speciality|}}} |{{#statements:P1995}} }}

with

| label10 = [[Specialty (medicine)|Specialty]]

| data10 = {{#invoke:String2 |sentence | {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1995 |fetchwikidata={{{fetchwikidata|ALL}}} |onlysourced={{{onlysourced|no}}} |{{{field|}}}{{{Field|}}}{{{specialty|}}}{{{Specialty|}}}{{{Speciality|}}}{{{speciality|}}} }} }}

See above section for rationale. 101.175.16.163 (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That is so much better. 101.175.16.163 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Status

This template is almost two-and-a-half years old; yet still marked as "beta". Are we ready to replace the one from which it was forked, yet; and if not, what prevents that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe the responses are "That's true", "Probably not", and "Ludditism" in that order. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

+1 to that. The old template has the problem with the "edit on Wikidata" link that appears whether or not Wikidata is even being used, but it is much harder to fix, because it would clutter the infobox up with pen icons. 101.175.16.163 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

differential diagnosis

Can an admin change "similar conditions" to "differential diagnosis", please? See the archive for a discussion.Vrie0006 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

An admin can, but I'm not an admin. Fortunately you don't need one, so I've made the change as there seems some consensus for it at Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new)/Archive 1 #Differential Diagnosis. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

ICD-10 and MeSH codes

Where in this new template I can specify a link to an ICD10 or MeSH code? Wuser6 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the documentation, this template is intended to be paired with Template:Medical resources, which is where you'll find the ICD-10 and MeSH codes. The latter template is placed near the bottom of the page. It was considered better to display parameters and data that is important, but not relevant to the average reader, in a separate template, rather than in the main infobox, which is really aimed at a lay audience. HTH --RexxS (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Image at top?

Isn't the image supposed to be above the Synonyms section? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any guidance that requires that. I can only assume that the designers thought that having alternate names right underneath the article name would be a benefit to readers. If you think the "Synonyms" section would be better elsewhere in the infobox, then it would be helpful if you explained why. --RexxS (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Reference inside parameter specialty

I added parameter |speciality= with reference into testcase Pneumonia: "| specialty = something-with-ref<ref>{{cite web|title=Something|url=http://aaaa.com|website=AAA|accessdate=2 March 2016|date=March 1, 2011}}</ref>" . The output in the infobox is Something-with-ref '"`uniq--ref-00000003-qinu`"'. --Pinky sl (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with applying sentence case to a value containing references was fixed in the main template, but the sandbox contained an older version from March last year that did not contain the fix. I've now synchronised the sandbox from the main template. --RexxS (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I see, it is fixed here. Can you give me a clue, what to fix in Slovenian Wikipedia. Our testcase page is at sl:Predloga:Infopolje Medicinsko stanje/testniprimeri. I updated sl:Modul:WikidataIB/peskovnik (sandbox), but it is not ok. --Pinky sl (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pinky sl: I'm sorry, I should have explained the fix. Effectively, you can't apply #invoke:String2 | sentence or #invoke:String2 | lower or #invoke:String2 | upper to a field that contains a reference as it's very likely to mess up the reference. If you want the first character capitalised (as we do on en-wiki), you can use #invoke:String2 | ucfirst - see the line in Template:Infobox medical condition (new) that reads:

• | data10 = {{#invoke:String2 |ucfirst | {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1995 |fetchwikidata={{{fetchwikidata|ALL}}} |onlysourced={{{onlysourced|no}}} |{{{field|}}}{{{Field|}}}{{{specialty|}}}{{{Specialty|}}}{{{Speciality|}}}{{{speciality|}}} }} }}

That's the line you'll have to change in sl:Predloga:Infopolje Medicinsko stanje/peskovnik. Either change lower to ucfirst if you want first letter capitalised, or you could simply leave the case alone and cut out the call to String2. You can try:

• | data10 = {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1995 |fetchwikidata={{{fetchwikidata|ALL}}} |onlysourced={{{onlysourced|no}}} |{{{field|}}}{{{Field|}}}{{{specialty|}}}{{{Specialty|}}}{{{Speciality|}}}{{{speciality|}}} }}

