I have made some changes that I would like to add to this page. My version is available at User:Selket/Sandbox/Infobox_Anatomy. The only thing changed is the Map, MapCaption, and MapPos variables that have been added to enable a clickable map of an anatomical system to be included in the infobox. I have a sample usage at User:Selket/Sandbox. Not having this ability requires such navigational tools to be placed rather awkwardly outside of the infobox as in Vestibule of the ear. --Selket ^Talk 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Arcadian 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please recategorize this template to Category:Medical infobox templates. This would replace the existing category link. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done --Ligulem 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could some kind admin update the MeSH link so it links to the 2007, rather than the 2006 version of the site?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Arcadian 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I crated an imagemap of the heart.

could someone include here an imagemap parameter like I did in templates Template:Infobox Vein and Template:Infobox Artery so that the imagemap template could be included here too... Csörföly D 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

to make a long story short, I ended up at the breast page on an RfC, and noticed that the anatomy infobox was particularly uninformative. can someone with medical knowledge expand the infobox to include descriptors meaningful for exterior anatomy, so that things like breasts, noses, toes and ears can provide something other than the major veins and arteries? or just post what should go in there here, and I'll add it. --Ludwigs2 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((editprotected))

Requesting synx with the new sandbox to give this template a proper infobox class; minor code cleanup. Minimal output changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done (trusting that you won't break the wiki). Cheers,  Skomorokh  16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've pushed some additional changes to the sandbox for general conformance with current infobox design: the most notable changes are page title inheritance and the use of the user's thumbnail size as a fallback for images rather than a hardcoded 250px (a slight drop for some readers, but importantly this means that smaller images will not be upscaled). A comparison is available on the new test cases page. I'll push this in a few days if there's no opposition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please add this interwiki link at the template? [[it:Template:Infobox anatomia]] It's the italian version of this template. Thank you. --Vale maio (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please:

1. Tone down the yellow of the "Nerve" row? ex. #FFE400
2. Increase the lateral padding on the table rows (ex. to 3px)? On pages like Mammary gland, the text is obnoxiously close to the edges of colored boxes.

Thanks.
—Prof. Squirrel (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Would you add the lines below? These additions are already implemented at, for example, ((Infobox bone)) and ((Infobox muscle)).

| label17 = [[Terminologia Anatomica|TA]]
| data17 = ((#if:(({TA98|((#property:P1323))|))}| <span style="white-space:nowrap">((TA98|(({TA98|((#property:P1323))))))}</span>))

| label18 = [[Foundational Model of Anatomy|FMA]]
| data18 = ((#if:(({FMA|((#property:P1402))|))}| <span style="white-space:nowrap">((FMA|(({FMA|((#property:P1402))))))}</span>))

and

| belowstyle = font-style:italic; font-weight:bold
| below = [[Anatomical terminology|Anatomical terminology]]

Thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done – Please update the documentation, if necessary. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS. Please look at the code of this talk-page section to see how much easier it is to use "pre" tags rather than "nowiki" tags and left-margin spaces. Joys! – Paine 

Thank you Paine! Pre tags are so nice :D Thanks for editing and advising. --Was a bee (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pleasure! – Paine  08:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometime within the past 24 hours the "Gray's" link in the template went red. There have been no edits to the template since August 2, 2014, so that means someone broke it upstream. I've taken a cursory look, but haven't been able to figure out who did what. It may have been the result of an improper move, without creating a redirect. In fact, the "Gray's" link in the template, when the parameter was filled in, was a redirect until yesterday. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hydrargyrum: can you provide a specific example? the links are generated through the List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy:NUMBER redirects. I will add some tracking for redlinks, but it would be useful to have a specific example of a broken one. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Frietjes: I can't provide a current example: The "Gray's" link, in articles where the parameter is used, isn't red anymore. Whatever was being done to cause it appears to have been reverted. However, since it is still a redirect, perhaps that should be fixed in this template. An article where the parameter is used is Pinna (anatomy). (I changed the text colour for redirect links from the default blue to something more visible in my profile to aid in editing, so I can instantly see the redirect in the template; it may not be immediately obvious if you're using the default colours.) — Quicksilver^{T @} 15:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hydrargyrum: no worries. the redlink may have been for "List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy:280", which I just created today. the tracking category will find any broken ones. as far as the redirects go, I plan to create a template which automatically computes the correct section link from the page number, which will make the redirects unnecessary (and allow for error checking when the subject and page number don't match). Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For users who aren't aware, there's a discussion on updates to this infobox at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#11_different_infobox-templates. All users are welcome to contribute. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The DorlandsID section of the info-box now redirects to a "MerckEngage® has replaced MerckSource." landing page, rendering any such links useless. _{216.196.204.110 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

