Template talk:Medical resources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Patient UK[edit]

@Doc James and CFCF: Shouldn't Patient UK be hidden when its parameter is empty? k18s (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup User:CFCF how do we do that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email)
Where can I find the rules for adding parameters to this template? k18s (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Just propose here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
My first concern is the Patient.info which doesn't even have a proper article about KC. but here are some rare disease lists which could be helpful:
Also MedDRA and UMLS are missing. k18s (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree would be good to pull in GARD and NORD.
Orphannet is already included. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Done! k18s (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Placement[edit]

Where should this be placed? Current version of Meningitis#External links looks just plain wrong. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks perfectly fine to me. What do you think is wrong with that placement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: How is this? I reordered to recommended positions and positioned one or two that are semi-vague on placement to be visually appealing. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure so the question is were should this be placed? This is not a portal bar, nor an "authority control". This is partly a template of key external links and partly a template of key classification terms thus IMO it should go above the other external links. What do you think of this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I prefer placing this template below traditional external inks for three reasons: Firstly, the description of this template states "... to display parameters and data that is important, but not relevant to the average reader", making other external links likely to be more relevant. Secondly, this will only be placed in some medical articles and there is no equivalent template for other topics, meaning the vast majority of other articles with external links begin with the normal external links at the top. Lastly and leastly, I find it more appealing visually when placed at the bottom. I'll have to look into where {{portal bar}} is generally placed in comparable articles, on a side note, this doesn't comply with WP:ELTEMP, specifically "Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites ... [such] templates should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting." Has this template been discussed or proposed anywhere; keeping in mind that participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it looks better as it was. We can have another RfC. Let me get drafting. We do not consider any of the ELs very relevant which is why we are moving to placing them all at the bottom, these were actually deemed more relevant than others which is why they were once commonly in the lead. This template has actually been discussed for years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with that external links are generally not relevant. External links should not be placed in the body of an article, meaning that outside of infoboxes, this is where they belong regardless of relevance. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: I have a comment on the rfc, if you don't mind, please give me a minute before you take it live. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure we can draft it here. Have not made it live yet. Let me know if there are other options you wish to consider. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Placement (i.e. should it be above of below the traditional external links) is a secondary concern that can be handled on this talk page. The bigger question for which an rfc may be due is simply, "Should {{Medical resources}} can be placed within the external links section of articles?" and a mention of WP:ELTEMP in some way, or something along those lines. (Sorry that took longer than I intended due to a phone call) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
So you are of the opinion that this template should be deleted entirely? You can add it as one of the options if you wish. Discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Infobox_update_April_2017 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: I don't hold the opinion that it should be deleted. Policy states Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (Wikipedia:Local consensus) Consensus should be gained for such a template and I do not think that such a query should be lumped in with the rfc below. As far as the rfc below goes: I would suggest leaving {{portal bar}} out of the examples, as that is a separate issue, and further complicates the rfc. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah? From my understanding one can still WP:Be bold. One does not need pre approved EN WP wide consensus to divide a prior template related to a narrow topic area into half.
By the way have you read the justification for this change? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When something is explicitly disallowed by a community guideline, i.e. "Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites ... [such] templates should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting." WP:ELTEMP, boldly adding it to over 300 articles is not appropriate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We have been developing this since 2011. Roll out began in November of 2015.[1]
This is not really the creation of a "new" infobox or template but a split of a prior infobox.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James on this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:Medical resources is an external links template. Template:Infobox medical condition (new) is an infobox. They are used in conjunction, but what each one is should not be conflated. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
That's complete nonsense. The way in which we organise links to highly relevant external resources is a minor issue, the important point is that we have the links in a predictable place. We have linked to MeSH, ICD, etc, for years, they all have fixed-format urls so that a template can generate each link from a single identifier, which also future-proofs the linking from any re-organisation of these websites. Both Template:Medical resources and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) are templates and together make up an on-going programme of replacement for Template:Infobox medical condition. Of course they need to be conflated, because they do a job in conjunction with each other. Is that so difficult to understand? --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
On a side note: Godsy, I wrote that part of ELTEMP, and I assure you that templates such as this and {{authority control}} were not considered when we talked it over. The problem we intended to solve was people duplicating {{Commons}} for their own wikis. See Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 32#Large graphical templates for a rather pointed discussion about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the note. I don't necessarily take issue with this template. My concern is new un-traditional templates that do not comply with policies and guidelines being added to medicine articles (a large number in this case) without being properly proposed, like in similar cases such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner (which ended up being solidly rejected) and Template:WikiProject Medicine app sidebar (which ended up being solidly approved). A lot off hassle and drama could have been avoided there through discussions or notices regarding them at the village pump or through request for comments (especially with the former). I could envision this going down those roads. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not concerned when editors decide to WP:Be bold, especially when I am confident that they are willing to help adjust articles later if editors decide to go another direction. The English Wikipedia does not operate primarily through a process of getting written permission before doing what you think is best, and the (one) guideline that these allegedly "do not comply with" did not envision anything like this when it was written, so the fact that the template "does not comply with" a sentence that was written to address a completely different problem does not concern me in the least. Or, if you want to look at it from a different perspective, it's probably unreasonable to demand that editors hold an RFC or jump through any other sort of bureaucratic hoops because of a difference over a guideline that could be (and repeatedly has been, and for the specific sentence in question, actually was) changed with no bureaucracy at all. I don't think that WT:EL has hosted an RFC during the last five years (the last one that I actually remember was in 2009, but perhaps one has slipped my mind), it doesn't make sense for us to make it significantly harder to get the occasional exception (e.g., this one template on perhaps 0.005% of articles) than it is to create blanket permission to do this across the entire project (e.g., by WP:PGBOLDly changing the guideline itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, it appears we irreconcilably disagree. "They" were not willing to adjust articles bearing Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner when strong objections were raised to it. In fact, it was insisted that formal consensus be gained to remove it from articles, even though none was gained to add it to them. One simply cannot have it both ways. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sister links[edit]