If you want to force the first letter into lower case, ping me and I'll add a new function to Module:String2 that produces that effect. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to force all words (and letters) into lower case, because in Wikidata some words (items) are capitalized. That is wrong and I am tired to correct them in Wikidata. --Pinky sl (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pinky sl: I've edited sl:Predloga:Infopolje Medicinsko stanje/peskovnik to make sure that only the Wikidata information is forced into lower case, so that if you supply a reference with a locally supplied value, it doesn't get mangled. I think your testcases at sl:Predloga:Infopolje Medicinsko stanje/testniprimeri look right now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I owe you a beer (or coffee) ;) --Pinky sl (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: I noticed that if I use "{{#invoke:String2 |lower | {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P780 |fetchwikidata=ALL|onlysourced=no }}}}" link "edit this on Wikidata" is forced into lower case https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/q12090?uselang=en#p780. Lower case q12090 and p780 cause that when you click on the link, wikdata page starts on top of the item page (not in the middle .. at the symptoms property).

• And another thing ... if I use the example above in article Cholera I get the result "diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, acute kidney injury, shock". My question is: why there is a word "shock" instead of "circulatory shock"? --Pinky sl (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pinky sl: If you force the value returned from the module into lower case, then the link will also be in lower case as you noticed. Since the case doesn't affect the url, you arrive on the right page. However, fragments that link to sections are case-sensitive, so the browser won't scroll to the property section. I don't have any fix for that.

In cholera (Q12090) one of the symptoms is Q178061. That has the English sitelink Shock (circulatory) (and the English label circulatory shock). The module uses the sitelink, stripping off the parenthetical disambiguation, to avoid the problems caused by vandalism of labels, so you get [[Shock (circulatory)|Shock]].

{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P780 |fetchwikidata=ALL|onlysourced=no |qid=Q12090}} → diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, hypovolemia, spasm, discomfort, hypotension, oliguria, cyanosis, terminal dehydration, thirst, cramp 

--RexxS (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. If I use the example above in the article sl:Kolera in slovenian Wikipedia I get the result "driska, bruhanje, izsušitev, akutna odpoved ledvic, Šok". As you noticed, the last one is still capitalized. --Pinky sl (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pinky sl: I've updated sl:Modul:String2 to use the mw.string library in place of the standard string library. That allows it to work with unicode characters, which is needed to handle letters with diacritics. Let me know if you have any problems with that. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

Please remove [[es:Usuario:Doc James/Infobox]]. Jay D. Easy (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Removed. I don't know the context for that link, but it didn't seem to be displaying anything. If the link was useful, it should probably be placed in the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Beta?

This template now has over 6K transclusions. Surely the time has come, to remove the "beta" heading and deprecate the old template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andy: The template still needs considerable cleanup – for example, capitalised parameter names – and there are still over 400 articles in Category:Pages using infobox medical condition with unknown parameters that I'm slowly working through to see what problems exist. It might be best to wait a week or so, until the category is emptied, so that we could cleanly replace the old template. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andy: I've finished the clean-up for now and re-rated this infobox as 'protected'. I guess you'll need a TfD to deprecate Template:Infobox medical condition in favour of this one and its companion, Template:Medical resources. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving the template to "Infobox medical condition"

The problem is that this messes up the translation tool. A bunch of other languages have adopted the "new" template. Thus we need to keep the "new" here to keep those connections. If we drop the "new" than this template becomes associated with the old template in all the other languages which results in a mess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Doc James Which languages? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC).

The 40 languages listed here[5].

All these languages use both the old and the new infobox medical condition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Not all of them. I think 17 have Infobox medical condition (new), I haven't checked which of those have Infobox medical condition.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC).

Why can't this just be fixed? Move Template:Infobox medical condition (new) to Template:Infobox medical condition and change Wikidata:Q22765453 so that it points to Template:Infobox medical condition. Is this not enough? I have removed Template:Infobox medical condition from Wikidata:Q6436840 as there is no Infobox there anymore, just a redirect. Wikidata:Q6436840 could, if wanted be linked to Template:Infobox medical condition (old) after the redirect has been moved. Having to keep (new) for all eternity seems dumb, and fixing it now should be easier than fixing it later? @Doc James: Tholme (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tholme other languages still have two infoboxes as they have not completed the switch over yet. So redirecting at Wikidata would result in two different templates pointing to a single Wikidata item.

