Template talk:Flu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] image

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 69.6.162.160's template change

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)