Wondering if we should add sister links to this template? Than we would not need the sister links template. The data could also go horizontally.

DMOZ would be something else we could add once they get themselves back up and running again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Option 2 - template below[edit]

Option 3 - no template[edit]

Option 4 - cataloging data at bottom[edit]

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

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

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

Option 8 - move them back into the infobox[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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 BallenaBlanca.jpg Blue Mars symbol.svg (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[edit]

  • Support: looks better when grouped together with other horizontal bar templates ({{Portal bar}}, navboxes, {{Authority control}}). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Should match what we do for authority control, which looks similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as first choice: Having a template is vital; its placement is a matter of aesthetics, and I personally prefer to keep all the boxed, page-wide templates together, so I prefer option 2, but I could live with option 1. --RexxS (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • support as second option after putting them into the infobox at the top-right (see my !vote at option 8). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • support as 2nd option After option 1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as 2nd option. Content, including external links, should go above the navboxes. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I think the box looks best this way. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for two reasons. This is the most esthetically pleasing layout, but more important, it places first the set of links that are most likely to be found useful by an untrained reader. I am still wondering why all four options for the "External links" section include a template, the one with the darker blue background, consisting entirely of internal links. Maproom (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Are you referring to the navbox? If so, it is not so much in External links as under it, which is another argument against option 4. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Support option 3[edit]

  • Oppose takes up more space and harder to keep organized. Loss / loss option. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as worst-case scenario. This will make it look like link farms are wanted, while providing links that casual readers are generally not interested in (but which a few readers are very interested in). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, linkfarming. No overview, not organised, links will be added above and below. Hard to find. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Additionally, this violates WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, some of the links are now covered doubly due to the dmoz I am aware the the original dmoz has stopped, but I envisage alternatives to that popping up.. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support option 4[edit]

