Template talk:Central nervous system disease

message: What about tumors?  Would anyone here be interested in writing a template for tumors of the central nervous system? --Una Smith 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I rather liked having the peripheral and central nervous system diseases grouped together. It was big, but it gave me a starting point for research. - Cyborg Ninja 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: The Color scheme could do with a change as light yellow cannot be seen on most screens. This has also been picked up by another user. Therefore I propose to change this to another colour scheme which also highlights the groupings. Please discuss if you don't agree. Thanks
79.72.116.123 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you proposing Khaki/PaleGoldenrod/LemonChiffon be used on all the nervous system navboxes, or just this one? Also, reviewing Wikipedia:Why create an account? may also be useful in helping you achieve your goals. --Arcadian (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy for an other colour rather than Khaki/PaleGoldenrod/LemonChiffon (TM) to be used, but if most users cannot view LightYellow it does make the template hard to navigate. Many medical templates used lightblue or pink which you can more easily see. Also I think having different colors for the different groupings is helpful. What do you/ other users think? 79.72.116.123 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yellow has been the standard for the nervous system for a very long time (flip through the old free version of Gray's Anatomy), so I'd oppose changing it to lightblue or pink. Red (and pink) is usually used for arteries and blood, while lightblue is usually used for veins.  I don't have a strong preference about which shade of yellow is most suitable, but I do think it is important to be consistent (not just on the navboxes, but also on the anatomy infoboxes that identify the nerves). I've seen a lot of people complain about various shades of yellow being too bright or too pale, and the current choice seems to be a reasonable compromise. I note from your note on my talk page that you plan on continuing to use a floating IP address. If you are certain that you want to actively engage in altering the infrastructure, please reconsider. --Arcadian (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so it seems that we can agree that the colour can be changed to a darker shade, if the other navboxes are changed for consistency. I'm going to try LemonChiffon as this is the next named colour under LightYellow on the page Web colors. Thanks 194.83.141.104 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Color Scheme

message: I noticed in passing that Myoclonus is listed as a degenerative brain pathology, but according to the article, it isn't always brain-related (or even CNS-related), nor is it uniformly degenerative. This is FYI; I probably won't be back to see if there was a consensus to change it (or not). ~ MD Otley (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   Myoclonus 

message: Pontocerebellar hypoplasia needs to be added in an appropriate place. Unfortunately, I don't have sufficient knowledge to place it properly in the template. kashmiri 07:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pontocerebellar hypoplasia 

message: There is an entry in this template that links to [the article about] "(Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis)". 
Since many readers may be (more) familiar with hearing of that disease [ALS] by the name "Lou Gehrig's disease" and/or by the (acronym) name "ALS", I suggest that anyone who is interested ... (including those who -- like me -- are not experts in this branch of medicine), consider participating in a discussion about one or both of these ideas: 
* adding a (parenthetical) "explanation" saying "[Lou Gehrig's disease]" as part of the display text only for the entry that now reads "(Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis)". 
* adding a short "explanation" saying "['ALS']" as part of the display text for that entry. 
Either idea (or both) could be implemented without any change to the "target" of the link ... that is, to the wikilink (a wikitext construct that is [sorta] like a 'partial' URL). Thus, there would not have to be any change to [the  URL of] the "destination" web page that is to be reached by clicking on that link. 
Currently, that wikilink (like a 'partial' URL) is "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" (displayed as "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis") and the  corresponding URL of the "destination" web page reached by clicking on that link, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis (as of the "19:13, 19 October 2019" version of this template). 
Just an idea.
:Note: Nothing in the proposal of the above 2 ideas is to be interpreted as suggesting the removal of anything from the the display text for the entry that now reads "(Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis)". Those ideas are only ideas for adding (one or both "parenthetical" explanations) to the display text. 
Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for adding an "explanation" near [the link for] ALS   

message: Add a link to the article on "Moyamoya disease" to the "Cerebrovascular" section. 75.24.111.185 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: The disease is already listed in . Is it necessary to add it here as well? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Done HeartGlow (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020