Template talk:Influenza sidebar

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Medicine This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine

The image on this template (Image:Physcian examining a child.jpg) seems little misleading as the image description says nothing about flu and it is apparently a simple checkup. - BanyanTree 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to distinguish flu as in disease (H5N1 flu) versus flu virus as in H5N1. What is actually happening is not important. For all we know, they are actors playing parts. WAS 4.250 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If what is actually happening isn't important, why not just take off the image to take up less article space? If you actually want an image illustrating an infected human, Image:165-WW-269B-11-trolley-l.jpg might be useful. I can get this if you want. It appears to be public domain. - BanyanTree 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a better image that will evoke in the reader's mind concepts relevant to flu, but neither of these images seems better. Bus transportation and an old blank and white image of a flu panic (pandemic?). Most flus are not pandemic flus. All flu is disease. Thus a medical checkup for a youngster who will be getting a flu shot or respiratory care (in one's mind). WAS 4.250 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these images seem particularly illustrative, so it makes sense to remove the present photo. Ziggurat 01:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the image. I think it is appropriate. I can understand objections. Please do not remove or replace the image without a vote. Consensus and polling rather than voting is what is desirable; but for something like this, a straight up vote makes sense. Call in some friends, have a vote; and I'll be happy. Can you understand where I'm coming from? WAS 4.250 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning to and I'm sorry if my message implied that I would take any such uncivil action! I'd rather work out why the image (this is a fairly large one for a template) is necessary. You note above that "I'm trying to distinguish flu as in disease (H5N1 flu) versus flu virus as in H5N1", but I wonder whether that could be better achieved by clarifying the template with text rather than an image. Ziggurat 02:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so much about what is "necessary" as it is about what is "desireable". If your concern is size ; how about reducing its size rather than deleting it? Say by half in terms of square whatever? WAS 4.250 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size is an issue, but I guess what I'm really asking is similar to what Banyan was asking above: is this image a bit too generic for this template? The image could sensibly be applied to any medical template, and that indicates that in itself it's not very informative on the topic of flu. The distinction I quoted above seems to suggest a possible reason why it's appropriate, but I'm not sure I quite understand the reasoning, so if you could clarify I'd appreciate it. Regards, Ziggurat 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedic coverage of some diseases and their causitive agents goes hand in hand one-to-one. Other diseases like flu have a more complicated relationship with causitive agents and are best distinguished. On the H5N1 template we have an image of viruses. Look at it. are you now informed? of what? On the Flu template we have an image of medical practice. are you now informed? of what? What information should be conveyed by these two images? Should we have any images? Well, these articles have been critisized recently in print by reputable authorites that they are "too text oriented". So some image is better than no image, even if just to put a little color on the screen and set a more friendly mood. The two images convey virus-technical versus disease-medical I think. WAS 4.250 12:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment; sorry if I seem rude in my questions! If I see an image I feel works better I'll suggest it here, as I'm much clearer now on the rationale behind its inclusion :) Ziggurat 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI : 69.6.162.160's template change was discussed at Talk:Flu research#Study: Implications for Influenza Surveillance. WAS 4.250 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope no one objects too strongly to my recent shuffling of your little template. Too-rah.--ZayZayEM 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should both, or one of Avian influenza and H5N1 be removed from this template.

I see no real purpose in keeping them in this short navbox. Links to these articles are found in the navbox on the bottom of all relevant articles, and also normally in the text of the articles themselves.

Neither Equine influenza or Swine influenza are isn't mentioned in a similar manner. Nor is surprisingly Human flu. Template already appears a bit long. Removing Avian influenza at least will chop it down a little.

Please discuss.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed Canine influenza as I think we should try to not make this too big. We don't want to replicate Template:Influenza but restrict this to a broad overview of popular topics menioned in articles that people want to find out more about. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should be included on this tab?

Wikipedia is not a news outlet. It shoudl not be dictated by current events and popularity. As a tertairy resource, its main purpose is to be a reference tool - therfore should deal with things objectively.

I would prefer something the Influenza Genome sequencing project be included on this particular tab.

Perhaps another "current events" influenza tab could be created that features things like HPAI/H5N1 and A/H1N1? Or a tab that lists the varieties "swine", "avian", "equine" etc.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote and ordered to give this template some structure.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks for doing it. SlimVirgin 17:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a caption or not?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever seeing an infobox that captions the image (unless the topic/title just so happens to double as a caption); if there are any that do, they're few and far between. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image, I'm thinking of just applying the same retouches to File:CDC-11214-swine-flu.jpg and using that, which is at least a different color. Thoughts? --Cybercobra (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either change one of the other of the images. Does not matter to me. Not sure if there is something better we could use on the 2009 Flu page. Here are some other possible images [[1]] I could get some picture of people with influenza as I see about a dozen a day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks better if the width is the same as the disease box.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be looking at it through 2009 flu pandemic-colored glasses, the template is used on other pages too. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and I still think it looks better on all the pages. Makes it a little shorter and fatter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, you wanna give that a try? Be sure to use appropriate <br />s so the wrapping doesn't look funky. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Flu in 1957, and this was a pretty big flu pandemic (course nothing compared to 1918-1919). I've gone ahead and added this to our template.

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 1889–90 flu pandemic, it has an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.229.106 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this right? I remember reading this page and seeing the origin of the Spanish flu is Kansas But upon reading today I notice alot of references to China Has Wiki been hacked?

2400:2413:5200:8E00:51B7:EA89:F18B:9A8B (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "SARS-CoV (SARS-CoV-2)" from the "type" subsection and remove "COVID-19 pandemic" from the "pandemic" subsection. Coronaviruses are distinct from influenza viruses, and so the listing of coronaviruses and their corresponding pandemic(s) on this template is unfounded and misleading. MLN-172 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Though to be honest this was an edit by User:Joseagush yesterday, but in any case it is better if this is discussed here before starting reverts over it. @Joseagush: Any comment on the matter? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done, clearly does not belong here – Thjarkur (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]