Template talk:Infobox muscle

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes

Anatomy: Gross

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
	This template has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Created

The anatomical Template:Infobox_Muscle was created back on 28-August-2005 by long-term Wikipedia user User:Arcadian. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overwide anatomy infoboxes

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.

30-March-2008: There have been several infoboxes that auto-format into very wide layouts, wider than needed to display the images and text. The Template:Infobox_Muscle was another overwide template that had expanded when MeSH name was omitted, due to a spacing issue in the template coding. However, infobox entries were still widely separated between label and value for each item in the table. The template coding was changed (29Mar08) to narrow the infobox to have merely the width needed to fit the images, also bringing the labels and values closer together in the table. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See colspan bug fixed, below. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[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.

Beware colspan bugs: fixed image area

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.

30-March-2008: Similar to other templates, I noticed problems with Infobox_Muscle expanding wide across the page, so I changed the original coding (from 2 years back) to use "colspan=2" now (had been "3") for images or captions, and the problem is fixed now: the infobox no longer expands wide across an article page. I also added parameter "boxwidth=20em" (or "BoxWidth") to allow customizing width of the infobox. Beware mismatches in the use of "colspan=2" (or 3) in other infoboxes: many wikitables have had bizarre formatting caused by incorrectly spanning multiple columns by colspan=3 or such. Since the problem had also existed in Infobox_Bone and Infobox_Brain for nearly 2 years, there are probably several other templates that still have colspan bugs (as of March 2008). -Wikid77 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[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.

Blurry images in many anatomy articles

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.

30-March-2008: The typical anatomy images are PNG-format images that are "faithful reproduction" page copies from Gray's Anatomy; however, they usually appear blurry in many articles, due to small lettering in labels or captions. JPEG images will produce slighty sharper, darker labels due to JPEG-contrast enhancement, but when converting a PNG image to the sharper JPEG format, I have also narrowed the image to magnify 10%-20% when displayed in an article: the narrowing of an image typically involves moving the Gray's captions closer to the center, thus no longer an exact "faithful reproduction" of the page, but more readable in each article. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[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.

Doc subpage

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.

30-March-2008: I have created a typical "/doc" subpage to describe the parameters and show an example for "Template:Infobox_Muscle" as standard documentation. The doc is displayed only when the full template page is displayed stand-alone, not included, by using "{{template doc}}" which boxes a doc subpage in that narrow institutional-green documentation box. The example text had to be narrowed by 2 characters to fit within the green doc box without wrapping. The doc is in draft form, and more parameters should be described or elaborated. Remember the green-doc width complication: wide text in examples must be narrowed by 2 extra characters to fit during the green-doc display mode. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[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.

Purging template cache to see updates

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.

30-March-2008: This is another reminder about viewing after making changes. When modifying the template or documentation ("/doc" subpage), it is often necessary to purge the template cache (by using keyword "action=purge"), such as to display modified documentation:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Muscle&action=purge

Running the older version of the template can be very confusing and frustrating when trying to install and verify improvements copied from test-versions of the template (so remember to use URL address keyword "action=purge"). -Wikid77 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[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.

add spinal nerve root levels to infobox

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.

please add spinal nerve root levels to infobox. this would be clinically relevant for various muscle atrophy - trace back to spinal nerve roots.

thank you scott. Tkjazzer (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkjazzer I have proposed removal as discussed below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[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.

please add clincial physical exam performed to test muscle / nerve / spinal nerve level

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.

please add the physical exam used to test to the infobox.

Can you please be more specific? Also, please sign your posts. --Selket ^Talk 16:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add the physical exam maneuver. If able, check out Bates Guide to Physical Exam. they tell you different ways of testing each muscle group. If you know the nerve that innervates the muscle, it also tells you if the nerve is working. If you know the nerve roots that make up the nerve which in turn innervates the muscle group being tested, you can check to see if there is a problem with specific nerve roots. Does this make sense? I tried to add it to the template but I think that it did not work. Can someone please check my work? Tkjazzer (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you added should have worked fine. The only problem was you linked the title to Physical Exam, which doesn't exist. So I changed the link to Physical exam. I also removed the space in the parameter ("Physical Exam" to "PhysicalExam"). While this isn't needed, the rest of this template's parameters are formatted this way - and consistency is good. --Scott Alter 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottalter, Tkjazzer I have proposed removal of this parameter below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[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.

a resource for additon of "nerve root" to infobox

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.

thanks again to Scott for adding nerve root parameter. I found this great resource from Michigan State University: https://www.msu.edu/user/vosskurt/Miscellaneous%20pages/musnvrt.htm

It may help in adding information about nerve roots. Tkjazzer (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[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.

Unusued parameter removal

I propose the following parameters, which are either unusued or used once, are removed from this infobox, with the aim of reducing the editing burden for editors and simplifying this template. These parameters are either:

PhysicalExam - not used; nigh duplicate of "action" field; can be included in text
Precursor - used once; information can be included in "development"; unlikely to be useful for most muscles
imagemap - have not seen used. Can be replaced by inclusino of a mapped template if an editor so desires
nerveroot - unused because the name is nonintuitive. Duplicated by "nerve" field (which most people will take to mean a peripheral nerve)

Past editors have indicated through lack of use that these fields are either not useful or not known. I propose removal. See Category:WikiProject Anatomy infobox parameter use for usage stats. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - anything to reduce 'clutter' has got to be a good move; as also is improving terms. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly gone ahead and done this. I want to reiterate that I don't think the content should be removed from the article, but only the infobox, on the grounds above, and that it's clear that this is not being used by editors, and that it can be included easily in the content.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter update

I have updated the template parameters per discussions at WT:ANAT and {{Infobox anatomy}}. Edits have included:

Removing the unused "Map" parameters - redundant to the normal "Image" parameters
Removing FMA - autofilled from Wikidata in the parent {{Infobox anatomy}} template
Removing Grays - moved to Wikidata and no longer displayed in templates per consensus
Removing Dorlands - consensus to strip all templates of references to this proprietary, nonmaintained dictionary link.

Please direct questions to WT:ANAT or the talk page of {{Infobox anatomy}}. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]