We have a defined number of stubs (2,500ish), which has been stable over many months. Many stubs require attention and it would be useful to do a census to see what attention is needed. Category:Anatomy stubs contains all articles marked with a 'stub' template, but that is not necessarily the same as the articles marked as 'stub' class in our project ([1])
Consider if a bot could automate some repetitive tasks (1 -- removing the stub template from articles that are now start class; 2 -- ensuring all stubs in the Category are in the project, and all in the project are part of the category)
Work through the articles to 1 reevaluate them, 2 check if any could potentially be merged, 3 do general copyediting and other fixes (eg to imaging, language, titles), 4 include in navboxes if currently not.
Many anatomy templates have not received significant attention in many years. Consequently they are often poorly organised, hard to read for lay readers, confusingly titled, or not matching current articles. This drive is related to discussions at Template talk:Medicine navs--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this also includes the biliary tree. What about a rename to "Digestive glands"? These are, after all, the main glands involved in digestion, as opposed to structures through which food merely transits. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's better, but only if it doesn't lead to confusion on whether to include the salivary. I suggested Liver and pancreas for simplicity but I can see how the term can unnecessarily exclude the biliary tree. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why the "mostly", Tom? If it is because of the notes, I think they should be removed, they introduce unnecessary errors in the groups (i.e. cuneatus and gracilis under touch when they also transmit proprioception). --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps cortex could be turned into a simple index template, with just links to separate "Frontal lobe", "Parietal lobe", etc navboxes to make it less large. Either way, splitting off these two pathways templates from the rest of the anatomy seems pretty arbitrary to me. PizzaMan (♨♨) 01:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Done
Add: All the anatomical templates listing lymph nodes in different parts of the body could be merged into a single template (or two, upper and lower body), instead of the current situation of 5 or 6. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good action, sir. I am using the proposed new {{Lymphatic system anatomy}} (merged lymphatics) for other pilots: rm bg colors, refine spelling & list styles.
Issue: two current rowheaders "lumbar and paraaortic:" and "preaortic:" are bad. They either should be in the colored rowheader (b/c they do not actually introduce a subdivision), or they must be split into an extra row (with colored rowheader).
Issue: Using internal <br/> to start a new row is unclear. What does that mean? Why the new row? Cannot a #-list do the job? Anyway, this styling is too bad to stay (because it is unclear what it conveys). -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DePiep. There is a lot of custom formatting in many of the templates. I am doing my best to remove the most obvious examples (colour, br, new line sets, italicising level 3 headings, ...). Also agree with what you say about the headings. We shall try our best to standardise the headings. If there is a problem with an individual template, add it to the cleanup list above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it as a burden, I only hope we all want them looking the same, over time. I learned these ideas in the 36 MEDnavs of course. -DePiep (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done – I removed the group about hormone receptors—apart from not belonging to an anatomy template, the articles in there didn't have the nav transcluded in them. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I worry whether that is too broad and invites the entire peritoneal anatomy (including structures) to be described. What about 'Mesenteric anatomy' (name) and 'Anatomy of mesentery' (title)?--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peritoneum and mesentery can be interchangeable, but mesentery is rather an ambiguous term as it's also the name for the pertioneal fold related to the jejuno-ileum. I prefer "peritoneum" in this case. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. My question is what title can we use that won't invite the whole anatomy of the peritoneum (organs etc.) to also be included? --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an alternative would be 'Peritoneal folds', but if Abdominopelvic cavity didn't end up filled with abdominopelvic organs then I guess we're fine. We can always clarify the scope of the template in the documentation. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because these templates relate to the anatomy of the structure, and not disease/treatment etc, consider renaming to "Anatomy of..." for specificity and future editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the state of various anatomy external links, and make it up-to-date. There are many external links which used repeatedly among anatomy articles (e.g. link to Gray's Anatomy text. For other example, see Category:Anatomy external link templates). These links were mainly made about 6 years ago or so. So some links are broken today.