Template talk:Medical resources

Interferes with display of stub tags?
In Progressive cardiac conduction defect, the stub template doesn't display when it's in the right place, after this Medical resources. But if I move it in front of that template, it displays. I've tested it with a different stub template and get the same effect, so it looks as if it's caused by this template rather than by the stub template. Any ideas? Pam D  20:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked at this a few different ways, and I'll be honest I'm a bit flummoxed. Everything that is "opened" (templates, divs, links, etc) is closed, so it's not like there's an unclosed div messing about with what follows. That being said, I did some tests; if you add text before the stub template, it works as normal. If you have two stub templates, only the second one shows, and as mentioned just a stub shows nothing, even if there is text after it. I can't see why asbox (which runs stub templates) would be the cause of this, but I can't find what in this template is causing any of these oddities. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But with two, Timeless eats one of them. Izno (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is fun: It's not an issue in Timeless or Minerva, but is in Vector and Monobook. :) Izno (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So, the stub is still taking up space, it's just not displaying the way it should. Izno (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Template_talk:Asbox is why.
 * In short, it's because medical resources uses infobox class. Don't do that with what is a navbox. Izno (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice find. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A little further info courtesy and, it's because the infobox is floating right at width 100%, which causes the width of the overflow: hidden element to become 0.
 * Either you can remove the float from medical resources by using  in the appropriate style parameter or as I suggested before, not use an infobox for something that is not an infobox. Izno (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can convert to a navbox while still keeping the same general design. I think taxobar has a similar setup to steal from.... Primefac (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, converted to a navbox. Should hopefully fix the issue! Primefac (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should this box be somewhat treated stylistically as a navbox? That is, if the External links section has no bulleted entries, and one of these boxes follows it immediately, should the External links section be treated as empty and therefore its header should be deleted as usual? I hope so, because keeping the header, as is implied by the current documentation, looks like a clunky mistake. (The navboxes are stylistically divorced from the See also header, after all.)


 * If so, the documentation should state that this box should be placed right below any External links entries and above the navboxes, and mmmayyyybe-I-dunno the navbox documentation should state that they are placed below this box when present. Thank you for your consideration! —Geekdiva (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks as if this template is what is called a "Metadata template", although that term isn't in WP:GLOSSARY. It doesn't appear in the specified order at WP:ORDER, though taxonbar, which seems similar, gets a mention. The documentation for taxonbar has a "Position" section which is precise and detailed: pasting it here:


 * Please place Taxonbar correctly. As a metadata template, Taxonbar should be placed:
 * Below all references, footnotes, and external links.
 * Below all navigation templates—except Authority control
 * Above the Authority control template.
 * Above all [[Wikipedia:Categories| and stub template codes in the editor.


 * (Note the use of that term "metadata template").


 * Two other "metadata templates" (one and a variant) come to mind: Authority control and Authority control (arts). They each have a "Position" section in the documentation which says:


 * As a metadata template, the Authority control template should be placed after the external links section and navigation templates, right before the categories.
 * (And similary for "Authority control (arts)".


 * Authority control is mentioned in WP:ORDER, just after taxonbar.


 * So it looks as if we need (a) the concept of "Metadata template" to be included in WP:GLOSSARY, (b) medical resources to be included in WP:ORDER (perhaps by expansion of the element "taxonbar", to specify "Metadata templates" and give these two examples, distinct from "Authority control" which is already included in the list), and (c) be used in describing the position of this medical resources. That's if there is general agreement that this template is the same kind of beast as those others which already call themselves "metadata templates"! Any thoughts? (And thanks,, for fixing the original problem, in case I forgot to thank you at the time!) Pam  D  20:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW; the positioning of medical resources was established through an RfC. I don't know if a new RfC is needed; but discussion on it's positioning should probably be in new talk topic with notifications at WP:MED and WP:VPR... Little pob (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll back off - I'm not a regular medical editor, just a stub-sorter and general wikignome. But I suggest that the documentation for this template ought to include a "Position" section, identifying where in the article the template should be placed (as established by the RfC, if that is generally agreed), and also it should be added to the listing at WP:ORDER as this template, according to the RfC, should be placed above "Other navigation footer templates" (currently item 4.2 in the list). This means it is treated differently from taxonbar which looks, to an outsider, to be pretty similar in function. Over to you. Pam  D  12:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I came off as WP:rude. The intent was only to highlight the 2017 RfC, not an attempt to quash the idea. I think the positioning of medical resources is very much worth re-discussing. The way taxonbar nests between navbars and authority control looks very clean. The closest the 2017 RfC had to that was in options 4-7. However, because of the thin lines of empty space in between, those don't look anywhere near as tidy (IMHO).
 * My medical editing is pretty much limited to adding ICD-10 codes to articles (and add this template if it's not already there when doing so). I have gone ahead and changed the opening of the documentation, using that for taxonbar as a basis. Little pob (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not rude at all, just informative - but made me feel I was perhaps getting into deep waters and needed to leave it to the locals! Thanks. Pam  D  14:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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?

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)
 * What do others think/feel? Little pob (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (curtsey pings). I have also placed a notice on WP:MED's talk page. Little pob (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * agree w/ DocWatson42--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The approach recommended in Manual of Style/Layout for larger templates such as Commons that link to 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)

Bumping, since the discussion seems to have stalled. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bumping again with pings: —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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. Pam D  19:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)

There is currently a broader discussion about template placement, taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. taxonbar gets a mention, and I believe that this template is analagous to that and should be put in the same location. Pam D  07:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

On one page, [Neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation], entering  instead of   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,  , or no unknown parameter at all. Even when I reduced that page to nothing but  (in Edit Preview), the same thing happened. So the absence of  caused it.

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

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

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.

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)

Populate from WikiData again?
Last mentioned in Template_talk:Medical_resources/Archive_3, before ICD-11. Looking at Q1347065, 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)


 * 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:
 * d:Property:P7807 which is the unique "linkID" for the online browser
 * d:Property:P7329 which is the ICD-11 code
 * We can get the template to either display the code but have a broken link to the online browser, or a working link that displays the linkID instead of the code.
 * 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 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)