Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization/Archive 1

Actual categorization tree
Is there a way to fully expand the tree upon its initial loading? I have tried using the "depth" attribute in the CategoryTree extension tag, but cannot get it to initially load expanded past a depth of two. Any ideas? Kilbad (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The instructions for the extension can be found at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryTree. Most likely, going beyond a depth of 2 has been disabled by Wikipedia.  --Scott Alter 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Baby steps
Ok, so I have started recategorizing, and have established the first two uppermost layers...
 * Human integumentary system
 * Dermatology
 * Hair
 * Nails
 * Skin

Now we just need to work our way down the tree! kilbad (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think it is really necessary to have ? I don't think this extra level of categorization accomplishes anything, as none of the sub-categories are explicitly specific to humans.  Otherwise, all of the sub-categories should be prefixed with the word "Human."  Generally "human" is implied for all medicine-related categories, with separate categories for animal-related articles if there is a need.  For example, see  within .  Also, veterinary medicine has their own WikiProject and category tree, with articles categorized by animal.  One more thing - I don't think you need to leave the "Recategorization of dermatologic articles" note on the talk page of each category.  The WPMED banner with derm task force should be sufficient, if you desire to even do that.  Most medicine-related categories do not have any project banner tag, as there has not been any consensus if these are beneficial or needed.  --Scott Alter 21:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your help with everything. First, I am fine just putting everything under the  if it is understood that the category is specific to humans.  Initially, I added the  because I saw categories like "feathers" under it, which don't apply to humans.  You can switch it if you want.  Second, I will refrain from adding the "Recategorization of dermatologic articles" note on every page.  Thanks for your help! kilbad (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just moved things back to . Here's another question...do we need to have the category,, or is  sufficient?  I think the "skin anatomy" category is probably enough, as it is more broad than layers, and there are only a few items that would be in anatomy and not layers.  --Scott Alter 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, skin anatomy is sufficient. Also, where should we move  to, and should we have a dermatology nomenclature or terminology category (for articles like those linked to in this template)? kilbad (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just removed from .  It is now only in .  As for the derm terms, there is already a category for them ( - which you even created!).  --Scott Alter 23:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I forgot about putting that into the proposed category tree!  Also, how do I go about getting a category name changed? kilbad (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, almost all the new derm categories are in place (with a few exceptions, and with some old categories still present) and I am beginning to get all the articles in the right places, categorizing diseases based on this list. Please let me know if you have any feedback! Thanks. kilbad (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Parasitic infestations, stings and bites
I don't think "stings and bites" should be grouped with infestations... Stings and bites are not infectious in nature, they're traumatic. I believe they're classified as poisonings/intoxications in the ICD. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Current diseases that should be classified under "Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites of the skin" are found on this list.   I think dividing this category of diseases into (1) Stings and bites and (2) Cutaneous infestations is definitely reasonable, so if you want to divide those diseases into the two subcategories and propose your division/scheme here for implementation, that would be greatly appreciated! kilbad (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like "Envenomations" would be more appropriate. I'll see what I can do to separate them within the list. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cutaneous pharmacology
As things are at this point, there are four existing categories that I think should be merged under "Cutaneous pharmacology", and they are:, , , and. However, this begs two questions, (1) should "Cutaneous pharmacology" be called something else because it will contain things that don't really fit that description (like sunscreen), perhaps something like "Prepared topicals"? (2) Whatever we end up calling this group, what subcategories should there be, if any? kilbad (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon further consideration, I think we need to start completely from scratch, with a fresh perspective. Therefore, I have asked for some help on the pharmacology project page.  See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology  Thanks. kilbad (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have completed a rough recategorization of, and want to get some feedback. What do you think of that page.  Also, on the talk page, I have tried to give some vague suggestions about what should be included in the category, but I think the guidelines for inclusion into this category need significant improvement.  Could someone help me with this? kilbad (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you have in mind for the purpose of this category? Is it for drugs that treat skin conditions, or is it for drugs used on the skin?  Typically, drugs have been classified according to their mechanism of action and their structure.  I'm not sure what should go in this category, if you want to exclude all of the ATC code D drugs.  (By the way, having a note on the top of the category won't prevent people from mis-categorizing article.  The best thing to do is more descriptively name the category.)  That leaves all of the non-prescription drugs...which may or may not be strictly considered within the realm of dermatology.  I like the categories, , and .  I'm not sure what used to be in  (which should have gone through WP:Cfd - see one of my general comments below), but this category is much more descriptive than "Dermatologic pharmacology."   should be (and now is) a subcategory of .  Maybe this should be renamed to something like "Skin lotions," so that the category is focused more on OTC remedies than prescription ones.   --Scott Alter 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

People and dermatology
What would be a good name for a general category encompassing "people" and dermatology, something that would include dermatologist, and those who have died from skin diseases? kilbad (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there needs to be a category for this.  can be directly within .  Typically, the "Deaths from x disease" categories are within the "x disease" category...so I think  would be appropriately placed in .  --Scott Alter 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

