Template talk:WikiProject Medicine

New task force syntax implementation
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 Task force categories to do the assessment categorization, so that there isn't that much duplicate coding here. --Scott Alter 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  08:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have again revised a copy of this template at Template:WPMED/new, this time with parameters for the Emergency medicine and EMS task force. Could someone please copy the version of this template at Template:WPMED/new to here? Thanks. --Scott Alter 01:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  09:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I have revised a copy of this template at Template:WPMED/new, now with parameters for the Dermatology task force. Could someone please copy the version of this template at Template:WPMED/new to here? Thanks. --Scott Alter 03:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ SkierRMH  ( talk ) 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ✅. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are the Taskforce parameters in cammelcase?
Seems odd to have the other parameters in all lowercase, but the reproductive taskforce parameters Reproductive and ReproductiveImp in cammelcase. (Confusing to have to capitalize Reproductive.) Zodon (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just copied that formatting from another WikiProject (I don't remember which one). If you want to rename them, go ahead.  These parameters have not been used yet.  But you should somehow indicate that imp(ortance) is a separate word.  Maybe "reproductive-imp" or "reproductive-importance?"  --Scott Alter 04:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked around to try to see what other task forces do. Most of the ones I found that used multiple-word parameters (e.g. sex workers task force, Template:WPMILHIST, Template:WPBiography) seem to use words with dashes in them.  I edited the WPMED/new version to use reproductive and reproductive-imp.  Any preferences about whether it would be better to spell out -importance, or just leave it at -imp?  I am mildly inclined to the shorter version for less typing.  I haven't found others with separate importance parameter.  Thanks. Zodon (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After doing a bit of searching, I found that Mammal uses camel case parameters and separate importance ratings. We don't have to use separate importance ratings, but it is a nice feature to have.  I prefer the shorter reproductive-imp, too.  --Scott Alter 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to be agreement so I will request the change.


 * ✅ Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk)  14:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please make the changes to the template as in this version of WPMED/new http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPMED/new&oldid=221140983 (changes are to use "reproductive" and "reproductive-imp" for the task force parameters, rather than camelcase versions.) Thank you. Zodon (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

New version to include Neurology
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)
 * This appears to have been ✅ Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Task force importance
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I agree with WhatamIdoing here, I like the current system. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ophthalmology task force
Could someone please add the new Ophthalmology task force to this template? I've added (but commented out) the info for the /doc page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To get an admin's attention for this, you should use editprotected. However, as I think you mentioned elsewhere, maybe we should wait for the other task forces and do one big update.  --Scott Alter 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * editprotected

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 (and soon to become) task forces: Gastroenterology, Medical genetics, Nephrology, Ophthalmology, Pathology, and Radiology. Even if some of these projects do not become task forces, there is no harm in adding the code for future use. I also created WPMED/taskforces to reduce duplicate coding for each task force added. Thanks. --Scott Alter 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Scott, I think we may have a pulmonology task force in a little while. Would you like to add that to this batch of changes as well?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I added it to WPMED/new, so pulmonology will be added when this template is updated.  --Scott Alter 03:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So all we need now is for an admin to unprotect the page, replace the entire contents with the contents of the other page, and then re-protect it?
 * BTW, do we really think this page needs to be fully protected on spec? As I understand it, there's never been any actual vandalism of it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

✅ - please check works as expected ! Might not be any past vanadlism but I rather suspect feeling was too tempting a target, but we could certainly semiprotect to ensure only registered editors can change (vs any old anon). ? David Ruben Talk 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Everything is working as expected.  I too would like to see this template only semi-protected.  As WhatamIdoing mentioned, there has never been any vandalism of this page.  Additionally, could you semi-protect WPMED/taskforces, since it is transcluded here?  Thanks.  --Scott Alter 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, whilst as an admin I could do this myself, only courteous to first sound-out the original protecting admin - User talk:Shimgray, but for now I've semi-protected the metatemplate WPMED/taskforces :-) David Ruben Talk 03:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Shimgray was fine about lifting to semi-protection so I've enacted that - let me know if needs reprotecting at any point, else go to WP:AN/I if speedy action needed for repeated disruption. David Ruben Talk 20:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Meta Banner
You guys might be interested in using the WPBannerMeta template. It certainly makes it easier to add new taskforces, etc. to the banner. I've made a start in the sandbox so you can see what it looks like. (Only one taskforce is implemented so far.) So for example, produces the following. Martin 14:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've considered using the WPBannerMeta template in the past, but it has a limit of 15 taskforces (5 by default, and an additional 10 using the taskforce hook). There are currently 11 taskforces in WPMED.  Although there are no current active proposals for additional ones, I can envision this project having more than 15.  Since everything is working now with the current template, with the potential to outgrow WPBannerMeta, I felt no reason to make the switch.  --Scott Alter 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you can add as many as you need by calling the hook multiple times. I agree that if it is working correctly now then there is perhaps no need to rush into this. But perhaps when it comes to adding more you might like to consider it again. Regards, Martin 06:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just modified WPMED/sandbox to include all of the task forces (including cardiology). If we choose to use WPBannerMeta, there will be two issues to deal with.  First, the template uses Category:Unassessed medicine articles instead of Category:Unassessed-Class medicine articles (what we currently use for medicine and our task forces too).  The migration to the new categories should be easy, and just requires the creation of 12 new categories and deletion of 12 old categories.
 * Second, task forces with no specific importance are automatically assigned Unknown-importance, instead of the same importance as WPMED. Our options to deal with this include letting the banner classify these articles as Unknown-importance, or trying to have a hook written for WPBannerMeta to do the classification our way.  Making task force articles without a specified importance might be better as Unknown-importance, since it would not mix the project's priorities with the task forces' priorities.  So I think I would be in favor of using WPBannerMeta with the articles without task force importance as Unknown-importance.  --Scott Alter 21:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty easy to do, if you did want the main importance to be used for the taskforces. For example

