Wikipedia

Template talk:Medical resources/Archive 2

< Template talk:Medical resources
Latest comment: 6 years ago by DferDaisy in topic References inside template
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template

Latest comment: 7 years ago102 comments20 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is strong consensus to execute Option 2.Whilst Option 1 comes close--it has been specifically opposed by some of the participants in the discussion.Winged Blades Godric 05:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the Medical condition classification and resources template be placed above or below the normal external links for medical articles? --RexxS (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Background

Traditionally, medical classifications and resources have been placed in the article's infobox. These are external links to internationally-recognised websites such as MeSH, ICD, etc. In an effort to make the lead of medical articles more focused on our general audience, it was decided to move these links from the infobox to a predictable place at the bottom of each article and this template was devised to keep the links together and make it easy for an editor to add them, since the format of the urls are fixed and can be generated from a single identifier in each case. It also makes updating resources easier, for example if a website reorganisation alters that format.

However, objections have been raised (see above) that the template is in the wrong place and that it breaches the guideline WP:ELT. This RfC seeks community consensus for the existence of the template and for its placement in a medical article.

The options to organize the external link sections of medical articles are set out below.

Option 1 - template above

External links

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.

Option 2 - template below

External links

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.

Option 3 - no template

External links

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.

External links

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.

Option 4 - cataloging data at bottom

External links

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.

Option 5 - remove layman articles from template to post in external links; template at bottom

External links

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.

Option 6 - add two templates - one for layman articles, one for cataloging data

External links

External links
MedscapeMeningitis
MedscapeMeningitis
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.

Option 7 - no automated management of external links, cataloging data at bottom

External links

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.

Option 8 - move them back into the infobox

Do not move the identifiers out of the infobox (i.e. override the local consensus to move them out of the infobox in the first place).

Support option 1

  • Support We used to place all this content in the infobox. These are fairly important details with respect to classification and a few key external links. IMO it makes the most sense to put them at the top of the EL section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • support this seems to be best option...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as second choice: The value of having a template both in terms of presentation and ease of editing clearly outweighs any problems of going against WP:ELT in this case. --RexxS (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support option one as only logical choice. These are all links that are likely far more important than others that will be added. They should be displayed prominently in the EL-section. The fact that alternative 2 might "look good" does not help when it hides the content and loses it in the navigation bar. Carl Fredrik talk 22:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. per Doc James. It seems a little bit better than any of the other options from a utilitarian point of view and the appearance is quite acceptable. On further consideration, CFCF makes good points too. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    The template groups a set of standard external sources that will be commonly used together, in an order that will become familiar, which makes them more easily found or ignored as the situation warrants than the rest of the external links, so the use of a standardised formatting by way of a template is useful. Putting the template ahead of the untemplated other external links indicates that these are a set of important and reliable links, whereas the additional list may or may not be of equivalent importance. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - preferring 2 or 4 instead per my rationale here. I have chosen to oppose this option instead of supporting other options because the question of whether or not one supports the usage of this template in articles has been lumped in with the question this rfc asks (i.e. where the template should be placed within articles). I advised against doing that above and am neutral on that aspect. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as first choice by far. All the information is well organised and easy to follow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I also think Option 1 is best as this is very important information and putting it at the start of the external links is a good, visible place. EMsmile (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having a full-width horizontal box at the top of the section makes it look like the normal external links are just spammed in somewhere or another. You have to spend a fraction of a second searching for the regular external links, so it's hard to read. They look very much like they were added after a navbox (which happens all the time). I think it's a bad design choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This makes the medical articles look completely different from all other articles, and is a violation of WP:ELCITE/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#External_links_section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems to me the best option. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 09:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I am not much bothered and think that a few of the options are about equally good, but this one looks acceptable anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Support option 2

