Template talk:Medical resources

Revisiting template positioning

The outcome of a 2017 RfC was that {{medical resources}} should be placed within an WP:External links section, after any external links. The content of this template - like many others - is not delivered to mobile users, which causes the external links section to display as empty when there are no bulleted external links present. Its also been pointed out that it's essentially a subtype of {{navbox}}, so why is it being treated differently to navboxes?

I think would look better if it was treated more like a navbox; positioned in the same way that {{taxonbar}} is. There is, however, also the option of not requiring the template to be placed in the external links section - still at the bottom, but above {{Authority control}} and navigation templates. Little pob (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do others think/feel? Little pob (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DocWatson42, PamD, Izno, Primefac, and Geekdiva: (curtsey pings). I have also placed a notice on WP:MED's talk page. Little pob (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular opinions on the matter, though it would probably make sense to have it display in a similar fashion to {{taxonbar}} if there are mobile-viewing issues. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
Don't put it in an external links section if it's in a navbox? I don't really see what more needs to be said here. Izno (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, {{Medical resources}} is unlike a navbox (which contain only wikilinks to other English Wikipedia articles) and very similar to {{taxonbar}} and {{authority control}}? I.e. it contains external links to relevant databases with pages on the article topic. So I guess moving it below the navboxes to sit with Authority Control and Taxonbar makes sense? Though I too don't have strong feelings on this. Ajpolino (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I indirectly started this by Little pob noticing an edit of mine. Like most templates of the nav-type (in the functional sense), including regular, taxon bar, and authority control, it does not appear in mobile mode. (It was only recently that portal templates were made visible in mobile mode.) However, my major concern is that there is a current requirement that, unlike other templates that are functionally navbars, the "Medical resources" template is to be placed in an External links section. Since it is already a navbar, in my opinion an "External links" section is extraneous, and unnecessary for finding it. I'm fine with it remaining at the top of the navboxes, or with it being moved to above and [edit: the/any?] "Taxonbars" and "Authority control". —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree w/ DocWatson42--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The approach recommended in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#External links for larger templates such as {{Commons}} that link to Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects might be appropriate here. If this is the only thing in the ==External links== section, then don't make a section heading just for it. I'd suggest following the rule that says "Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates" but I'd put this template at the end of whatever the last section is, along with the navboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping, since the discussion seems to have stalled. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping again with pings: @Little pob, WhatamIdoing, PamD, Izno, Primefac, Geekdiva, and Ozzie10aaaa: —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for radio silence, on a WP:wikibreak. Consensus seems to be that unless an editor is going to nest {{Medical resources}} in a similar way to {{Taxonbar}}, they should just add it to the end of the bottom most section of an article; but should never be creating an otherwise empty ==external links== section for it to sit... I can live with that. Little pob (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection; have struck Consensus seems to be that unless an editor is going to nest {{Medical resources}} in a similar way to {{Taxonbar}}, they should just add it to the end of the bottom most section of an article; but should never be creating an otherwise empty external links section for it to sit... as I've worded that very badly. This is closer to my understanding: Consensus is {{medical resources}} should be added to the end of the bottom-most section of an article. Whilst there are no voiced objections to mirroring the way {{Taxonbar}} is placed; there is not enough agreement to make it the preferred option. Little pob (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd just reiterate what I said above: there seems to be a category of "Metada templates" which ought logically to be treated in the same way, and given a defined location in WP:ORDER. The term "Metadata template" could usefully be added to WP:GLOSSARY, as it's already used in the above-quoted documentation for {{taxonbar}}. TBH I haven't really reread all of this, but I see I commented at some length above and I doubt that I'd have changed my mind if I brought the whole thing back up to the top of my mind. PamD 19:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else is wanted here. Editors suggest several approaches, none of which result in this template being the sole content under an==External links==section heading. Maybe try out your favorite of any of those, and let us know what seems to work best? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a broader discussion about template placement, taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Changing placement of Template:Subject bar, Template:Portal bar, and Template:Sister bar. {{taxonbar}} gets a mention, and I believe that this template is analagous to that and should be put in the same location. PamD 07:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown parameter → weird result

|MeshID=C538421 works fine, but someone accidentally entered |MeSH=C538421 on a page. That unknown parameter does not (of itself) display its value, and causes no error message. Furthermore, "any" unknown parameter, such as |flerb=grom, does the same. (Maybe this behavior is expected; I don't know.)

