Template talk:WikiProject Medicine

message: Can someone please copy the version of this template at Template:WPMED/new to here?  The changes I made include added support for the new Reproductive medicine task force and use of the documentation sub page (Template:WPMED/doc).  I also am using  to do the assessment categorization, so that there isn't that much duplicate coding here.  --Scott Alter 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: SkierRMH (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please copy Template:WPMED/new to here again?  I just fixed two bugs - a wrong variable name was used for importance categorization, and a spacing problem occurred due to some extra white spaces (both apparent at Talk:Dermatology).  Thanks.  --Scott Alter 02:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New task force syntax implementation 

message: Hi, there is a new version at Template:WPMED/new to include the neurology task force. Could someone please make the change? Thanks :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to have been  Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version to include Neurology 

message: If an article is tagged task force = yes, but no taskforce-imp is assigned, will it appear in the task force's list as unknown importance, or with the same importance as the overall project?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Task force articles without a task force importance will automatically use the importance for WPMED.  I realize that it is difficult to tell which articles have a taskforce-imp parameter used and which use the importance parameter - so if you don't like this behavior, we could change it to something else.  What would your ideal situation be?  --Scott Alter 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what anyone else would think, but the existing behavior is exactly my personal preference.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with WhatamIdoing here, I like the current system. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force importance 

message: It appears that you only want some of the extended 'quality' classes, i.e. template, dab and category. Instead of hiding the warnings from the page it would be better to create a custom class mask to accept only the classes that your project wants. See Template:WPBannerMeta/class for details. Martinmsgj 07:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom class mask 

message: The "quality scale" and "importance scale" links in the new-and-improved metabanner do not link to WP:MEDA; they link to what will hereinafter be referred to as "the wrong pages".  This needs to be changed.  Is there a straightforward solution?  Is there a parameter we can set to fix this?   If not, then I think we need to migrate back to the hand-made template so we can avoid pointing people to the wrong pages.  
To be clear:  I don't want someone to click on "the importance scale" and end up at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic, as if that page had any information about the actual assessment scale being used to rate these articles.  I want them to end up at WP:MEDA#Importance_scale, which is what the word "rated" currently links to.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately there is no way to do this at the moment, although it may be a good thing to bring up at Template talk:WPBannerMeta because it's been requested before. But it wouldn't make sense to link "rated" and "importance scale" to the same page, so what do you propose exactly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to lose the links to the wrong pages entirely.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me have a think about this. Perhaps if the assessent link is specified, then the "importance scale" links to this and "rated" remains unlinked. Would that work? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that only one link is necessary.  IMO, "rated" does not need to be linked, and "quality scale" and "importance scale" should be linked to "ASSESSMENT_LINK#quality scale" and "ASSESSMENT_LINK#importance scale," respectively.  Why does there need to be a link to WP:1.0 on every assessment banner?  --Scott Alter 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: MSGJ's proposal sounds good to me.  If it's trivially done, it might be worth changing the text from "the importance scale" to "the project's importance scale", to make the distinction even clearer.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: ... and implemented. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, MSGJ.  I really appreciate it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: Okay fine, it's your project  … — CharlotteWebb 18:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what a Mess is?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "doctor's mess"?

message: Why does this template display a B/High?  Is that the default, solely for show?  (The proper rating would of course be Template/NA.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just for show. The proper rating would of course be on the talk page, like the one at the top of this page ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  B/High 

message: Will someone make the derm importance the same as the general medicine importance unless otherwise specified? kilbad (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (May take a little while for the categories and bot generated table to update). Zodon (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for such a quick response. kilbad (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derm taskforce 

message: Many large projects use this mechanism to draw eyes to articles with issues (e.g. no importance assigned, peer reviews needed, etc). Was there any consideration given to having that mechanism here? See template:WikiProject Aviation and WP:WikiProject Aviation for example.LeadSongDog come howl 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no "attention=yes/no" parameter? 

