Template talk:Infobox medical condition

Active discussions
WikiProject Infoboxes  
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Moving the template to "Infobox medical condition"Edit

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[1].
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 2019Edit

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 Ellsworthed. put'r there  01:37, 18 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 Ellsworthed. 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 2019Edit

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 conditionTemplate: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)
  • 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 Ellsworthed. put'r there  22:42, 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[2] We have this template for the grouping of 42 new templates[3] 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 ArticleAlertbotEdit

[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)

ManagementEdit

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)

EtymologyEdit

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 parameterEdit

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?Edit

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)

IncubationEdit

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 2020Edit

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

To 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 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 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 (28) ″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 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)

PrevalenceEdit

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 diagnosisEdit

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)
Return to "Infobox medical condition" page.