But I see you moved the EN one to "old". Moving the EN one will result in confusion with respect to naming. As other languages uses "new" / just plain template. Moving it does not fix anything of significance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I havent moved the EN one, I have changed the label name on Wikidata:Q6436840 to (old) as and deleted the link to enwiki ad it is a template no longer in use. I will create a move request and we can see what others say. Tholme (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2019

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

Moved. See general agreement below to drop the "new" qualifier. That title will of course redirect to the new template title. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  01:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Template:Infobox medical condition (new) → Template:Infobox medical condition – Template:Infobox medical condition is now just a redirect to Template:Infobox medical condition (new). Remove the unnecessary suffix. Move old template Template:Infobox medical condition (old) to keep history. See also discussion above. Tholme (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. As the nom has noted, Template:Infobox medical condition redirects to Template:Infobox medical condition (new). Listing it as a page to be moved (to Template:Infobox medical condition (old), which also redirects to Template:Infobox medical condition (new)) has resulted in a malformed requested move, because redirects should not be nominated to be renamed. To fix this, I have removed the redirect from this request. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  00:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I started to move this page using the round robin to preserve the redirect's non-trivial page history, and before I could finish I read the previous discussion. This request should remain open in case more input is needed to resolve the translation tool issue noted in the previous discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  02:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support change. Other languages, if want to import this should adopt and fix their code. There is no reason at all for a malformed title like this to be a primary title for an infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3 July 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Apologies. It appears to work so I am removing my request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox medical condition → Template:Infobox medical condition (new) – The "new" is required as previously stated for the "content translation" tool to work. If one moves drops the "new" this template becomes unassociated with all the other ones that are similar in other languages. I have thus restored to how it was before. This is the most used template by WP:MED and that project was not even notify of the prior move request. Neither were those who were involved in the discussion just before. I have now notified them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support "Template:Infobox medical condition (new)" its logical--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Doc. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There are two Wikidata items, Q22765453 for new and Q6436840 for old. Renaming en:Template:Infobox medical condition (new) to en:Template:Infobox medical condition should not break anything as long as it still connects to Wikidata Q22765453. It is also contrary to process to perform a move and request it at the same time, and this has screwed up the hatnote of this section and the text at Wikipedia:Requested moves#July 3, 2019. jnestorius^(talk) 16:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Doc James: as to why WP:MED "was not even notify" — It should automatically have shown up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts#RM but did not. I think it's because this Talk:page uses {{WPMED}} instead of {{WikiProject Medicine}} whereas Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list#M specifies only the latter. jnestorius^(talk) 17:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Template:Infobox medical condition (new)" This should not be a community discussion. This is some technical wiki weirdness. The point is to make the template names match the code which makes the tool work. I would prefer that this template not be named "new", because this is the standard template and calling it new is odd. At the same time the priority is making the automated processes around the template work. Ideally we would update those to work on the appropriate name, but if it is easier to keep the name odd rather than update the code of the processes then let's do that as the practical solution. This does not seem like a standard RfC, and rather an attempt to clarify miscommunication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bluerasberry:, @Doc James: - a few of you have mentioned a "translation tool". If you don't just mean the standard wikidata interlanguage links then what do you mean? Is there a link to some page explaining it? The template documentation doesn't mention it or explain how changing the name would break it. Neither does this talk page. jnestorius^(talk) 21:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• If you complain about not being notified, it is strange that you don't even bother pinging the editors from the previous discussion, and only notify those that will vote as yourself. A bit of canvassing there. Obviously oppose as the name en.wiki uses should be in the correct form. Anything else can be fixed to work with it, not the other way around. To closing admin, please make sure that in case of a no-consensus, the status-quo is the previous close, which was opened for 16 days and relisted. Enough time for whoever wanted to participate. Pinging @Tholme from the previous discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thought about closing this as out-of-process, since I closed the previous RM as moved to Template:Infobox medical condition. I see no good reason at this point in time for A) this move request, nor B) for the template to have been renamed prematurely before the closure of this RM. Noted is the final post in the above pre-RMs discussion that specifically gave notice of the first requested move, and the fact that at this time the oppose rationale and questions by jnestorius have not been answered. Doc James, I have a lot of respect for both your medical prowess/contributions and your admin status; however, until these opposition concerns are addressed, I must seriously question what has taken place here. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  22:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Paine Ellsworth let me double check the linking and functioning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay User:Paine Ellsworth and User:Gonnym it appears I am mistaken. You also adjusted the old template under old and thus the language links are still appropriately associated. We have this group of 88 templates for the old template[6] We have this template for the grouping of 42 new templates[7] As it appears to work I am happy to withdraw this RM and leave it as it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template move requests and ArticleAlertbot