message: Why is the featured list of cutaneous conditions not showing up in the dermatology task for assessment? ---kilbad (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because :Category:FL-Class dermatology articles doesn't exist yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've temporarily unhidden the warnings so you can see some other categories which need creating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the red-linked categories. Most are still empty at this time. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the :Category:FL-Class dermatology articles, but still don't see the featured list in our assessment? ---kilbad (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dermatology articles by quality statistics hasn't been updated since 16 July. Just be patient :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I'm wondering if integrating the Collaboration of the Week and Portal:Medicine/Selected Article Archive features have been considered for inclusion in this template. I'm looking at Talk:AIDS and wondering how difficult this would be to implement, and what would we gain aside from reducing talk page clutter. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an excellent idea. It would need two steps: adding support for some new parameters to the project banner, and placing a request on WP:BOTREQ for a bot to go round and make the substitutions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an example of a project where the COTW function is used? I'm wondering what this would look like as far as both templates, categories, and any discussions. Especially compared to the existing setup. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Aviation collaboration candidates appears to be a good example for collaborations. Although I don't see a corresponding category for Med articles. Can you add the test case to Template:WPMED/sandbox and list what categories need creation for this. I'll go ping the Portal and COTW to see their take on this. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there are at least six templates which could be merged into the project banner. I have listed these on Template talk:WPMED/sandbox and made the changes to Template:WPMED/sandbox. To give you an idea of what it would look like in practice, this is what the banner on Talk:AIDS would be like:
Obviously the icons can be changed. This section will currently automatically collapse if 3 or more notes are displayed. This could be adjusted (say to 2) if desired. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Just to make sure this would just affect the past portal and COTW articles correct? Not the currently proposed for next COTW or the current COTW right? Just wanted to make sure we wouldn't need a bot to do long term maintenance on this one, just the initial transition. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the merged template because its more efficient with the screen real estate.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: In terms of maintenance do we need to have any bots perform regular maintenance such as switching what was a nominee to a failed collab nominee or anything like that. Just seeing what if anything would be required of people maintaining the collaboration pages on a regular basis if we switch? -Optigan13 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Which update would that be? Going by how long these things normally take, you could be waiting a long time! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The one mentioned at the top of User talk:AnomieBOT. Although there might be another bot to do this. -Optigan13 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It's only semi-protected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, nevermind, I've updated it. I've also floated a bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 31#Bundling WikiProject Medicine collaboration template and Portal Medicine template into project banner. I'll go update the template documentation now. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurred to me that you might be able to simplify the syntax by using ,  and  instead of ,  and . (The idea is that only one of the three should be active at any one time.) I've put some code in the sandbox for you to look at. Alternatively you may feel this makes it more complicated, so feel free to undo! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, although I've already replaced the template with a few MCOTWprev=yes calls, so those would need replacement whenever we get around to the bot run. Doesn't seem overly complicated to me, but I've worked up some overly complicated templates myself . Would it be possible to pass a nomination date parameter and have the template compare to the current date on whether it is a nominee, current, or previous collaboration. I'm also wondering if there is a bot that performs collaboration maintenance (updating from nominee, current, and previous nominee). -Optigan13 (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A nominaion date could be used, but how can that alone determine whether it's a nom, cur or prev? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forgot that would enforcing a set period for the nomination to either pass or expire. Probably best to stick to MCOTW=nom/cur/prev and set up some sort of standardized process with bot automation for this. I'm assuming other projects would use this logic as it applies to meta banner and not just wpmed. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually very few WikiProjects which have an active collaboration process. There are a few which use the collaboration hook and it might be worth looking at what they do, but I am not aware of any particular bot for collaboration purposes. I suggest you post a request on WP:BOTREQ because they are pretty good at getting things done there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Might want to wait a few days to make sure, but everything looks good to me. Then I'll go back and request a bot replacement of the templates. (I had to hold off on the replacement of the old ones to fix an issue with portal DYKs.) -Optigan13 (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  COTW and Portal links from this template 

message: Seems a like a natural extension to me. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force,(hemonc=yes for the banner) but with only four articles tagged and one participant listed so far I'm not sure how well it's doing getting off the ground. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer taskforce? 

message: I am working on getting a new task force dealing with "translation" up and running. Details can be here Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project. Wondering if someone could create it in the template. I am sure I would break it. If we could use this image "Translation Barnstar.svg". Want to be able to track page views of all the articles within the project. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope cannot seem to figure it out.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New task force

message: Is it possible that this template could be altered to include a datestamp of when an article was last evaluated? There are some articles (eg spondylolysis, spondylolithesis) that seem to have ratings that refer to past versions of the articles, or eg have deteriorated below the quality rating assigned. A datestamp would be extremely valuable in interpreting the consensus quality scale that the WikiProject Medicine has given.
LT90001 (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for , and I would appreciate peoples ideas for features. If there is anything that you have wanted to do with your WikiProject template, but haven't been able to due to limitations in the meta-template, I would be very interested to hear it. The discussion is over at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature brainstorm for [[Module:WikiProjectBanner]] 

message: I corrected the grammar in the first sentence. (Indicative mood is for what is; subjunctive mood is for what should be.) Palmpilot900 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I have made a number of proposed improvements to the documentation for this template. You may find them at :Template:WikiProject Medicine/proposed doc. Because I am not part of WikiProject Medicine, I did not want to simply copy them in without some review. These changes should help to include some features common in the documentation for other WikiProject banners using the  template.
Among the proposed changes that I wish to make:
*Copy-n-paste basic usage versions of both  & 
*A copy-n-paste Extended Usage version of  with all (now) documented parameters
*New documentation sections for Importance scale, Listas, & Template layout.
**While  had been mentioned, it is now more fully documented
** &  were functional but previously undocumented parameters
*Expanded the documentation for  under Assessment
*Switched to the  &  constructs rather than using <parameter name> = , for consitency with other WikiProject banners, such as :Template:WikiProject Biography
*Minor layout, formatting, & copyedit changes
Please leave comments to let me know whether these proposed improvements are acceptable & desirable.
Peaceray (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this proposal. I would support any changes to the documentation as you have proposed. --LT910001 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the changes into place today. Peaceray (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed improvements to the WikiProject Medicine banner documentation 

message: I think there should be a "biography" parameter to use on biographies of notable medical professionals. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Those parameters are used to identify task forces within the project. If you wish to propose a new medbiog task force, the place to do so is Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. However, we already have the option of  with  LeadSongDog come howl! 05:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography parameter?