On one page, [Neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation], entering |MeSH=C538421 instead of |MeshID=C538421 produced a weird broken MeSH link, with incorrect link text and incorrect target URL, but they seemed to use the value of that unknown parameter:

MeSH: C538421 C538421, C538421

(The correct link is:

MeSH: C538421 )

However, the same thing happens (only there) with |flerb=C538421, |MeSH=C123456, or no unknown parameter at all. Even when I reduced that page to nothing but {Medical resources} (in Edit Preview), the same thing happened. So the absence of |MeshID=<something> caused it.

This template collects a value for |MeshID= from Wikidata, but overrides it if |MeshID=<something> is specified locally. (Documentation says "Some parameters' labels are automatically populated from Wikidata; but can be overridden locally.")

This template collects a value for |MeshID= from Wikidata. It received mangled data (C538421, C538421) from Wikidata and failed to de-mangle it. Sorry to report this. -A876 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Wikidata:Q16892735 currently shows two MeshID identifiers (with the same value, but different references). (I would fix this after a few days.) Wikidata even shows a little circled exclamation point next to each one, which pops up upon hovering, "This statement has potential issues." (Each one shows a separate link (with correct link text and URL).) This is why Wikidata [appears to be] returning C538421, C538421.

A little coding could: detect and remove the duplicate identifier(s); create multiple links (one for each unique identifier); simply discard the extra identifier(s); take the arithmetic mean of all 'n' identifiers (haha); -or- modify its request so that it gets back only the first identifier. -A876 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Populate from WikiData again?

Last mentioned in Template_talk:Medical_resources/Archive_3#Why_wikidata_properties_are_not_used, before ICD-11. Looking at d:Q1347065, d:Q3286546 fields are populated from the Monarch Disease Ontology, Disease Ontology or English Wikipedia itself. Perhaps the IDs for those ontologies be added to the displayed list. Perhaps start with the ICD-11 or whatever, rather than added them by hand or Bot. I think read that the Template:Authority Control template moved to populating via WikiData starting with a cross checking with a KasparBot tool. From a look at the source, it should be possible to prefer template parameters that have a value assigned and otherwise populate values from WikiData if they've populated there. RDBrown (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many WP:MED editors have this page on their watchlists; so it's probably worth dropping a notification over at the project talk page to confirm the project has opted back-in to WD integration for this nav template (looks that way when I'm skimming the archived posts, but interaction was limited).
WRT: start with the ICD-11 – there has been a recent sandbox effort at doing just this with limited success.
WD has two relevant properties:
We can get the template to either display the code but have a broken link to the online browser,[1] or a working link that displays the linkID instead of the code.[2]
Could be an easy fix for someone that knows LUA markup, but the doc page for Module:WikidataIB isn't the easiest to understand from my absolute novice approach. I've yet to reach out to a technical expert, however, as it's just as likely that I'm at the wrong page for self–guiding the fix needed.
Umbrella conditions can have multiple applicable ICD codes, yet some QIDs only list the linkID. Compare Coronary artery disease to d:Q844935, for example. So any markup will need to ignore the presence of P7807 alone.
Also, if a QID did have multiple ICD-11 codes listed, the two properties are stored without reference to each other (as far as I can tell). So we might be better trying to get the template to utilise P7329 alone and parse it into the local {{ICD11}} template (which utilises module:ICD11). If that's even possible? Little pob (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

Please remove these lines: 

  | {{#if: {{{Curlie|<noinclude>x</noinclude>}}}
    | '''[[Curlie]]''': [https://curlie.org/{{{Curlie}}} {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]
    }}

and these characters from the middle of a line towards the end of the template: {{{Curlie|}}}


This change is for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Template:Curlie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please update the documentation.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]