[FYI re the preceding discussion] As to why the move request didnt show up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts#RM — the ArticleAlertbot developers have told me that it's a design oversight (which will be fixed in the medium term) that Template: move requests are excluded. jnestorius^(talk) 07:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Management

Following the request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles #Treatment v. Management in infobox, I've implemented the ability to use |management=. If the management parameter is used instead of treatment, the label changes to "Management". If both parameters are present, treatment overrides management. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

This infobox should have an |etymology= parameter so that, for instance, we can say that Raynaud syndrome is named after Maurice Raynaud. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thumbtime parameter

Hi,

Is there anyway to specify a thumbtime, as you can Module:InfoboxImage?

Thanks, Lukelahood (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

ICD-10 classification?

Wouldn't it be good to include ICD-10, MeSH, and/or SNOMED CT classifications in the infobox? Infoboxes for biological, physics, astronomical objects typically include quite detailed technical information.

This is just a suggestion. I see that {{medical resources}} is in the bottom of Coronavirus disease 2019, so the info is already present in the article in a machine-readable format, and readable by humans who scroll to the end. Boud (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There was a general acceptance that the infobox should contain key information for the lay user. The old version contained numerous identifiers for different databases, etc. It was considered that they were mainly of interest to a much more limited audience, and were all too often not mentioned in the body of the article, thus breaching one of the fundamental principles of infobox design. The result was that all of the identifiers were split off into the {{medical resources}}, which would be placed at the end of the article. The expectation is that members of the limited audience who wanted to see ICD-10, etc. will quickly recognise where to find that information. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Incubation

What about to add "Incubation period" as a parameter? ThanksManco Capac (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

Change Lukelahood (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Lukelahood:  Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I put in the desired code and it shows my desired changes in test cases. I've never really edited a template before, but I believe I am just adding a parameter that is passed on to the utilized module: InfoboxImage, which has code for thumbtime. Lukelahood (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Lukelahood: you are new to template editing, yet you seem well-versed in media files, while I must confess that I am not. Just so I am clear, the default thumbtime is somewhere near the beginning of the video, and on the testcases page, you override the default by use of the |image_thumbtime= parameter, which you set so that frame no. 34 is the still frame that is first seen? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: Somewhat correct. The default thumbtime is at the midpoint of the video. On the testcases page, yes I am overriding the default, setting it to a frame at 34 seconds. Also, I've found a page that explains my situation: Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images (7) ″If InfoboxImage is not yet fully implemented in the infobox you are using, the same alt=, upright=, title=, etc., parameters may be called using Extended image syntax, calling frameless, not thumb.″ Per that, I have used extended image syntax to achieve what I want on the page I'm working on, although now the page I'm working on is one of the 80,000 using "decrecated syntax": Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax (0). I don't see why not utilize the thumbtime parameter of the InfoboxImage module if possible and easy, but perhaps the small bit of code I put in there could somehow throw off other wikipedia pages.