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

Would you replace template by this? (Template:Infobox anatomy/sandbox3)

• Differences between the new code and the old one (to say, current template) is this (diff)
• Background is like this. Recently, Terminologia Histologica (TH) and Terminologia Embryologica (TE) properties were created at Wikidata, but inclusion of that in this template has not yet done. (ongoing project discussions is here WT:ANAT#Wikidata and anatomy articles).

Thank you. --Was a bee (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you could use the datastyle parameter to do the nowrap more neatly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is a better way, that's nice! But I don't know how to edit that style settings though :( The "nowarp" code was simply copied from other section (as far as I searched, that code was originally introduced at this edit[1]). --Was a bee (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can see, all the nowrap styling is redundant anyway as the infobox does this automatically. I was going to ask about the use of ((main other)) as well but I guessed the answer would be "I copied it from another section"! Anyway  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much for making these edits, Martin. It's great when the infobox becomes incrementally more and more readable. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much!--Was a bee (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

From discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Presentation of parameters in infobox, I implemented bit changes at sandbox.

• New version[2]
• Diff from current version[3]

Changes are as follows

1. TH link implemented
2. main-other which seems redundant are removed
3. FMA prefix removed

(Article Neuron which has TA, TH and FMA identifiers is, I think, good page for testing the template.) --Was a bee (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With a view to future editors, edits to this box, Wikidata usage and general readability, I would like to start moving the identifiers so that like terms are grouped together. As an example of what I will be doing, I will be doing something like this:

• Label10 is "innervates" for nerves, Label15 is "Action" for muscles, and Label20 is "Supplies" for blood vessels. I will move the labels and their data so that they're positioned together, and add a comment above them "<!--Function-->".

I will not rename or renumber the labels or their data. If there are no objections I'll do this in a day or two --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Would somebody implement this change into main template? This changes Gray's anatomy page data from "reading local" to " importing from Wikidata", nothing changes in appearance. This is final process of lengthy discussion at wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/31#Gray.27s_Anatomy_1918_page. --Was a bee (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was a bee: some obvious questions:

1. Has all the necessary data been transferred to Wikidata?
2. Have you thoroughly tested the change requested and does it always retrieve the relevant data correctly?
3. Is the anatomy project supportive of this change?

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. OK. About 2,700 pages which transclude this template are processed (1,2)
2. OK. At the first line of the code ((#ifeq: ((#invoke:Wikid....ue|numeric-id)) | 19558994 |, checking whether retrieving data is relevant target (Q19558994) or not.
3. OK, I guess. This data export process is not my idea. Project member Tom provided idea, and he initiated the process. I joined only from the middle, and what I have been doing is only supporting him from the back, only in technical aspects (running pywikibot, asking lua coding.... and new template code, this one).

--Was a bee (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on assurances above, I have made the change. (Tested here and seems to work.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Martin! --Was a bee (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So this is  Done. Thank you Martin! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was a bee, the old syntax would link the label to a page based on the subject, but now this doesn't do much. should we just get rid of this feature and Category:Pages with invalid Gray's Anatomy subject number? Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I vote yes, as the validation is now done at the level of Wikidata and the less code on the template the better in my book. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I vote yes also. That category includes subject numbers which lacks link to subject list page (currently under deletion request). As far as I checked, pages currently included in that category have correct subject numbers, but simply missing subject list pages. If subject list pages will be deleted, this category will end its own role. --Was a bee (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

okay, label simplified. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Frietjes the time ariveth for the link / category to becometh changed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

looks like you fixed it. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right -  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This would be a useful addition to the 'identifiers' section in other templates, so I propose that we add it to them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds nice. I think taht would be very useful for readers. --Was a bee (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Would you add Uberon section by replacing current template by this? (Template:Infobox anatomy/sandbox3)

