Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old)/Archive 4

Synonyms look terrible and are unclear

As it stands, synonyms for a medical condition look terrible, are hard to read, and it's not even clear what you're looking at. They are in small text, the font is courier (why?) and there's no descriptor like "alternate names" or "synonyms" to make it clear to the reader what it is that they're looking at. Meanwhile, all the descriptions for technical stuff like OMIM and MeSH are well-labelled and completely clear and legible. See Leptospirosis for an example if you like, but any page with a synonym will do.

Could somebody please fix the synonyms section? I would be bold and do it myself, but I lack the technical know-how to edit templates. Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 15:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you suggest as a fix? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

1. A descriptor like "Synonyms:" or "Alternate names:" or something like that at the beginning of the line.
2. The text be a normal size
3. The typeface not be courier. I now see that CFCF chose courier to make the tiny text more legible, but I don't think it makes sense to have the text be so small that this problem arises.

Above all, it should be clear what the reader is looking at, and be legible. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Oreo Priest ^talk 10:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed fontsettings, no reason to change those. Added the label as proposed. See testcases. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please await answers DePiep, it's currently being discussed, and ought in reality impact very few readers. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nvm, I had misunderstood what you changed. I like the example in testcases, you're free to introduce it by me. What's important is that they appear under the title, not under the image. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I asked some designer friends to take a look and they agreed that it might have been slightly unclear what it was referring to. However the text is hardly tiny, it's set at 90% of normal size, and much of Wikipedia uses text that is far smaller.
The reason I chose a monospace font was twofold: it makes it distinct from the title; and there was precedent with the Swedish Wikipedia having used this style for over 5 years (introduced by Klementin).
The reason I chose courier over other monospace fonts i that there is a bug when defaulting to "monospace" in Firefox, where the text becomes very small. Using Courier resolves that (on Windows or OSX/linux machines with MS Office or MS-fonts installed). May I ask what OS and browser you're running Oreo Priest?
P.S. Looking into alternatives, but won't make any changes before I get anything viable. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'm using Firefox on Windows 10. It looks like this. Oreo Priest ^talk 12:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Carl, why wait? Nothing wrong with sandboxing.

Had to reorganise the header-organisation. The box is re-defining too much, infobox should keep original intention (ie, don't restyle a subheader into a header - unless there is a very very good reason). -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

re Carl: I see no need to change font or other styling in the first place. Already, by using |title=, the difference is clear by layout. If a label like "synonym(s)" is needed, then simply use |label1=. Alternatively, we can put synonyms in |above= or |subheader=, but without crafting a labeltext with it. Tbd: do the synonyms need a label?Or are they clear when right under the title inside the box? -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The sandbox demo now shows both options: as subheader (above) and as data (more below). One to pick! -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Both already look a lot better. I do prefer that "synonyms" be explicit, otherwise there are a bunch of words (the synonyms) stranded without context. Oreo Priest ^talk 12:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel the same, but formally an infobox has no option to put a "label" in top. Should be manually formatted then.

While we are at it, what with pronunciation? Totday is is in the classification block. Move to above too? -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Oreo Priest ^talk 12:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

See current testcases now. (Moved the image to below a few rows). -DePiep (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as the synonyms are concerned, I think that looks great! Let's implement it!

Personally, I don't think the pronunciation should be given such prominence, and I would think it's the sort of thing that belongs in the prose rather than the infobox, whether in the classification block or not. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

hmm, yes, the pronounce. I thought it should be near the title as possible. But agreed , this is too prominent. Removal better be discussed other time. I'll put it right below the image, above the headertext classification. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that that's an improvement! Oreo Priest ^talk 15:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Still needs tweaking. The sole header (grey bar) now unbalances the thing visually. I'll try make it a notch lighter. And I'll put the Wikidata link as a regular resource link. Not just to edit, but to read. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

See testcases (To test the Wikidata link, preview the Infobox_medical_condition/sandbox in Leptospirosis). When this fleshing out is stable wrt opinions, I'll make it a clear proposal here. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Oreo Priest ^talk 11:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Will need to update Template:Infobox medical condition (new) aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Good. Will look into that one too. But we must take some time to gather all replies etc. here. Can't rush an agreement. -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Liking that sandboxed layout. Esp moving the lay understandable data above the classifications break. Would be interested in seeing how unwieldy it would look with the parameters used for both extant medical info boxes set out in that way. Little pob (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the pronunciation looks good above classification and external resources.

Not sure about the wikidata change? Think the "edit on Wikidata" is clearer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Chewing. Wikidata this way (as another external resource) ... new for me too, but I think it makes sense. Wording could be 'edit' -- until we all are useed to the obviousness of the link. In general, we address the Reader, not the Editor. (though I won't fight over this). -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

With this, any other text acceptable, except for todays "[edit on Wikidata]"? -DePiep (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit on Wikidata]
or
Wikidata	[d:Q155098]
or
Wikidata	d:Q155098 (view, edit)

• Speedy poll: how to present the Wikidata link? (Above: current editing link, semi-external link. Mid: straight wikilink (semi-external to sister), below: link saying view&edit. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (updated)

I'm proposing the Reader's version, for reason told. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Is our sister project truely an external link? The infobox is partly based on wikidata so not really.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No, not an external link (and it does not show like that). However, for all facts & purposes it is correct to put it under "external resources". -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

added third option. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

After development talks above, I propose current version, as demo'ed in testcases. Changes:

• OP requests re Synomyms: font normal, add label "Synonym/s", position right under title.
• In general: follow original intention of {{Infobox}} design. Title above, use sectionheader (for classifications & resources, here), labeltext as descriptor. (IOW, reduced number of special style settings and constructs). Image is not in default position.
• Also:

Pronunciation right above the subheader 'class & resource' (does not belong under it)

Wikidata link presented as regular 'external resource' (reader-targeted).