@Lukelahood and Paine Ellsworth: The addition of the parameter to this template does no more than enable the corresponding parameter in Module:InfoboxImage, which is capable of handling videos as well as static images. It's not unusual for a template that was originally envisaged as using only an image to need that upgrade when a video clip is substituted, so I've implemented the change here. Thanks to Lukelahood for doing the coding and testing; and thanks to Paine Ellsworth for doing due diligence on the request. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth and RexxS: Thanks to both of you. It works well on the page I'm editing. I just updated the documentation. Despite it working, I still get the message "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox medical condition with unknown parameter "image_thumbtime" (this message is shown only in preview)." Not sure if this will go away with time.Lukelahood (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Lukelahood: try it now; just included the parameter near the bottom of the template code. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Lukelahood: thank you for updating the documentation. The warning message is because the template does a check for allowed parameters, which you'll usually find near the bottom of the template code – looks for #invoke:Check for unknown parameters. You only have to add the name of the new parameter to the whitelist as I've just done. Please feel free to ping me if you encounter any other problems. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It works, all is good now. Appreciate the explanation, I can see what you did there. Lukelahood (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Prevalence

I've replicated Infobox medical condition together with Module:PrevalenceData in ukwiki and I have some troubles. (I'm not sure how should I localise the num formatting but that's not the point). I see that in case a value in Wikidata will cause an error in module, the template does not show it at all. And I can't understand on what this depends, cause in ukwiki I get Lua error "attempt to perform arithmetic on field 'lowerBound' (a nil value)" (example: uk:Синдром Дауна, Down syndrome). Can someone please give me a hint to what I miss? Thank you! -- Ата ^(talk) 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ата: You haven't missed anything. The same error appears when calling the module here or at Down syndrome or at uk:Синдром Дауна:

• {{#invoke:PrevalenceData |main |qId=Q47715}} → 0.1% <-- was error; now fixed!

The only reason you don't see the error at Down syndrome is that someone has added the prevalence as a local value, so the call doesn't happen. Line 20 in the module falls over if there is no lower bound given in the Wikidata entry for prevalence (P1193) - as there isn't in Down syndrome (Q47715). In fact, I'm having a problem finding any value for prevalence in Wikidata that is a range.

Anyway, these sorts of cases can be handled by Module:WikidataIB's getValue function:

• {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|ps=1|P1193|qid=Q47715}} → 0.001

Using the string-handling function val2percent will transform all of the numbers to percentages, if that display is preferred.

• {{#invoke:String2 |val2percent | {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|ps=1|P1193|qid=Q47715}}}} → 0.1%

I've made a demo in Template:Infobox medical condition/sandbox that works for Down syndrome. Perhaps you could try it out in ukwiki and let me know if you find any problems. It should automatically format numbers for you. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, unaware of this discussion I've made a fix in ukwiki on the module level: uk:Special:Diff/28285330/28286202. Would you prefer to backport this change here or to go with what you've done and basically ditch the module? Either one works for me, but I would prefer to have stuff in sync. --Base (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Base, I've incorporated your fix, thank you. I've also now switched the module to use getBestStatements to remove any expensive calls, and I've skipped values that are novalue/somevalue as they cause index errors, as well as some tidying. You may want to re-import the latest Module:PrevalenceData now.

• {{#invoke:PrevalenceData |main}} →
• {{#invoke:PrevalenceData |main |qId=Q47715}} → 0.1%

I'm not worried about whether folks use the low-level WikidataIB tools or the specialised module as long as they perform similarly. I guess it's worth keeping the module now that it's working. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Differential diagnosis

I'm curious whether the infobox for "Differential Diagnosis" is ideally intended to contain just the alternate explanations for same/simliar symptoms from which the subject must be differentiated, or actual detail of how the differential is done between the two choices? On Haltlose personality disorder I've just listed "ADHD" as a DD with a link to a PubMed showing that they must be distinguished due to similar symptoms - which I think is the proper route - since there is not enough room to go into more detail in an infobox...but I am open to correction. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of each parameter is listed in the template's documentation. For differential diagnosis its purpose for inclusion is to list "... other disease or conditions [that] should be evaluated before concluding patient has the illness". So you are using it as designed. Little pob (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

oops, sorry I missed that there were descriptions - still getting used to how Wikipedia works, I wrote something many years ago but never fully understood it...and I still do not :) HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. We've all overlooked things on WP - it's why WP:AGF exists. As an INTP I can be a bit (accidentally) blunt at times, so apologies if it does/did read that way. Also, there are a lot of templates on WP were the parameter descriptions are missing. So it's easy for newer editors to not realise that there's even supposed to documentation on how a given template is supposed to be used. Little pob (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Automatic short description