Support option 3

Support option 4

Support option 5

Support option 6

  • Oppose, this violates WP:NOT#REPOSITORY (duplicating external links already linked elsewhere), and is still hiding important information at the bottom of the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — actually a decent suggestion and good form. Why not have a second infobox equivalent at the bottom of articles? Carl Fredrik talk 06:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The split in 'layman' and 'classification' ELs is artificial: links like ICD-10 are readable & understandable by layman just as well. Also, even if they were distinguisable, they still belong in the External links section (not below with the navboxes). -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think I understand your view here. Are you saying that you would (imagine a world in which infoboxes didn't exist) actually put
      ==External links==
      * [http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/G80.4 ICD-10 entry]
      at the end of an article? And you would actually expect that typical readers would consider that to be just as interesting and appropriate a link, as, say, a link to a page from a highly regarded charity about what it's like to raise a child with that disorder, or a link to a high-quality article about bleeding-edge research into that condition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Assuming both your example ELs are accepted at all in the article (which is not part of this discussion). You say "at the end of an article", I say no: the end is the bottom, right above the categories where the Authority control is. I definitely do not want them there (because: they are content related ELs, not AuthControl like non-info).
Per MOS:LAYOUT the 'External links' section is in 'Appendices' (and so part of article body text I add), and not in the lower, not-sectionheaded 'Bottom matter' (that's the MOS wording; which are navigational elements etc., and so, for important example, do not shown in mobile view -- that's high-level webpage design). I want them in the article body, External links section. Not coincidentally, they are external links, leading to content.
Since you introduce a differentiation saying "a highly regarded charity" vs. the "ICD-10 entry", and reference a "typical reader" to make that split. I disagree with introducing such a split at all. If ICD-10 is important enough to include as an EL, then it should be in the article body. If it does not apply to your "typical reader", it probably does not belong in the article at all. I can illustrate: a few weeks ago I had a discussion about using Latin argon wording in {{Drugbox}} (the result is in Oxytocin). And this is the main infobox, not a lower section (which can be more lax in this). So yes, we can add info that's not clear for every reader. If ICD-10 EL info is important enough, it should be in there without patronising readers. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Support option 7

  • Oppose, I think that these classifications are too important to hide at the bottom. Option is however better than options 5 and 6 in having less violation of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and less linkfarming. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 'classification' is not a good distinguishing reason, those ELs are just as useful as the other links. This distinction even would put those links under 'navbox', that is: the hidden section (when in mobile). But these are not navigational links. Treat all as EL. -18:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Support option 8