• Differences between the new code and the current code is this (diff)
• Background: Property for UBERON ID has been already created at Wikidata (d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/25#P1554), but inclusion of this property into this template has not yet done. UBERON is only huge inter-species anatomy ontology, which interconnects many anatomy ontologies (not only human's but also frog's, mouse's, fish's and so on). Thank you. --Was a bee (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: Can you link me to the documentation on #property? I'm unfamiliar with it at this time and would like to understand what it does before carrying this out. Also, I'd be interested to read any discussion about adding this to the template if there is any available. Thanks. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 13:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Technical 13:. My explanation was not enough. Thank you for question. That helps very much.

Answer to the first question

As a documentation for this code, which I know is only this page (meta:Wikidata/Notes/Inclusion syntax v0.4). I feel that page is too simple, so let me explain bit more.

#property:P**** is the function which calls data from wikidata page. Here is a similar example. For instance, in article Tibia, at the bottom line of the infobox, we can see FMA ID like this.

FMA 24476

Importantly, this number 24476 is not stored in the article, but is called from correspondent Wikidata page wikidata:Q178366 through function "#property:P1402". And the link target is managed through the template ((FMA)).

Same like this, new code "#property:P1554" adds new line to the infobox in article Tibia, like this

Uberon 0000979

Link target is managed through the template ((Uberon)). This kind of additions of new line will happen in about 120 articles, because currently Uberon ID is stored only in about 120 pages[4]. (In the future this will be expand to some thousands.)

Answer to the second question:

Announcement for Anatomy project is here (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Inculusion_of_UBERON_ID_is_requested_at_Infobox_Anatomy). Actually there are no "discussion." :3 I think "addition of Uberon to the infobox" itself is not controversial topic. If there are any controversy, it would be "Where to link?", because there is no official browser and there are many alternative copies. For the present, I choose Medical College of Wisconsin's copy because it seems having the most easy-to-understand interface for general readers (clear tree structure and daigram). But this point "Where to link?" is open for the future and can be managed through editing ((Uberon)). Some more strategic discussion for Uberon can be found at Wikidata (e.g. wikidata:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Adding_disease_properties)

Thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Was a bee do we need to set the edit request to 'no' to get a futher reply here? I feel you've provided a good rationale --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me propose two discussions.

1. Firstly, how about splitting "Identifiers" section and "Other resources" section. Currently "Gray's anatomy link" and "Dorlands links" are included in Identifiers section. Although these links could provide some useful information, actually such data (e.g. page numbers in Gray) are not used as identifiers in any communities. So I think it is better to split these links to different section.

2. Secondly, current identifiers order is as follows. NeuroNames, NeuroLex, BAMS, TA, TH ,TE and FMA. First three are neuroanatomy specific identifiers. And international standard (TA, TH, TE) follows after that. I think the order would be more natural if order is TA, TH, TE, FMA, NeuroNames, NeuroLex and BAMS. International standard first (TA, TH, TE), anatomy general second (FMA) and region specific last (NeuroNames, NeuroLex, BAMS).

What do you think? Thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I add, 3. Moving some identifiers to an WP:authority control template? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New 'other resources' heading

Thanks for proposing this WAB, I am not too sure about this one. I don't think we have that many terms in out infoboxes yet, so I worry this may be an extra heading. In addition an 'extra resources' heading may encourage every (other) Tom, Dick and Harry to add his service to the resources. On the other hand, it is useful to split these up, and perhaps we could put them in a collapsible section so interested users can expand it, but it won't visually pollute? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With respect to Gray's Anatomy as far as I understand it's in our articles mostly as a form of source control, ie recording where the text was taken from. Perhaps we could think about removing it from the infoboxes? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't think about visual appearance. As you say, many sections would make the template bit messy. My motivation of proposal is essentially only from a nuance of word. I feel bit hesitation about classifying some links (for example, Gray or NeuroNames) as "identifier". I don't have deep meaning about this. Simply nuance of word. By the way, ((Infobox disease)) uses "Classification and external resources" as section title (example: Cancer). Perhaps, by using the title something like that, for example "Identifiers and external resources", and keeping section number unchanged would be better?