|tf 1 importance=
 * I have just added this to the sandbox as an example. Feel free to undo if you'd prefer Unknown. Martinmsgj 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't even think to use that method.  --Scott Alter 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is still a slight problem with this method. Currently, when we use the main importance for the task force, the banner does not display an importance for the task force.  This is the indication that the importance came from WPMED and not the individual task force.  If we go with WPBannerMeta, one would have to look at the wiki code to see where the importance rating came from.  I think I would be in favor of leaving the articles with Unknown-importance, rather than taking the main importance.  Anyone have a preference one way or the other?  --Scott Alter 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also prefer that the project-wide importance not be pushed down into the task force's importance. They are often quite different.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wanted your opinion before changing the banner's functionality.  --Scott Alter 14:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please replace WPMED with the version at WPMED/sandbox? This new version uses WPBannerMeta and adds the new cardiology task force. Thanks. --Scott Alter 14:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your banner is only semiprotected so you can do it yourself. Martinmsgj 14:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had thought that someone recently changed it back to full protection, but it appears as though that was just for moving the page. I made the changes.  --Scott Alter 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce importance
I would prefer that taskforce importance be inherited from WPMedicine importance (as it was before the change). For many purposes the WPMED assessments are good enough, with maybe some tweeking for individual articles, rather than having to add hundreds to thousands more assessments.

Was this issue brought up in the taskforce talk areas, or in the mess? I was quite startled when I suddenly saw that the reproductive medicine articles had almost all lost importance assessment information. It took some tracking to find this. Think since the taskforces are ones mainly affected, input should be requested in their talk areas, and in the mess.

What did changing to using WPBannerMeta buy us? Zodon (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that different taskforces are split over this ... I will change reproductive over to use the main importance by default. Perhaps you could find out if there are others that want to do this as well. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * It looks like WPBannerMeta could be adapted to give the option of having taskforce importance inherited, as WPMED did. I am still looking at the code, but intend to propose such a change there.  Zodon (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the wording depending on whether importance is specified. How is this looking? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I changed the wording to exactly match the default task force text.  The only difference is that if there is no reproductive-imp given, there will be no "(marked as x-importance)."  I think the task forces should not use the WPMED importance variable by default.  If they request it, we could implement it on a per task force basis.  --Scott Alter 22:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks MSGJ, that was a simpler solution than the one I had figured out.
 * Maybe there shouldn't be a default either way - task force has to decide initially which way to do it (whether to have task force importance rating, and if so, whether to inherit from WPMED, or do their own.) But don't think it is critical, as long as they know the options exist.  Zodon (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Custom class mask
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)

Problem
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 Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria, 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, which is what the word "rated" currently links to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to lose the links to the wrong pages entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Proposed at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and implemented. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MSGJ. I really appreciate it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"doctor's mess"?
Okay fine, it's your project … — CharlotteWebb 18:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know what a Mess is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

B/High
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)
 * Yes, just for show. The proper rating would of course be on the talk page, like the one at the top of this page ;) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Derm taskforce
Will someone make the derm importance the same as the general medicine importance unless otherwise specified? kilbad (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. (May take a little while for the categories and bot generated table to update). Zodon (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such a quick response. kilbad (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why no "attention=yes/no" parameter?
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)

Question
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)
 * Probably because Category:FL-Class dermatology articles doesn't exist yet. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily unhidden the warnings so you can see some other categories which need creating. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created the red-linked categories. Most are still empty at this time. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dermatology articles by quality statistics hasn't been updated since 16 July. Just be patient :) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

COTW and Portal links from this template
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)
 * 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. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I like the merged template because its more efficient with the screen real estate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