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Short descriptions#Descriptions from infoboxes: still some more low-hanging-fruit this template was raised as a candidate for automatic short descriptions. This would mean that the 6400 articles with this infobox but without a short description would get the short description "Medical condition". This could be overridden by adding a description manually. By my check this seems like this should be acceptable for all pages, but I don't have subject matter expertise in any sense of the term so input from medical editors would be much appreciated. I've notified the WikiProject. --Trialpears (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Trialpears, I think you've got the wrong link there. When I click on "6400", I see a list of articles like Military Cross, FIFA World Player of the Year, and Oak leaf cluster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing the same for {{Infobox award}} and got the wrong link. Fixed now. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

right--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I've spotted 2 in the first 100 where the suggested generic description might look like nonsense when viewed in conjunction with the article: Inhalant and Pathogenic bacteria. A low percentage on a small sample size, but just thought I'd mention it. Little pob (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not great... I've taken some efforts to try and find any other cases where a bad description would be generated. This consisted of me finding all applicable articles in drug categories and in bacteria categories. I found another few cases on top of the two you found and added short descriptions to them. I also did a couple of other tests trying to find other dubious uses of the templates and found and added a description for Animal bite. This is good enough for me to be comfortable deploying the description, but people are welcome to do more checks if so desired. --Trialpears (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections I've gone ahead and implemented it. --Trialpears (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

+onset_always

For osteogenesis imperfecta, an exclusively genetic disorder, it is incorrect to say that the "usual" onset is at birth. Rather, the onset is always at birth. Therefore, I propose this patch, which adds a field called onset_always, which, when set, changes the text "Usual onset" to "Onset". Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:  Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

+specialty_plural

Once again for osteogenesis imperfecta, I noted that the infobox heading Specialty makes little sense when a list is on offer, and clashes doubly so considering most of the rest of the headings are in the plural form. Therefore, I propose this patch, which adds a parameter called |specialty_plural=, which, when set, changes "Specialty" to "Specialties". Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 19:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"symptoms" too narrow as summary of description

For example, in Havana syndrome, this should be "signs, symptoms, and sensations". At the very least, it should be "signs and symptoms", as shown by the article it's linked to.--Espoo (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Etymology

Would it be possible to add "Etymology" as a parameter in this template? With many medical terms, we want to say where the word comes from, and usually a very brief reference to Greek is all we need. This tends to be buried somewhere in the article among the medical data, which is not helpful either to readers looking for the linguistic information or those studying the medical phenomenon. I think it was a great idea to put "pronunciation" into the template (is that recent? I hadn't noticed it before) and putting etymology right after it would be very useful.

As an example, Psoriasis currently has the etymology at the end of the long head. Until a few minutes ago it also had the same information duplicated in the infobox as part of the pronunciation information. But it wasn't clear what that was, so I deleted it. However, with a proper parameter allowing a separate line, I would prefer to put it back into the infobox and delete the sentence from the head. Then that would look like this:

Etymology = Greek ψωρίασις, "itching condition" from psora, "itch", and -iasis, "condition".

--Doric Loon (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Information, especially information like this, should not appear in the infobox unless it is also in the body of the article, with a citation to a reliable source. I do not recommend the above approach. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

Please add the option "etymology" after "pronunciation". Doric Loon (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What would such an option be used for? Etymologies are usually fairly specific and long and so relegated to the article's content, not seen in infoboxes. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: can be revisited when above question is answered. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

Please can fields be added to allow contributors to add a second image and caption, I think on other templates this is just called image2 and caption2. I started a discussion here to ask for comments and there were no objections.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC) John Cummings (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added the code to {{Infobox medical condition/sandbox}} (diff).

If acceptable, copy all /sandbox code into {{Infobox medical condition}}.

New parameters, exact copies of |image= (#1) workings:

| image2      = 
| image_size2 = 
| caption2    = 
| alt2        = 
| image_thumbtime2 =
| width2      = 

Tests: see Template:Infobox medical condition/testcases § image2

I have no opinion on preferred usage of second image. Todo: add to documentation page. -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks DePiep for making it much easier! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Was good to know that you were waiting on the other side :-) -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Why frequency verses incidence or prevalence?