  • Support. I am aware that this would override the local consensus to move the information out of the infobox, but I see many problems with the alternatives presented here, and see many of the editors who did not participate in the original consensus to move the info out of the infobox comment on problematic this placement is. Also, as many of the editors here argue (including those who participated in the original discussion to move the information out of the infobox in the first place, these are 'fairly important details with respect to classification and a few key external links' (quote from first post of Doc James in the first option). They hence should not be hidden at the bottom of an article. I agree that they 'clutter an infobox, but they are key information about the subject. Infoboxes are not meant to be 'read' (they are not prose), they are meant to present key information in a concise, parametrized, database-like manner. Moreover they lead to external sites which are more reliable than Wikipedia. Moreover, I do think that the argument that infoboxes cannot be collapsed on mobile (which, I agree, is a shortcoming of the MediaWiki software) holds water. The concept of collapsing is something that can be implemented also on mobile devices. These are just key requested improvements in the MediaWiki software which WMF consistently ignores in favour of (often heavily debated) beta-features. (I might support to duplicate the key classifications into the authority control next to having them in the infobox). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disruptive and WP:Pointy suggestion. Carl Fredrik talk 13:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • That is not a reply to the content of my concern... --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • No, I'm suggesting they aren't really meaningful objections. Carl Fredrik talk 08:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
        • So, is it 'disruptive', 'pointy', or '[not] really meaningful'? These are not suitable as external links, they fail inclusion standards as external links. They are now completely out of line with what is Wikipedia-wide roughly the standard (classifications are displayed in infoboxes). Are they key information (as a.o. Doc James is saying) or is this something that can be stuffed at the end of the article because it is not really meaningful anyway? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes important information for a certain group. The most important information in this section IMO. Not sufficiently important to deserve going in the lead though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Putting these external links in the infobox is four steps away from the infobox purpose. For example the "ICD-10: G00" information. First: The number is just a code, meaningless in itself and only useful as a key in the (external) site. The code itself is not information. Second: an infobox is supposed to summarize the article, preferably by using info already present. Obviously, the info (at the external page) is not in the article. While we can add new info in the infobox (for example, the melting point of a chemical, which is usually not mentioned in the article body), an EL is not such info. Third, It is an external link. Why an EL all in the infobox? Even companies have one EL in their infobox, not secondary sites. Fourth: Don't mistake it for a reference (source). Whatever statement in the article it would source, that statement itself is the information.
The reasons Beetstra mentions for infoboxing the ELs, are too much ad hoc. WP:INFOBOX is much more precise about inclusions/exclusions. Sure they are "important", but they just don't fit the infobox requirements. Then, proposing to have these ELs hidden (folded) in the infobox is defeating the whole purpoose & design of the article page: if info is important enough to be in top (infobox or lede), then don't contradict that by hiding it. (Meanwhile, the solution is obvious: it is an external link, so put it in section External link). -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: The point is, it is not suitable as an external link either - external links are to be kept to a minimum, and only link to data that is not already included in the article. See WP:EL, these fail those inclusion standards, often they do not tell anything that is not already in the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. Actually, an ICD code is not "meaningless in itself". To use the example given, "G" means that it's a disorder of the nervous system. For a small subset of our readers, the code is the only piece of information that they are looking for.
    2. Infoboxes do not always repeat information that is in the article. See, e.g., the articles on any atomic element as a counterexample. Hydrogen's a featured article, so perhaps you'd like to start there.
    3. Companies have multiple external links in their infoboxes. See, e.g., Microsoft, which has two external links plus a link to Tool Labs.
    4. It actually is an WP:Inline citation. The only reason we keep the ICD links is so that we can figure out whether the codes are correct (e.g., if someone changes the code). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
C'mon, hairsplitting. Just for once: knowing WP:INFOBOX, again, why these ELs in there? And not in the EL section? -DePiep (talk)
INFOBOX really had nothing to do with the decision. INFOBOX didn't even exist when {{infobox disease}} was created in June 2005, and it's barely been considered since then. Some of these (e.g., ICD codes) are present in the infobox because that's how similar information is handled in, say, {{chembox}}, and because no readers in their right minds would appreciate an ==External links== item for a database entry that says exciting things like "Bacterial meningitis, not elsewhere classified" doesn't include bacterial meningoencephalitis, which has a separate code. More of them are here because editors thought that they were good, free (as in beer) reliable sources (e.g., several of the links related to rare diseases) or because they were listed as ==External links== in hundreds of articles before they were moved to the infobox (e.g., eMedicine). Later, moving them systematically into the infobox was supported to get rid of the WP:SPAMBAIT tendency that is inherent in having an external links section on the page ("Oh, look, Wikipedia has links to eMedicine, MedLine, and now let me add a link to my very useful patient support group in Yahoo! Groups"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