  • Support The data box being discussed here contains library cataloging data analogous to the {{Authority control}} box introduced in 2012. There was lots of discussion when that box was introduced too, the end result of that discussion was that that box was placed at the bottom of the article. This new box should be treated the same way. We should govern both boxes with the same rules, until and unless anyone identifies any reason to treat them differently. I would like to avoid any unwarranted variation in our editorial policies. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support option 4 (first choice), as it's almost identical to typical uses of {{authority control}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I could support this as well. Article bottom. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I however still think that this information is too important to put all the way at the bottom, still prefer (now added) option 8. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I wouldn't have a problem with this either, apart from the issue of mobile not displaying navboxes. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Comment. As described below in the comments, the fact that this data does not have class=navbox (as navboxes and Authority control do), makes option 4 incorrect a priori. Semantics prohibit it, so I'd state 'strong objection' here, were it allowed. (Apparently, 'object' is allowed in this !voting setup). -DePiep (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (objecting allowed then) -DePiep (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DePiep and putting content below non-content. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I would be fine with this as well. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak opposed Better above the navboxes IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Support option 5[edit]

  • 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 option 6[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]


  • @WhatamIdoing: Doing the same thing as we do for authority control would mean placing it below the navigation templates (MOS:ORDER):
— 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)

  • When this discussion started there were 3 options. I just added an option 4. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 4 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)
    • Thank you: that's a cogent argument, DePiep, which definitely leads me to prefer options 2 and 1 over option 4. --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partial merge to Template:Authority control[edit]

Look at Cancer#External links, it contains this template plus the {{authority control}} template.

I think that we should consider moving the "Classification" links into the {{authority control}} template, it doesn't really make sense to have the US Library of Congress number (LCCN) for cancer in one template and the US National Library of Medicine number (MeSH) in the other one, but that's what we're doing.