About Gray, it is an idea to put them in another place. But currently I feel to put them at infobox seems better. Because the culture of anatomy field is, to some extent, old-fashioned textbook-based culture even today, compared to some bioinformatics related fields (e.g. genetics) which have generally database-based culture. Of course, Gray's anaomty is not the sole famous textbook, and link target is very old edition. Nevertheless Gray could be, I feel, useful textbook. --Was a bee (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reorder items

Agree completely. TA, TH, TE as international standards should get prominence, and then as you state FMA, Neuronames, NeuroLex, etc. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I think that order would be nice. --Was a bee (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of 'authority control' template

Thank you @Tom:. You talked similar thing at anatomy project page.

Sorry I don't understand well yet from what point you think it is better to put some data at authority control rather than infobox. I saw WP:MED discussion about Infobox update which you joined. And I think "Human readability" for "general readers" is important criteria for encyclopedia article like Wikipedia. At least, I agree and support that direction which improving "Human readability" of infobox. You propose that from this point? Or something else? If simply "it takes huge area", we also have option to use show-hide template for some sections (Template:Hidden).

Template:Authority control is interesting place holder. Actually mere identifiers (series of symbols) are meaningless to general readers though, at the same time, many anatomy articles currently, IMO, lack some important information which is provided through external-links of identifiers, What I feel lacking are mainly sourced information of "standard name", "synonyms", "Latin names" and "hierarchical position". From this point, currently I think the links provided by identifiers can serve as useful links even to general readers (Though some websites are totally inconvenient e.g. TE, TH). So I suppose it is better to put some links at infobox (especially TA, FMA and NeuroNames are useful), at least at this time.

Personally I have not used Dorlands link (because many pages are dead link). So I don't know its usefulness. About Gray's link, it can not suit for authority control, but moving it into ((Gray's)) is I think one possible option.

Sorry for bad English. Thanks.--Was a bee (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, WAB. Some of the identifiers (particularly TA, TH, TE) are very useful and it would be a detriment to readers to put them in Authority control. Are there any that you think would not be useful? As for my experience thus far, I have only used TA, TH and TE. I've not had a use for the other ones yet, and I'd be interested in hearing what other users have to say about this. I've taken the liberty of splitting replies so it's easier to keep track of our conversation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Tom:. Very interesting and important points. But this is bit complicated topic. Currently TH and TE are, I think, not "useful" in general. Because external websites for TH and TE are low quality. Difficult to read because it is low-resolution book scan. But, yes, from the point of "Authoritativeness," TA, TH, TE are the most important data. Because they are "international standard." So I think it is meaningful that there are information of TA, TH, TE in infobox (though there is also a problem that TA, TH, TE are something like de jure standard, rather than de facto standard.). From my personal limited view, I don't know well yet the uniqueness or usefulness of BAMS and Neurolex. --Was a bee (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I'd be grateful if a skilled editor could, like in the article Breast link the two fields Latin and Greek to the Wiktionary entries. Not all fields will have direct links, often the singular and plural forms are both provided, but where possible I think it'd be great to have an automated link. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice idea but you're asking an awful lot of it. At first glance you're asking for it to do 3 separate things:

• link a simple latin/greek word,
• scan a word with some gloss, "mamma (mammalis "of the breast")" and pick which word needs to be wikilinked,
• leave alone an already existing link to wiktionary, as in the example you gave.