re "why not in the EL section", they do not link to more information than what is available already from the article itself, They often are already linkd (e.g. Through dmoz, hence duplication), What is happening now is a violation of our pillars, WP:NOT. This information does not belong in an EL section. That it does not belong in the infobox according to that guideline is a problem with that guideline vs. common practice: many infoboxes contain classifications and identifiers, taxoboxes and stockdata to name two, --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree profoundly with every single argument you just gave, and I will leave it with that. Carl Fredrik talk 06:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It is good to know that you just disagree, and have no policy based reasoning why these might be fine in the external links section? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Beyond that I state you are wrong on the point: they do provide more information than what is available in the article; they are often not linked elsewhere in any comparable manner (DMOZ is an officially dead project if you did not know); nothing here violation any pillar, or any section of WP:NOT; that infobox-guidelines are broken elsewhere is WP:OTHERSTUFF, and a suggestion that those infoboxes should be revamped… etc…
So, what I meant was: I disagree, because — everything you said was wrong. Carl Fredrik talk 06:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
If I go to medicineplus for Cancer, I get a shorter article which practically tells the same information, less actually. If I go to Shingles, the situation is worse. Medlineplus, patientUK and eMedicine are all three in the dmoz (which itself is dead as I mentioned earlier, but mirrored, ánd external linkfarms are still appropriate per WP:EL, alternatives to the original dmoz may exist), and I yet have to find what a) these articles tell that is not in our article already, and b) there is massive overlap between the information that medlineplus, patientUK and eMedicine present. If one of the external articles would contain anything that would not already be covered and would be a possible addition, then the other two fail our inclusion standards because of that. These are not suitable as external links, they fail our inclusion standards as such. There are other reasons why we should link to them, and that was actually the reason, as described above, to move them into the infobox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Whether the link meets ELNO #1 depends quite a lot upon the subject. Some of them contain information that we don't choose to include (e.g., drug doses), and others have information that we don't think belongs in an encyclopedia article (e.g., information about support groups). It's hard to make a one-size-fits-all statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: So you agree that it will fail our inclusion standards, except for some cases where it contains some extra detail. I've been looking on Shingles - I do not see any of this information in Medlineplus, or eMedicine. Anyway, IF such data were there, we are already linking to the data through the directory service (see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered). And you will also agree that four out of the five links to emedicine (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1007.htm http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic180.htm# http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic823.htm# http://www.emedicine.com/oph/topic257.htm# http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic996.htm#) fail our inclusion standards for external links as 4 of them do not yield any additional information over the first one (if we forget that they are linked through the directory service). In short, one could possibly make an argument for PatientUK on shingles (though it is duplication through the directory service), the other 6 fail. (I am adding to this, that the aciclovir for Shingles is broadly discussed in the article, and I would not be surprised that any of the references there describes optimal doses already. 'If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. - The PatientUK article may be useful as such). Do you want me to do the analysis on a random handful of pages?
So that leaves us with the classifications - none of those links on Shingles gives us extra information, they do not pass WP:ELNO #1.
Don't get me wrong, this information belongs in the article, but this is the wrong place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I think it will very often meet the standards, just not necessarily in 'generic' diseases such as "cancer". On the other hand, the shingles link includes a list of criteria for hospital admissions, which does not belong in an encyclopedia article, and therefore it meets the criteria. (All of the shingles links seem to redirect to the same page for me.) Also, it doesn't matter whether one of the cited sources includes dosing information; ELNO #1 is about what belongs in the article itself, not what could be found by searching through all the sources. The line "consider using it as a source for the article" means "add that information to the article"; it does not mean "if drug dosing doesn't belong in the article, then cite a source that talks about drug dosing for some completely different fact, and hope that a reader who is trying to find drug dosing information will read all the cited sources and find the drug dosing information".
You are also forgetting that most articles about diseases don't have a DMOZ link, because DMOZ links are generally low-quality, outdated, and filled with spam about support groups. If I had to choose between eMedicine and DMOZ, I pick eMedicine every time. As far as I'm concerned, the sole advantage to DMOZ during the last 5+ years was that it slightly discouraged WP:ELNO#EL10 violations and gave us an polite-sounding excuse when we removed them. In particular, given a choice between eMedicine in a box and needing to create an ==External links== section to house a lone DMOZ link, I firmly believe that we're better off with no ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand they limits of ELNO 1, I agree that links that do not violate ELNO 1 may duplicate info that is also in a reference somewhere. What I meant was that the Shingles is talking about the acyclovir family as most used medicine could have the patientUK link as a source, as dosing information obviously confirms that that is the used medicine. That is far less fetched than what you suggest, it is a direct relation.
For medscape the directory service link seems somewhat moot, they are not adding information that is not already covered.
The eMedicine links are indeed all 5 the same ..
So I still don't think that blindly dumping these things in the EL section will result in violations on pages. I will have a look, also on some low-key medical stuff, not this very generic or well-known diseases only. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • @WhatamIdoing: Doing the same thing as we do for authority control would mean placing it below the navigation templates (MOS:ORDER):
Extended content
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Medical resources.


— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't really bother me. Putting it after the navboxes makes it easier to find, once you know that it exists/where to fine it. (We put stub tags dead-last for exactly that reason.) But I'm willing to have it be just above the navbox, if that would make some people happier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am going to suggest that these could all go into the infobox at the top-right, into an 'own' identifier section. The links lead to important extra information that would be nice to have right at hand. That would be similar to what is being done in the {{Chembox}} and {{drugbox}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As a user (and editor) of the classifications data, this would be my preference also. I envisage it would be placed below all of the 'human readable' info of the infobox. Little pob (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
There is pretty unanimous consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine #Infobox update April 2017 that the information should be taken out of the infobox - which has lead to the ongoing process of splitting Template:Infobox medical condition into Template:Infobox medical condition (new) and Template:Medical resources. It's worth reviewing the points made in that debate, although I can see that creating a second box for the classification and resources data to live below the new infobox might be an attractive option for those who wish to see minimal change to the older practice of putting all of those external links in the main infobox. --RexxS (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Having just read the lead of MOS:INFOBOX, it would seem that the infobox is not the correct place for the classification data etc; as very few articles mention the codes or the other external resources. Because such info would be of little use limited interest within the body of an article, I'm going to drop this particular stick ;) Little pob (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} have this info in their infobox. However, as Little pob noted, that is not a fine and MOS-like situation today (in short: the article's infobox is enlarged by info not from the article body, and often coded). Just having those links 'at hand' (=in top) is not strong enough I'd say. So we could want a similar datamove from those two infoboxes too, with the same positioning-issue. I can add that, apart from classification and linked foreign identifiers, there also exist non-readable data, new data not in article body, and unlinked classification codes that are also candidates for internal move, that is a move from infobox to below. -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The links include a buch of external links and IMO should be keep near the other external links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I looked again and now I see what is happening. The "external resources" are like external links. That is a challenge. I am not sure what to do as I wish those links could be in the external links section, but not with the other content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
So split the infox into three? User:Bluerasberry I prefer to keep the up date easier for me to carry out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 has a list going downward. That looks awkward. The Meningitis and other diseases of meninges box is not at the bottom for option 4. That is awkward to my eyes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: You probably ought to look at Meningitis #External links, currently trialling option 1 (and perhaps try some changes to other options in preview) to get a fuller picture of the aesthetics, because there are also templates for medicine and viruses portals ({{Portalbar|Medicine|Viruses}}), the {{Inflammation}} template, and the {{Authority control}} template. We've left those out of the examples above to try to keep it simple. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
3 and 4 got to go. The aesthetics for Option 4 is unfixable. 1 and 2 are the only options so far. I can't think of any other ideas. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
re option 4: when in mobile view, a navbox is not shown (ever). So in mobile view, option 2 and option 4 have the same result (barring other page elements added, like the authority control box?). -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Notes about Option 4 and relevance. Both navboxes and authority control are semantically navboxes (class=navbox) (by Wikipadia design). That is (as a consequence): they are not core to the article, they do not show in mobile view, and they are placed at the very bottom of a page. This 'resources' box, however, is core to the article (albeit not fit to appear in the article body: MOS:ORDER#Appendices together witl external links and references). It therefor should be placed somewhere above the navboxes. -DePiep (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC) (Added late: 'by Wikipedia design, and so consequences). -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This argument blocks option 4. It's not about 'looks nice too' any more. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