Pinging User:Alan Liefting, User:John of Reading, and User:Pigsonthewing, because they might know whether this has been discussed before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Or we could move "authority control" into this one. I am currently still working on the update. Maybe we could get the help of a bot to do the merge once I am done in a couple of months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
{{Authority control}} applies to more than just medical topics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but that's why it would be better to include {{Authority control}} inside a template which also contained these other links. I took that to be Doc James' meaning. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I would agree to move (or copy!) the classification into the authority control. That makes complete sense. I would not incorporate other authority control information into this template - keep it consistent with all other topics, as well as shared topics. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • While even Authority control appears to be in the ==External links== section, that is just optically. Per MOS:LAYOUT#Order_of_article_elements there is a virtual section (virtual: no header, not in TOC) called "Bottom matter" (or elsewhere: navboxes) that is separate from section Appendices, "External links". So it is incorrect to move external links around between these conceptual article parts. One effect of this concept is that most or all of the Bottom matter is not shown in mobile view (not even the categories). Another consequence: navboxes and Authority control have class=navbox, external links not (one can dispute on whether the links under discussion should have class=infobox, but that is an other issue).
  • Also the information of those medical links and Authority control is different from the core. Authority control is just a cross-reference of identifiers and nothing more, the AC example cancer in LCCN shows this. While, the external links for cancer ICD0-10 C97 and MedlinePlus 001289 both link to content pages, giving additional descriptions and context. For this information fact, they belong in the External Links (if added at all), and not in the Bottom matter section. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense, User:DePiep. However, then they sometimes just fail the inclusion standards of WP:ELWP:NOT#REPOSITORY, they tend to duplicate each other (similar information), are better covered through a directory service (we are not writing a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia). I stand by my analysis above, these are better in a collapsed section of an infobox (knowing that that breaks on mobile .. but that is a technical problem). And that is true for more of the infoboxes that carry identifiers). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If these ELs are unacceptable in the EL section because of NOT#REPOSITORY, then I cannot understand how they would be acceptable elsewhere in the article. The EL guideline keeps telling 'not too much', but within the WP:MED community I have not heard a single editor saying these are not relevant. So only an non-MED beancounter could claim that this dozen is too much becuause, well, it is so many. (After which I could throw in the more repository Authority ELs, which somehow passed the NOT REPOSITORY check).
Your suggestion to put/keep them in the infobox we have discussed before. It does not solve the in/out discussion, and it denies the designed goal of the infobox.
All this while we have the ideal location, especially by all information aspects, for these relevant external links: section External links. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
As a point of fact, the pointfulness of including MeSH identifiers has been debated several times, and the desirability of eMedicine links has been discussed at least twice that I can remember offhand. When a new editor started adding links to GeneReviews in 2009, he was reported to ELN and at risk of being blocked as a spammer. (That's when it was added to the infobox; links in infoboxes carry a lower risk of drawing spam complaints.) Even the ICD links have been questioned on occasion (sometimes the codes; sometimes just the URL that makes it possible to verify that the code is correct), although they've been strongly defended every time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hence my remarks above to put them back in the infobox. It is the classification that is of importance, and that 'database like'/numerical data is something that is more suitable in an infobox, these are, often, not for 'more information' (most are databases telling similar data as the Wikipedia articles in different ways, some are sources that are more reliable than what Wikipedia is, etc.). In an external links section, they are supposed to be including information that cannot be included due to too much detail, etc. etc. (see WP:EL) - these tend to duplicate each other, in the above examples they are also available from the directory service already linked, all reasons that these are not suitable as external links. Moreover, there are many boxes that have classification data in the infobox (template:taxobox is a prime example; all internally linked I agree, but they are classifications). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Stocknames are another set of 'identifiers/classifications' commonly linked from infoboxes (and I recall from the text as well). It is interesting detail that is added, but it would fail our inclusion standards as an external link - it does not belong there, that they are listed is the encyclopedic info, and the link is the primary source that it is correct. That is the same with the information that has now moved out of the medical infobox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, no, no — not the same thing. Will fit very badly. Carl Fredrik talk 08:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Really? Just how different is https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D009369 from http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85019492.html from the POV of any innocent lay reader? They're both library classification entries. Why should they be separated? Should the one that begins with the library catalog's "Tree Number(s): C04" and "Unique ID: D009369" be in the medical resources template, or should it be the one that begins with the library catalog's classification of it as an "Instance Of: MADS/RDF" and SKOS Concept" that belongs here?
      I can see a reasonable argument for putting ICD templates in the infobox (my preference) or in this template, but I cannot see a reasonable argument for having two library classifications and declaring that one is important content and the other is "just a cross-reference of identifiers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with this .. These things do NOT belong in external links sections at all, they fail our inclusion standards per WP:EL as an external link. Either they are plain classifications, in which case the classification belongs in the infobox, and could be duplicated in the authority control (and for those that are classification, this is my preferred option), or they are important identifiers, in which case the identifier belongs in the infobox (and that is then my preferred option for those). Moving this out of the infobox is a great disservice to the interested reader, totally out of line with what is common practice on Wikipedia, and as the suggestion above stands, in total disregard of long standing policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Dirk, there are also several links to pages that would normally be – and originally were – regular external links. We moved links such as eMedicine and GeneReviews into {{infobox disease}} because they were so universally included; in many cases, putting them in the infobox let editors remove the ==External links== section (and thereby reduce the temptation to add inappropriate links, e.g., to chat rooms). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware of that, so full circle. Anyway, these fail often what we normally include as external links. I insist that this was a bad idea, but we'll have to live with what has already been done ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Can someone give links to that {{Authority control}} grand discussion? Must have been a great info&page-design thing. WhatamIdoing? -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    • DePiep, I've not been involved in that template's development. Perhaps you will find what you want on its talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Attempt at Adding categories[edit]

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)

Formatting[edit]

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)

Coded parameter names[edit]

Recently, parameter names |AO=, |RP=, |WO= were added [2]. 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[3] 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)

REQ: ICD-10-CM[edit]

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)