This was discussed on the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome talk page. The infobox description of frequency uses incidence or prevalence. Those two seem to be the preferred terminology. The citations for the material in the article use "prevalence". Why does the infobox use frequency? Ward20 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if frequency was used as it's a single word that's a synonym for both incidence and prevalence (at least for lay people like myself). If the three are different medically and/or statistically, however, is having frequency, incidence, and prevalence parameters appropriate? Little pob (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, what was done with the treatment parameter should solve this. Will see if I can look up the code, and tag for a template editor to implement. Little pob (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just tried to adapt the code from treatment/management on the sandbox, and view in testcases; but couldn't get it to work. Here's the code I tried:

| label25 = {{#if:{{{frequency|}}}|Frequency|Incidence|Prevalence}}

| data25 = {{{frequency|{{{incidence|{{{prevalence|{{#invoke:PrevalenceData|main}}}}}

Hopefully an editor more versed that I will swing by and offer some insight. Little pob (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible for label25 and data25 to be adjusted so that any of frequency, incidence or prevalence can be used as the parameter, please? Little pob (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 08:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Short description

The Short description template should be wrapped in a {{main other}} template or the template itself is infected with the SD — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

New optional parameters "Identified", "Eradicated", etc.

Would be most helpful to know when a disease or other condition was first identified (if only "c. 1300s" for some old diseases). Also "eradicated" for smallpox at least. Also maybe "peak" for largest number of identified cases (Spanish flu?). Facts707 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Communicable versus non-communicable diseases

The template in its current form is best suited to non-communicable diseases. Please can we add the following fields for communicable (infectious) diseases?

• incubation period
• duration
• case fatality rate

Bob (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Would be nice to also have a "Communicable" parameter (Yes/No). Facts707 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Causes field ambiguity

The field "causes" is ambiguous: it reads like this causes something else. E.g. diabetes causes obesity. I'd like to rename so that readers can understand that it's caused by, not causes. Vanuan (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that some might be reading "causes" as complications, rather than the intended aetiology. I'd like to propose we keep as is, but wikilink the parameter name to cause (medicine). I will post in WP:MED for more voices. Little pob (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

When you're looking at a single word, English doesn't visibly differentiate between "the causes of" and "it causes..." Cause(s) would be clearer but uglier. Caused by might be misunderstood as all possible causes being required (rather than any single one being sufficient). I like the suggestion @Little pob from to add a link. @Vanuan, what would you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

yes, add a link is a better idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer either "etiology" with a link to "cause (medicine)" or adding "the" before "causes". But probably just a link is fine. Is there a corresponding wikidata property? How is it labeled there? --Vanuan (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a corresponding wikidata property? How is it labeled there? The relevant WD property seems to be has cause (P828).

Whilst there are the risk factor (P5642) and genetic association (P2293) properties; those would probably be reflected under |risks= in this infobox. Little pob (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that etiology was discussed when the template was new and was rejected because most people don't really know what it means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn [Request to add diagnostic code and Category]

Can the following be added:

• diagnostic code
• diagnostic manual using that code

eg Crohn disease is code DD70 from the ICD-11 - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Amousey WP:MED has a consensus that this information does not belong in this infobox. Please use the {{medical resources}} navigation box for classification codes instead. Little pob (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for

Subtypes for a condition

Is it a good idea to add a field to have subtypes for a condition? For example:

• Hypertension
  • Essential hypertension
  • Secondary hypertension
  • Hypertensive crisis
  • Gestational hypertension
• Protein–energy malnutrition
  • Kwashiorkor
  • Marasmus

I think it might make it easier to navigate to the different types vice versa --Cs california (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I like it. If there's a long list you can always list the few most prominent and then "more..." with a link. Facts707 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That would duplicate the purpose of navigation templates, whereas infoboxes are intended to summarise the article. The above examples have {{Vascular diseases}} and {{Nutritional pathology}} respectively at the end of each article. Little pob (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)