re option 4: Example 4 looks like the navbox is expanded. Christian75 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a new question: What placement do you expect when there is no (regular) external link? WP:EL says not to create an ==External links== section just so you can put a template like this in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I think WP:EL should be revised to accept that a template like this is a legitimate reason to create an external links section, as in spite of the standardised layout, these are actually external links, just formatted differently, and belong in an external links section. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with User:Pbsouthwood Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OP, could you specify how WP:EL says this? I strongly have the impression that the EL guidelines did not foresee a template "like this". -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I can guarantee for you that EL did not foresee any templates "like this", since I helped write the latest version (several years ago). It also did not foresee {{authority control}}, which is nearly identical in appearance, also filled with external links, and always placed after navboxes per MOS:ORDER.
The most detailed guideline for placement of large templates for external links is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects. The section in EL itself is WP:ELTEMP (and the section above it, which tells you to follow the MOS on placement).
One way to phrase the question here is "Why should the MOS be changed to tell editors to put {{Medical resources}} above the navbox, but to put the nearly identical {{authority control}} below it?" Look at Cancer#External links to see an example of an article that already contains both.
In fact, we might well ask ourselves at this point why the "Classification" section hasn't already been put into the {{authority control}} template. It doesn't really make sense to have the US Library of Congress number for cancer in one template and the US National Library of Medicine number in the other one. I'll start a new section on that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hard toi discuss when you can add "I wrote it, so I know what it meant". For example, I find it very plausible that the "big graphic templates" (used in context wityh sister EL templates like commons), that phrase most likely refers to templates with image (favicon mentioned too).
Also, I already mentioned the huge information difference betweeen navbox and external links (whether templated or not). Looks like I must re-inject that argument again somewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Added options 5 and 6 In both of these options I split links to layman articles from links to library cataloging information. My rationale for this was to put library cataloging information at the bottom to be consistent with the placement of {{Authority control}}, which is also library cataloging info. However, this current box we are discussing here also includes external links which we want to be available to layman readers. Those links are supposed to go in the external links section with other links. In option 5, I did that, but the problem is that in that case the links are no longer in a box being sync'd with Wikidata. In option 6, I again separated the library cataloging data from the links, but I put the links in their own second box in the external links section.
I think there should be no expectation whatsoever of layman readers finding the links to the layman articles if they are mixed with the library cataloging links. It is not reasonable to expect that anyone would recognize these brand names of publishers nor that they would click through all the links expecting to find the relevant ones. Links for layman readers should be greatly differentiated from those other links if the goal is to make them available. The natural way to make them available is to put them into the external links section. I recognize that this is not an ideal solution. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Added option 7 in which I removed the external links to layman articles. Medscape exists to generate advertising revenue and Wikipedia need not prioritize linking to it. MedLine plus is nice to have but we have lots of cataloging data probably will only link to this site in 20% of cases when this template is used. Perhaps now is not the time to make our templates adapt to challenges which apply in a minority of cases. We could skip presenting these for now and focus on providing the researcher targeted information. Wikipedia already covers the content in Medline and Medscape, so it is less essential to link to that anyway. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if it's been mentioned in previous discussions; but has it been considered that WP:MEDMOS seems to tell us that the classification data could go under a Classification heading? If that is the case, could the classification templates be amended to output a standardised and referenced sentence? I ask as doing it via the template should still allow a bot to do all the infobox changes as planned, but also give the codes context to those who don't know what they are. By putting the classification information into a classification section; we could even start to list the public domain ICD-10-CM codes, which I'm sure would be useful to US coders. See Sarcopenia as an example of an ICD-10-CM code within the classification section of an article. This would have the added benefit of reducing the remaining external links to the informational ones (e.g. Patient Info), which should allay the arguments about WP:EL (but if not, MOS:FURTHER might be an option for them also). Although my rational behind this suggestion is based on both MEDMOS, and it's wikilink to Nosology; I should point out WP:UPFRONT, as Classification is one of the top headings within WP:MEDORDER... Little pob (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Most articles do not have this section and I am not a big fan of creating such a section just for this template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This would actually be a good alternative as well. Not with the template, though, but a bit more content-like. That gives them the priority that Doc James is suggesting, which is apparently lower than lede material, but higher than (and certainly not suitable as) external links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it's the wrong kind of classification. The ==Classification== section is for saying things like "There are about a dozen different kinds of leukemia with varying outcomes, so if your friend said that he has leukemia, then you need to ask for more details." It's not for saying "The number that you need, if you are involved in medical billing, is somewhere in the range of C91 to C95 inclusive." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
That would be why it hadn't been considered! I did wonder if I was misreading it... As I understand what you're saying, the link to nosology at WP:MEDORDER is referencing specifically how a condition is "classified" as a disorder, disease, syndrome, lesion or injury; rather than referencing the nosology article as a whole - as it does talk about medical classification codes. FWIW; this is not an attempt to get codes within the article prose, to then argue for the codes to go back into the infobox. I just haven't seen a proposed placement for the codes that I like enough to !vote for, yet. All this said, I probably should move to entering/editing ICD10 codes directly on wikidata whatever the outcome on the RfC. Little pob (talk) 21:40, 28 May 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.