General categorization comments
From looking through the new categorization, here are some general tips when dealing with categories: That's all I can think of for now. --Scott Alter 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirects normally should not be categorized. The exception I made is for redirects to a section of another item - because there is potential for creating a new article.  In some cases, by moving a categorization, you left no categories on an article (which is bad).
 * It is okay for an article to be in two derm-related categories. For example, Meleda disease can be in both  and.
 * When deleting categories, use Categories for discussion, rather than blanking the entire category. Just because some categories do not fit within the scope of this task force doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.  For example,  might be a good category to keep - which could be a subcategory of .  Also, when articles are removed from a category, it is impossible to know which articles used to be in that category...so it is best to discuss the deletion of categories before making drastic changes.
 * When adding categories, think about any other categories could be a parent of the new one. For example,  should be a child of both  and.
 * When modifying categories, don't just delete non-derm-related parent categories - as in this edit, for example.
 * All subcategories of do not need to be within the scope of this task force.  For example,  is related to hair, so it should be in  - but it is not really related to dermatology.
 * Scott, thank you for your comments, and I will make sure to follow everything you have outlined above. I apologize for those mistakes. kilbad (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorisation
Perhaps the new categorisation scheme has put the wagon before the horse a little.

Just looked back into Category:Cutaneous conditions

This appears filled with categories that only have one article at present. I understand that many of this categories should eventually be filled, but when only one disease is in the category at present

Good categories:
 * Category:Infectious skin diseases
 * Category:Skin conditions resulting from physical factors
 * Category:Chronic blistering skin diseases

Poor categories at present:
 * Category:Skin diseases from errors in metabolism (2)
 * Category:Nutritional skin diseases (1)
 * Category:Mucinoses (2)
 * Category:Neurocutaneous diseases (1)

Categories are navigational aides, not necessarily heirachial classification schemes. Just because something is a something doesn't mean we need to create Category:Somethings when already existing Category:Things is doing fine.

Another option is to have duplication of categorisation. Placing articles in both Category:Specific things as well as the parent Category:Things This means that if I am looking at a cutaneous condition - I don't have to know which kind of condition it is to find it.

And one more:
 * - could this be renamed to something more user friendly? It is not intuitive to a person with a non-medical background the relationship between these three words. Or at least have a short lead on the category page explaining the relationship. Also its relationship to Category:Dermal and subcutaneous growths.

Hope my comments are considered helpful. --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update and response to issues/questions raised

 * I have almost completely categorized all the articles of into subcategories, and while doing so I tried to follow the advice you gave, Scott.  Those that remain are topics (1) I am less familiar with, or (2) am uncertain how to categorize.  Perhaps someone could help me with these items?  Also, the remaining diseases in the  are NOT found in the list of skin diseases so they need to be added there, if not already present under another name(?)


 * As a result of subcategorizing the, the 31 subcategories of are now fuller compared to when you first looked through them , ZayZayEM.  However, while the diseases of  have been categoized, there are still many dermatologic disease articles on wikipedia that were never categorized into "dermatology" that still need to be categorized now.  A good guide to adding/categorizing these articles is the list of skin diseases.  Perhaps someone could help me fix the links on that page, and help find disease articles that may be present already, but under another name, and then add categorization to those articles?


 * ZayZayEM, I agree that some may sound a bit complicated.  However, I think the names have been simplified as much as possible without loosing their ability to specify a specific group of diseases.  In fact, in some cases, I feel the names have been over simplified.  Take for example "Genetic skin diseases."  Well, all skin diseases have a genetic component, but this group of diseases is ment for a specific group of diseases called "genodermatoses" (a name which I yielded after discussing this categorization at WP:MED); so, all this to say, I think it is a delicate balance between making a category name too complex vs too simplified; yet, I think you have a great idea to add short leads to category pages explaining what the category is, which I have already done for a few, like .  Perhaps, someone could help me add leads to the other categories?


 * Regarding, I initially suggested this category as there were numerous, random pharm-related items mixed in with disease articles, anything from "Burt's Bees" to "Lipstick" to topical steroids, and I wanted to categorize those items somehow. However, Scott, in response to your question, I think this category should have "drugs that treat skin conditions" and probably not much more, as these are what would be used by dermatologists in the field of dermatology.  What do you think?  Perhaps someone could help me with this category?