Option |QID= to set the Wikidata target page. |QID=Q155098 will link to that Wikidata page. Useed when linked item is not the true infobox med condition.

These pages (QID blank/missing, and/or QID set) are tracked in Category:Articles without connected item in Wikidata Category:Medical condition not in Wikidata (consistent naming pattern). Maintenance task: see the category page.

Todo: {{Infobox medical condition (new)}}, similar.

Remarks? OK? @Little pob, Doc James, Oreo Priest, and CFCF: -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above wikidata is our sister project and not truly an external link. The infobox is partly based on wikidata so we want to notify people clearly regarding how they can change details of the infobox. Happy with the rest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Very subtle! Too subtle? Right now, the box shows like "Specialty Infectious disease", read from WD. But it does not say so, and there is no link "edit this in WD" next to it. Of course one can not edit this in the article code at all. I'm inclined to say: sure link to the WD item (where to edit), no need to provide how to edit. Something like that? Already running: WP:VP-Misc:Is Wikidata d:Q42 not an external link?. -DePiep (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In WP:VPM, it shows that the development is still undecided on this. I have added a third option showing: Wikidata d:Q155098 (view, edit).

Also in the demo now. My favorite. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We also already have Wikidata listed in the left column. For some infoboxes much of the infobox can be edited on Wikidata not just that one line so IMO that bit was clearer before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't follow this. Did you respond to my latest post that introduces the (view, edit) link? Are you saying readers/editors can & should go to the Wikidata item page only using the Tools link (lefthand column, the one outside of article space)? But a link that says "edit" must be in the infobox? Unclear.

My overview. In the infobox, the wikidata page is an external resource (except for hairsplitting semantics). As with other resources in the same infobox, we show the ID (for Wikidata, that is the QID). As with other resources, we provide a link. The Wikidata resource is content. All this is aimed at the reader.

Now for reasons you mentioned, we should be able to edit the value. Well, that is possible via that same link. That's how Wikidata works, today (open page & edit are inseparable). So since the "edit" link is provided, your request is fulfilled. While serving the reader. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata is not just for editing that one wikidata value but is for editing a bunch of values in the infobox. It is more than an EL especially in the new infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, I just mentioned it to test the argument into the extreme. Which versions (three available now) are acceptable for you? -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not change the style of the entire infobox. The infobox is currently being revamped, so major changes are likely to disappear anyway. The discussion concerned the style of only the synonyms section — not even the background color of it. I do not think it fruitful to change anything else right now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

re Carl F. Methinks this talkpage is where changes are being discussed. From where comes the request to not touch the infobox? And anyway, improvement today does not prejudice improvement tomorrow. -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DePiep. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The style of the synonyms section certainly includes the background colour. The light background colour is an aesthetic improvement and an improvement to readability. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think with regard to the synonyms it's a big improvement. I don't have a strong opinion with respect to the rest. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Late edit in template: tracking category for Wikidata is Category:Medical condition not in Wikidata for naming consistency. -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am happy with all the changes except that to wikidata. Carl do you have concerns with the other bits? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, I reread the talk here. Got the strong impression your were not responding to anything of what I've put forward (e.g. 'treat it as content', or the third version). Disappointing, sort of ididnthearyou. For the sake of going forward, I'll leave this Wikidata thing unchanged without prejudice. -DePiep (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit on Wikidata]
or
Wikidata	[d:Q155098]
or
Wikidata	d:Q155098 (view, edit)

From what I gather you are asking which of the three I prefer and my answer is the first one as IMO it is clearer that the "edit button" is for the entire infobox, not just the one line of text. Should be blue to make it the same color as usual edit buttons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's a choice, I also prefer the full "edit on wikidata" text. Is there a precedent for having both though? Little pob (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave it as it is. There are few precedents/examples, because Wikidata is relatively new (see also this WP:VPM post). Also, this infobox has the feature that it already shows "external resources", so the Wikidata link might reasonably fit in (as reader's content text, not an edit-this-template editor's link we are more familiar with like v-t-e). Said, no changes in this. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Late edit in template: name inside the box—kept. Work around bug. In mobile view, the standard {{Infobox}} we use does not show the |title= right (that is the text on top, outside of the infobox). It becomes left-aligned, and less big/bold. (See this report). So I have put the name inside the infobox border (where it already was), as |above= input. This way it keeps its prominence, also in mobile view. -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Done -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree! Thanks DePiep. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to do the same with 'Infobox medical condition (new)'

As was intended, I have copied these changes to the {{Infobox medical condition (new)}} sandbox. Discussion is at the talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Template changes 16 March

Made some technical changes, invisible except when buggy.

• Use new #statements: parser function to retrieve Wikidata values (not module and GetValue).
• Remove |style= wrt Wikidata
• Track background color setting
• Improve showing when double parameter used (for example, both |Field=, |field= are used). This may give unexpected effects such as hiding true input.
• Track double parameter input in Category:Pages with Infobox medical condition using multiple parameters for one.

-DePiep (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep FWIW, in article Lymphatic filariasis I get the warning message:

 Warning: Page using Template:Infobox medical condition with unknown parameter "1 = ??" (this message is shown only in preview).

I have not noticed any significant effect except for the message when editing.
I mention it in case this is where it is relevant. JonRichfield (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The message says that you have entered an empty (unnamed) parameter like:

{{infobocx medical condition
| field           = Psychiatry
|
| ICD10           = {{ICD10|F84.0}}
}}

This is harmless (as you saw), and can be saved. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On second thought: I will remove this warning, because it is both trivial and distracting. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)