Attempt at Adding categories

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have tried adding categories here Template:Medical_resources/doc but I don't think I was successful.

It would be great if somebody could tell me what I an doing wrong. I added the categories to the /doc page because this message on the main page said to do so: 'Please add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this template.'

TheoA (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved them out of the "no include" User:TheoA Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Doc James Now I get it. Thank you! TheoA (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Coded parameter names

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Recently, parameter names |AO=, |RP=, |WO= were added [1]. I see no natural connection to the data point they are about. Why not chosen more intuitive names? -DePiep (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Merged in this Template:Infobox fracture. Would be happy to see something more intuitive but would be good to change both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That template is not used on many articles so should be easy to update[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
For example, using |Wheeless= and |Orphanet= is clear to many more editors. -DePiep (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This template incorrectly claims to be an infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems that this template uses the infobox class, which is incorrect, as it clearly is not an infobox. Is there a particular reason for this ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

REQ: ICD-10-CM

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Can ICD-10-CM be added as a field, please? I've noticed a couple of instances where they had been added by well meaning editors to the ICD-10 field. The problem with this is that some of the codes and concepts do not exist in the base classification. At best; when using template:ICD10, the link to the online version pulls up a page not found. At worse; the codes are pulled through to wikidata, potentially ending up in Wikipedia for other languages, and, AFAIK, ICD-10-CM is not used outside of the US. Little pob (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure what formating would you like User:Little pob ? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
How about ICD10CM for the field name, with a label of ICD-10-CM? (And would be consistent with the existing ICD listings.) I'd put it after the ICD10 field, per WP:WORLDVIEW, but before ICD9 field. For the EL template; Template:ICD10PCS should work with diagnostic codes, though should probably be duplicated as an ICD10CM template (may be a template redirect rather than a true duplication). Little pob (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure. You able to add it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I can edit WP:BLUELOCKs, but don't have the technical knowledge to do the template changes. Little pob (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not great with these template either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As there are no objections; I have tagged for expert input on the requested addition. (Please note that {{Template:ICD10PCS}} does not currently work.[3]) Little pob (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, adding the field is easy, but I'd need to know how to generate a working url from the ICD10CM field Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Marking as answered, quite happy to add the field etc and write the code, but will need to figure out how exactly to generate the URL first. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Many thanks. I've now found a free ICD-10-CM lookup service: https://icdcodelookup.com It does contain two text declarations that the site is sponsored, but no advertising.
The format is icdcodelookup.com/icd-10/codes/ICD-10-CM code. Would it just be a simple case of me copying the source from {{template:ICD10}} to {{template:ICD10CM}} and changing the lookup url? Or is there going to be background coding that I can't see? Little pob (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It is as simple as that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again. {{ICD10CM}} is now created and ready for use. Little pob (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Can a template editor check this syntax (copyedited from template source): 

  | {{#if: {{{ICD10CM|}}}
    | '''[[International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems|ICD]]-[[ICD-10-CM|10-CM]]''': {{{ICD10CM}}}
    }}