I think this is an excellent suggestion, especially with regards to the medicine portal templates. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, just waiting on a mediawiki update before I place the bot request. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which update would that be? Going by how long these things normally take, you could be waiting a long time! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Please update the template with the Template:WPMED/sandbox contents. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only semi-protected. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, nevermind, I've updated it. I've also floated a bot request at Bot requests/Archive 31. I'll go update the template documentation now. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me that you might be able to simplify the syntax by using nom, prev and cur instead of yes, yes and yes. (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! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 pjpt. 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)
 * A nominaion date could be used, but how can that alone determine whether it's a nom, cur or prev? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Cancer taskforce?
Seems a like a natural extension to me. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is 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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved by rough consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:WPMED → — To standardize. WPMED would remain as redirect. – xeno talk 18:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I do not see this as a problem. As long as we do not have to change all the uses of this template manually :-) -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the existing uses will function just fine with the redirect. =) – xeno talk 18:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 23:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Sounds sensible to have the template at the full name and any abbreviations as redirects. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose this, as the person most likely to be typing it. We have redirects, and there's actually zero benefit to moving the banner.  Xeno, I'm guessing that you didn't read any of the discussions about that proposal.  (I just updated the links on its talk pages.)  WP:Standardize is a failed proposal that was opposed by editors whose judgment I trust, including:
 * Hiding: "For the record, I'm still not sold this is a move that has to happen."
 * Kirill Lokshin: "Ditto. I think this is just work for its own sake (and not really helpful work, either, as the longer template names will make the banners more time-consuming for normal editors to use)."
 * Ned Scott: "My take, redirects are cheap and there for this kind of reason :)"
 * In fact, pretty much the only editor in favor of it was HappyMelon, who seems to have been motivated by nothing more than a desire for neatness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can still type the redirect. The main benefits (among others) is having a standard form among other banners, and the ability for bots to easily recognize the template. As for your comment that the linked page didn't gain consensus - that is why I am seeking local consensus here. The advantages are still relevant, which is why I've linked it so I don't have to repeat myself. Your comment that only Happy-melon supported it is not accurate, but that isn't relevant to this discussion. – xeno talk 12:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- having tried to co-ordinate a cross-project task, of generating lists of unreferenced BLPs, and being told by the Bot coder that I needed to use the actual template name, not a redirect, the WikiProject template naming system is a mess. Look at the range of names that are in use. The sooner we get all the projects aligned, the sooner maintenance tasks can be setup automatically, and not with a lot of effort.The-Pope (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New task force
I am working on getting a new task force dealing with "translation" up and running. Details can be here 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)
 * Nope cannot seem to figure it out.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dating
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)

Feature brainstorm for Module:WikiProjectBanner
I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for WPBannerMeta, 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)

Grammar
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)

Proposed improvements to the WikiProject Medicine banner documentation
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 importance had been mentioned, it is now more fully documented
 * listas & small were functional but previously undocumented parameters
 * Expanded the documentation for class under Assessment
 * Switched to the undefined & undefined constructs rather than using   =, 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)
 * Thanks for this proposal. I would support any changes to the documentation as you have proposed. --LT910001 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I moved the changes into place today. Peaceray (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Biography parameter?
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)
 * Not that I know of. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. However, we already have the option of WPBiography with yes LeadSongDog come howl!  05:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Extra medicine banners
Hello. I noticed that while most medicine-related articles probably already use this template, additional banners are also used such as Reliable sources for medical articles and Expanded reliable sources for medical content. Would it not be a good idea to instead of needing multiple banners, for the extra ones to be uncollapsible, or linked, from the this main WikiProject Medicine template? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  - 23:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, because that template is often hidden in an already collapsed section.
 * i.e. WikiProjectBannerShell


 * Carl Fredrik talk 23:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I never place a search template in a collapsed section. Expanded reliable sources for medical content will 'automatically' replace Reliable sources for medical articles won't it? Or does this have to be done manually?
 * Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm I see.  if by consensus Expanded reliable sources for medical content should replace Reliable sources for medical articles, its source could replace that of the former template, or the former could become a redirect to the new one, which would automatically fix all existing transclusions.  However, if some of those were substituted (i.e. {{subst:Reliable sources for medical articles}} was used), and/or if the new one will not replace the older one, a lot of manual work, or possibly a bot task, may be needed to update all talk pages...  The substituted cases are probably rare and unlikely because there appear to be at least 12788 existing transclusions (see "Transclusion count" for Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Reliable_sources_for_medical_articles).  — Paleo  Neonate  - 01:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the purpose is to replace anything - else we would just merge the templates. Carl Fredrik  talk 10:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We should likely merge the two resource templates. Why have to templates that provide the same thing? It should not be merged here though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)