To avoid breaking any of the existing 4500 transclusions I can see two ways forward:

• add two new fields (latin_wikt, greek_wikt) to take a single word, suppressing the existing fields when they are given values, and leaving the existing fields when they're not specified,
• suppress and ignore the latin and greek parameters and always link to the wiktionary article corresponding to the el/la pagenames given on the wikidata page. (assuming body parts are named the same in ancient and modern Greek)

In any case some discussion at wt:WikiProject Anatomy may be in order. HTH. Bazj (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Label seems to have the intention of providing what's needed. Once it's fully developed ((label|Q9103|el)) and ((label|Q9103|la)) should return Μαστός and Mamma respectively. For now it returns breast and breast. Bazj (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Bazj. Actually I was just thinking of a simpler solution - checking if an entry exists for the entire field in Wiktionary. If it does, then link the entire field. If it doesn't then no link is provided. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. also, please show consensus for the desired changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal that the Latin/Greek fields, if they can, be directly linked to Wiktionary. Why? because it may provide some more background information to readers who want to know about the etymological origins of information. Please comment below on this general proposal... if there is consensus we can discuss how this can be done. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support such a proposal, but I don't see how it can be done. Many terms will not exist on wiktionary, and we wouldn't want red-links to another project. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It makes sense to have these in the identifiers section of the infobox, as these represent how the structure is identified in Latin and Greek (and thus anatomical works). Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose a field which contains synonyms and acronyms of the structure's name be added. Thoughts? We can call it "Synonyms" and have both in the same field, or alternatively add two separate fields. The benefit of this is that we can remove long lists from the plain text and make it easily visible to users. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also not working. eeg Internal thoracic artery. Sorry this seems to be a whack-a-mole type situation, Was a bee. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can try to fix it, but web.archive.org is currently offline for maintenance. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frietjes, it's still not working. e.g. Ring_finger. Even with archive.org up. Should we stop displaying for now?--Elvey^(t•c) 05:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom (LT) and Elvey, I switched it use an earlier archive link, and those two examples seem to be working. however, I wonder if it's really worth it given the amount of information in the archived dictionary. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. I'm weakly in favor of still be displaying it.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is consensus (or no objections) after 2-3 weeks I will remove the remaining colours from the infobox items artery, vein, nerve. I will do this because:

• It gives a standardised appearance to the infobox
• It makes future changes to the infobox system easier to implement
• It does not translate well to a printed version of the article.
• It reduces the strange and arbitrary appearance of the infoboxes (eg sometimes displaying over rows, sometimes just over the headings)
• Use of these colours makes the text difficulty to read and is not visually appealing
• With items separated into "identifier" and "details" subsections it is much easier for users to access the information on arteries and veins without a visual cue.

Kindly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose that we remove the visible links to Gray's Anatomy, per this edit by CFCF ([7]). I support this because we have a (more) modern, up-to-date reference and because it is undue weight to continue linking to a source now 98 years old. We do not do the same for other sources. So I support removing the visible links (data will still be preserved on Wikidata) and invite other editors to discuss this. I think it's worth discussing because we have discusses this issue conceptually prior here and on Wikidata and other editors may wish to contribute.

Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done (already) --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

When the corresponding Wikidata item has a "anatomical location", that information should be included in the infobox. ChristianKl (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit template-protected)) template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: ChristianKl, If this request is to move forward you'll need to provide more detail. What is the property number of "anatomical location"? Which articles will show a difference as a result of this change? Bear in mind that this change will likely be carried out by someone who has no specialist knowledge of anatomical locations - it's YOUR change, you need to provide the details. Ideally, Sandbox, testcases, discussion, consensus, then request again. for (;;) (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevant property is anatomical location (P927). I see there is currently a location parameter but it does not seem to be documented. Is this the field where you propose to import this property? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think that field would be a good place to put this information. ChristianKl (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added it to the sandbox. Try Infobox anatomy/sandbox on finger for example — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The purpose of this edit is to provide increased user privacy and security by having this template use an HTTPS URL when generating a link to one of the pages on the FIPAT site (https://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/) for the TH (Terminologia Histologica) identifier. The FIPAT site supports HTTPS. In this template, please change http://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/Public/EntryPage/ViewTH/THh to https://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/Public/EntryPage/ViewTH/THh instead. Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links on the infoboxes don't seem to link anywhere, eg. Truncus arteriosus. @Was a bee and suggestions? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tom (LT): Currently no link mechanism is implemented for TE. So I updated unused template ((TerminologiaEmbryologica)) for new role. Now it is possible to generate link by using this code (sandbox diff). --Was a bee (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, have linked. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]