And place between the ICD-10 and ICD-9-CM parameters, please? Thanks in advance, Little pob (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That code does not use the template which you have created. Triple brackets denote parameter names, double brackets are for template names — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you've said; but not where I've gone wrong. Especially as all I've done is lift the markup from the ICD-10 parameter and added a CM or -CM suffix. Little pob (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
If you describe exactly what you want it to display I will fix it for you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Looking to have ICD-10-CM added as a parameter within the classification section, and sat between the ICD-10 and ICD-9-CM parameters. Essentially, if an editor was adding the medical resources template to an article, the existing and additional parameters would look like this:
...
| ICD10           = {{ICD10|Xxx.x}}
| ICD10CM         = {{ICD10CM|Xxx.xxxx}} 
| ICD9            = {{ICD9|xxx}}
...
When the box is displayed in an article, the parameter's bold-face "title" would link to both the ICD and ICD-10-CM articles (in the same way the ICD-10 and ICD-9-CM parameters link to the ICD article as well as their respective articles). The code would use the recently created {{ICD10CM}} template to parse to the external link.
<aside>Whilst there is enough weight for WP to list ICD-10-CM codes, because they are only used in the US, it's inappropriate to list them under the ICD10 parameter. Splitting them in this way also reduces the risk of Wikidata and nonEN-WP translations of EN-WP medical articles picking up "incorrect" data.</aside> Little pob (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so the editor has to use the {{ICD10CM}} template as the parameter of the this template. So that code is probably fine then, although I wonder why it has been coded this way previously. Wouldn't it be easier to just specify |ICD10CM=Xxx.xxxx instead of |ICD10CM={{ICD10CM|Xxx.xxxx}}? Anyway I will implement this code now and you can check that it works properly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Works perfect! Thank you very much. The nested template is only needed for the external link; any ICD code will display as plain text if it's not used. Little pob (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Please see Heat stroke#External links, which seems to have some strange formatting problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing is it still present?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It looks correct now. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to resurrect this... the box is not formatting correctly on at least those pages that have a bulleted list immediately after the double-closing braces for the box. I ran across this rendering problem and came up with a quick fix on the ALL page I was editing and noticed the same problem on the AML page. Adding {{clear}} between the closing braces of the box and the first bullet fixes it. I left the heat stroke page as is for anyone who wants to see how the box renders without the clear tag. Joshuanoel (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The formatting issue occurs on Safari (Version 11.1.1 [13605.2.8]) using macOS (Version 10.13.5), but not on Chrome. As you usefully pointed out, the Clear template fixes it. Vzeebjtf (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Rendered template is sometimes overwritten by what comes after it

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The external link text that come after this template are sometimes superimposed on top of the text from this template. See for example Motor_neuron_disease#External_links. Not sure how best to fix this. Perhaps if we insert a {{clear}} and the end of the template code? However this seems like a kludge that would mask a more fundamental error in the template code. Boghog (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This is also noted in the Formatting section above. Vzeebjtf (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Why ICD-O is not used?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the Melanoma article this template has filled the ICDO parameter. But it is not visible. Why ICDO is removed from the template? Is it obsolete or unusable for medical specialists? Or NCI ID is sufficient without ICDO? (But now the Melanoma article links to the NCI Eye Melanoma's page. Not the skin melanoma). — Chemmalion (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It's probably an oversight – ICD-O is mentioned in the template documentation, it was included in the infobox this template replaced, and there appears to be no discussion for its removal. Because the template is protected (and I lack the technical competence to fix errors), I've tagged this talk section for it to be added.
To the template editor: please check the following copyedited syntax:
 | {{#if: {{{ICDO|<noinclude>x</noinclude>}}}
    | '''[[International Classification of Diseases for Oncology|ICD-O]]''': {{{ICDO}}}
    }}
if it looks ok, please add just below the ICD9 parameter. Little pob (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  Done  chi (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References inside template

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've seen a couple of pages which have had references inside this template, which then don't appear in the Ref List, since the External Links section is underneath the Ref List template. It doesn't seem that references would be necessary in this section? If it is the case that references aren't required, could something to that effect be added to the template documentation? DferDaisy (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@DferDaisy: You are correct. Refs aren't needed as each EL template acts as it's own verification. However, do you happen to have a specific example? (I'm wondering if some of what you've seen might be ICD-10-CM codes in the ICD-10 field.) Little pob (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Little pob: There is a ref in the Medical Resources template at Chronic neutrophilic leukemia. Thanks for taking a look. DferDaisy (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@DferDaisy: I've removed the extraneous ref from the article. It's no better than simply following the ICD code link to verify the information, so we don't need it. The ref is possibly a hangover from when the ICD codes were displayed in the infobox, and there was a tendency to add refs to the infobox fields. My advice would be simply to remove any such refs you see in future and leave an edit summary stating they will never display anyway. Thanks for raising the issue. --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
[Update] I've added the tracking category Category:Articles with references in external links to this template, so we can track articles where this problem may occur. It's found four so far. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I thought there was a lot of these because I was working down this cleanup list. Sampling bias in action! DferDaisy (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Medical_resources/Archive_2&oldid=1251936321"