 * Regardless of who works on what, let us continue to tag article talk page medicine banners with dermatology=yes so we can continue to index the articles, as assess the current state of derm articles.

kilbad (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PAPA syndrome
I know that you know a thing or two about categories in dermatology, but why are acne and pyoderma gangrenosum categorized as erythema? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, thank you again for your interest in dermatology articles. With regard to pyoderma gangrenosum and c, I included these diseases in the Category:Erythemas after looking at their classification in Andrews'.  I will not have access to that source until tomorrow morning, but at that time will leave you additional follow-up with some direct quotes on the topic.  If it turns our that Category:Erythemas is a poor choice of category, we can remove it.  Therefore, please allow me about a day to give you a better response.
 * However, with regard Category:Erythemas, that is one of the derm categories I have yet to really go over in detail. Currently, diseases I am considering for initial inclusion in that category are outlined at List_of_skin-related_conditions, and I am about one section away from working on it (at this time I am working on List_of_skin-related_conditions).  Therefore, I am certainly open to feedback about and help with this categorization. kilbad (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No rush, take your time. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, in Andrew's (full reference avaliable here), pyoderma gangrenosum is presented in chapter 7 titled "Erythema and Urticaria," more specifically under the section "Reactive neutrophilic dermatoses."  With regard to the reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, Andrew's states, "Like the gyrate erythemas, the reactive neutrophilic dermatoses tend to follow certain stimuli, such as acute upper respiratory infections, or are associated with underlying diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease and hematologic malignancy."  Therefore, I think my initial reasoning for putting pyoderma gangrenosum in Category:Erythemas was (1) its presentation within the chapter "Erythema and Urticaria," and (2) it close relation to gyrate erythemas.  PAPA syndrome was also placed in this category as pyoderma gangrenosum is a component of the syndrome.
 * However, after looking at these conditions more closely, I have also added PAPA syndrome to Category:Acne-related skin conditions; yet, regardless, I am open to adding additional categories or recategorizing these conditions if needed. Just let me know what your thoughts are. kilbad (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this explanation -rather complex thinking... As far as I understand, erythema's are supposed to be red skin rashes, so I don't think pyoderma gangrenosum falls under that category (it's basically an ulcer). I think PAPA syndrome should be categorised under Acne and perhaps under ulcers, if there is such a category. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a category for ulcers and related disorders needs to be created, since this is as good a primary lesion as any. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. With regard to PAPA syndrome, I added it to Category:Acne-related skin conditions, so I think we agree there.  Second, "erythema" is redness in the skin caused by dilated capillaries.  This can be determined clinically by diascopy, in which the skin is tested for blanchability.  Therefore, many skin conditions can have erythema in additional to other primary skin lesions, such as with pyoderma gangrenosum and PAPA syndrome.  Certainly, pyoderma gangrenosum is most well known for its unique skin lesions with the rolled edges; however, erythema will also be present.  Therefore, I do not think Category:Erythemas is necessarily a miscategorization.  However, is there a better categorization?
 * Currently, the categorization scheme for dermatology articles is a hybrid of the organization presented in the following unabridged dermatology texts: Dermatology by Bolognia, Andrews', and Fitzpatrick's (see link above for full references). As of right now, per the scheme developed from those text, there is no category specifically for "ulcers" as they are generally a physical exam finding secondary to an underlying disease process (for which, then, there is a category).  Therefore, I would lean against a specific "ulcer" category.  However, the WP:DERM:CAT is certainly not set in stone.  Perhaps we would put the reactive neutrophilic dermatoses in their own subcategory with a nice, full intro describing what they are?  The structure and contents could be something like:
 * Erythemas
 * Reactive neutrophilic dermatoses
 * Erythema nodosum
 * Sweet syndrome (Acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis)
 * Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands (Pustular vasculitis)
 * Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis
 * Marshall syndrome
 * Pyoderma gangrenosum
 * PAPA syndrome
 * What are your thoughts? kilbad (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reactive neutrophilic dermatoses sounds good. However, I still don't see why it should be a subcategory of erythemas. Next to the ulcer you might see erythema using diascopy, but I doubt that any dermatologist will care about capillaries when he sees Crohnie's legg. I understand that the classification scheme is based on notable references, I just don't think it is common sense. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be fine taking "Reactive neutrophilic dermatoses" out of "erythemas" and just making it another subcat of "cutaneous conditions." How about that? kilbad (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like:
 * Cutaneous conditions
 * Reactive neutrophilic skin conditions
 * Erythema nodosum
 * Sweet syndrome (Acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis)
 * Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hands (Pustular vasculitis of the dorsal hands)
 * Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis
 * Marshall syndrome
 * Pyoderma gangrenosum
 * PAPA syndrome
 * kilbad (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I could entirely agree with that, thanks for dealing so sensitively with my concerns... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Np. Ok, I will let this sit here for a few days, and if nobody raises any objections I will make these changes. kilbad (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those changes have been made, and are reflected in the Category:Reactive neutrophilic skin conditions and List_of_skin-related_conditions. Please let me know if you think any additional changes should be made to this category. Thanks again. kilbad (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Radiation-related disorders of the skin
I would favor not having this category as I think the inclusion criteria are not clear, and as we already have Category:Skin conditions resulting from physical factors. Any thoughts from the rest of the community? ---kilbad (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been about fifteen days, with no comments made. I am going to merge Category:Radiation-related disorders of the skin into Category:Skin conditions resulting from physical factors.  ---kilbad (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)