Template talk:Mental disorders

Untitled
A great template - however, what do people think about using a WHO ICD-10 template for mental disorders versus DSM-IV? Although the ICD system is international, the DSM-IV system does seem to get used more in psychiatry research. 194.83.140.28 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Although DSM-IV is US based while ICD is international, DSM-IV is used more in international research. Probably the best way around this is to create a seperate DSM-IV template then articles could choose which one to use. 79.72.116.123 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting
Before removing the formatting a third time, please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine. --Arcadian 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What fun this hoop-jumping is. Replied, funnily enough saying exactly the same thing as I did when I initiated dialogue with you in the first place. "Disinclined" my eye. Chris Cunningham 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "I've encouraged him to discuss the issue with a broader community" != leaving a message on my talk page. --Arcadian 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Collapsed
I've collapsed the box - it's pretty huge, this makes it more manageable. WLU (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Table's too wide
This table is too long and too wide. It doesn't fit well with the standard navbox formatting, because some of the headings are very long and there are three levels. Long upper-level headings should be put on a separate line instead of in the heading column. That would make the heading columns narrower so there's less empty space. It would save both width and height, making it easier to use for people with smaller screens. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Arcadian reverted my heading linebreaks, so here's an explanation for them: Briefly, the table is much too wide in its current form. It's at least about 130 characters wide, and there must be readers whose content areas are less than 100 characters. Mine is 90, and 80 probably isn't too unusual for portable devices. Arcadian said they "create too much vertical whitespace", but I don't think people with large monitors understand how bad the wide format is on a small screen. Please look at the table with a text-area width of less than 100 characters, preferably closer to 80 or 90. There's a huge amount of empty space there, and the linebreaks eliminate a lot of it.

Table with linebreaks

&mdash;Codrdan (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both proposed changes introduce many new issues, but rather than try to find the perfect one-template solution, do you mind if I split it into multiple navs instead? For example, (1) "Neurological/symptomatic", (2) "Psychoactive", (3) "Psychosis, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and neuroses", (5) "Physiological/adult behavioral", and (6) "Mental disorders diagnosed in childhood"? (Of course, we could make the titles of these groupings longer, balancing concision vs. precision). --Arcadian (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever fits in a 90-character width. There's no reason this navbox can't fit on the screen of a portable device.  &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Table with above-style top-level headings

The word "disorder" in the headings is redundant, so I deleted them. This table is 30 percent narrower and slightly shorter vertically than the previous one.

&mdash;Codrdan (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I note you've reverted back to your preferred format. The approach you are currently following will affect hundreds of navboxes. If you are proposing that navboxes be optimized for 90 character screens at the expense of decreased usability on other size screens, I strongly recommend that you get consensus at Template talk:Navbox for such a radical proposal before implementing such a change. --Arcadian (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how this can be so hard for you to understand, but the format I've been working on is optimized for an entire range of widths, from about 80 characters up to about 140. That's the whole point:  There's no need to optimize for wide screens, because the text automatically breaks into longer lines.  The current format is extravagantly wasteful of space.  It takes up an absolute minimum of about 130 characters, which has to be added to the width of the Wikipedia navigation column on the left-hand side of the window.  Even with a text width of 130 characters, the above-style format still takes up less space than the column format.  Also, what in the world makes you think this has anything to do with Template:Navbox?  Template talk:Navbox is for discussing Template:Navbox itself, not individual navboxes.  &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Above-style table with lists converted to subheadings

This takes advantage of the toplevel heading style to more fully organize the table. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you tried it on other monitors? On the screen I'm using now, your new format has the same width, but is almost twice as tall. Judging from your edit history, your focus is not just on this one template, but on how all the navigation templates look on your monitor. Given that, you'd probably want to get a consensus over at at Template talk:Navbox before moving too quickly on these conversions. --Arcadian (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See my previous notes about flexibility and Template talk:Navbox. I have a 17-inch CRT with my browser in full-screen mode and a relatively large font.  Portable devices have much smaller screens, so I don't have much sympathy for people who want tables to be perfectly optimized for huge flat-panel monitors.  Optimization is a much more important issue for small screens.
 * The only way I can make my format longer than the original is to make the font size much smaller than it should be for typical web browsing. Also, the table fits into a single page in that case, about 1.7 pages for the above-heading format.  In contrast, it takes up more than four pages with a 90-character width, and most of the text of the current format isn't even visible on the screen, so it can only be viewed by scrolling.  &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Category needs adding
New category in the DSM-5 needs adding, most disorders already in Anxiety or elsewhere. Should be structured:
 * Abuse or neglect related
 * Attachment disorder
 * Disinhibited social engagement disorder
 * Trauma-related
 * Acute Stress Disorder
 * PTSD
 * Stress-related
 * Adjustment disorders - a single code used for all

Position: Immediately before Dissociative Disorders in DSM-5 and after Anxiety disorders as described in chapter heading.

ICD-11 also uses a separate chapter for these.

Note: The first two have diagnostic criteria that specify a known pattern of neglect or abuse. Adjustment disorder is from everyday life stress, Acute Stress Disorder is from up to 1 month after major trauma causing flashbacks/nightmares etc and is reclassified as PTSD is it lasts 6 months. I'm not sure I feel confident in creating a new section but I might if nobody else volunteers. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

incoherent categorising
Under "Adult personality and behavior" the section "gender dysphoria" does not make sense, neither Ego-dystonic sexual orientation, Paraphilia, Sexual maturation disorder or Sexual relationship disorder could be considered as subset or even related to gender dysphoria. I suggest the section is renamed "sexual" or "sexuality" and move gender dysphoria in the "Physiological and physical behavior" or the "Symptoms and uncategorized" category, if not removing it entierly.


 * I agree that "Adult personality and behavior > Other" is a poorly constructed category. It has no analogue in either the DSM-5 or ICD-11. It should be probably be merged with the "Symptoms and uncategorised" section and renamed "Other". The "Sexual" disorders might then be grouped with the other sexual disorders in "Physiological and physical behaviour" section. (These are not so dissimilar from the "Eating" disorders in that section).


 * But more jarringly, the delineating factors separating "Childhood and learning" and "Neurological and symptomatic" seem non-existent.Transient-understanding (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021
Change "Gender dysphoria" category to Sexual and Add "Gender dysphoria" to "other" under "Adult personality and behavior" 2A01:E34:EC40:2D10:EDAF:B589:CCCA:E8D4 (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move and remove content inappropriate to the new scope  (t · c)  buidhe  06:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Mental and behavioral disorders → Template:Mental disorders – for alignment with Mental disorder, List of mental disorders and Category:Mental disorders. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you want Template:Mental disorders? Sawol (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated the RM as that is obviously what was intended. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 18:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting to remove items related to Emotional and behavioral disorders (behavioral disorders)? Christian75 (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Split I totally agree with proposer that this template should be aligned better with its uses. In this case, the template is broad and links lots of disparate topic areas that don't really need links. I think a better solution from a navigation, maintenance and alignment perspective is to split this template up into multiple child templates that better reflect the disparate subject areas. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)