Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization/Archive 1

Categorization of pharmacology-related articles
I wanted to start a discussion regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles in an attempt to create a working (1) categorization scheme and (2) guidelines for categorization.

To give you some background, in October 2008 I started the dermatology task force, which has as one of its goals to "create and maintain an organized categorization of dermatologic articles." However, as discussions began concerning this categorization, it became clear there were no guidelines for categorization of pharmacology. Therefore, I initially posted questions at WT:PHARM (see "Dermatology in need of pharmacologic expertise") but after getting some basic feedback regarding the ATC scheme, I was left without any additional input. Following this, after discussing the lack of guidelines with Scott Alter (I cannot remember where), he posted a follow-up thread regarding categorization guidelines (see "Article categorization"), but to-date there has been little clarification.

Therefore, I think there needs to be the creation of a proposed categorization scheme with clear guidelines on how to categorize pharmacology articles. However, as a physician, while I want to jump start this discussion, I would prefer to be part of the conversation, but leave it up to you drug experts/pharmacologists to ultimately create and agree upon the scheme, after which, people like me can implement it through our different projects. kilbad (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What are your thoughts? How should pharmacology articles be categorized?

 * In general, ATC codes are a useful model, but they often lack important detail about mechanisms. Where possible, classifying drugs by the receptor or channel is usually the most useful. (DrugBank has excellent information about drug targets.) Drugs that don't act at a receptor or channel can still often be grouped by mechanism; where the mechanism is unknown, the molecular structure can be useful in identifying appropriate grouping. --Arcadian (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we use ATC based and other (mechanism etc.) cats? After all, we have ATC based nav templates like Antipsoriatics as well as others like Adrenergic agonists. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I too would favor classification based on both ATC codes and on target receptor/mechanism. Each method of classification has a distinct usefulness and there is no reason not to have both types of information for each drug.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreeing basically, but there are some caveats to strict ATC + receptors classification, especially for psychotropics (what's a mood stabilizer ATC-wise?), so it's useful to be able to add other categories. E.g. quetiapine is now FDA approved for more bipolar this and that than I care to remember, and trials for MDD are planned/ongoing, but the wiki cats are only "atypical antipsychotics" (reflects ATC), and sedative+hypnotic. Drugbank gives 8 receptors: D(1A), D2, 5-HT-1A, 5-HT-2{A,B,C}, H1, and alpha-adrenergic, which is more enlightening for me, but setting the cats to just antipsychotic + biochem gibberish won't help the general audience much. What I'm saying is that giving just the ATC code is too narrow for indications in this case. Even the antagonistic effect on the histamine receptor has off-label indications (the article does mention it and its reflected in the current cats), although it can also be a significant side effect, depending on what you're trying to achieve/POV. I think that besides having an exact ATC cat, using more generic categories like mood-stabilizer (???) or some other way to indicate that it's FDA approved for bipolar (I'm not convinced that hair-splitting like maintenance vs. acute belongs in the cats) may be better. The sedative/hypnotic (off-label use / side-effect) is also significant enough to put in the cats. I vaguely recall that in one RCT almost half the patients dropped out because of it. (Somewhat off topic question here: is there a H1-receptor antagonist that's not both sedative and hypnotic?) Xasodfuih (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current catogorization is fine.Cssiitcic (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean for Quetiapine or the general scheme, because ... there is no general scheme? This discussion is trying to establish one. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, using the ATC codes is fine. At least that's what I think. Everyone else has their own opinion, but I like the ATC codes. Also, sorry I didn't get back to this conversation sooner, I was busy.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Draft I
Okay, I'll try and draft a proposal:

ATC based categories

 * 1) Implement a top level category (name still to be found – "Drugs by something")
 * 2) Subcategories based on the first-level ATC codes (Alimentary tract and metabolism etc.)
 * 3) Sub-subcategories based on the second-level ATC codes (Stomatological preparations etc.)
 * 4) ATC groups like A16 Other alimentary tract and metabolism products are not very descriptive. I'd categorise the substances from these groups into the first-level groups instead:


 * Drugs by...
 * Category:Alimentary tract and metabolism
 * Category:Stomatological preparations
 * Articles Sodium fluoride, Sodium monofluorophosphate etc.
 * Category:...
 * Articles Levocarnitine, Ademetionine etc.
 * Category:Blood and blood forming organs

Other categories
--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A top-level category (or several?) "Drugs by (receptor/enzyme/ion channel) affinity"
 * 2) Subcategories "Histamine receptor agonists", "Serotonine receptor antagonists" etc.
 * 3) Sub-subcategories based on the receptor subtypes: "(Serotonine) 5-HT1A agonists" etc.
 * 4) Don't duplicate categories. "Beta blocking agents" can be a subcategory of "Blood and blood forming organs" (ATC) as well as "Drugs by receptor affinity".
 * 5) Other categorisations like "Mood stabilizers" can be useful, especially for the non-expert audience. Since we cannot implement all possible categorisations, these should be discussed case-by-case.

Comments

 * How about Drugs by Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification System as the top level category. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 16:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend hewing close to ATC where possible, and using it as a tiebreaker to resolve disputes, but not actually incorporating it into the name of the categories. Instead, I'd recommend something like "Drugs by targeted organ system" as one of the top level categories (alongside something like "Drugs by mechanism"). --Arcadian (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could start by discussing what the uppermost pharm category should be and then work our way down? kilbad (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Drugs by type has the twin advantages of fitting in with similar categories in other fields and of already existing. This would seem like the obvious start point for the ATC tree. However, I'd suggest a second, direct root to some of the bottom-level categories, starting at Category:Drugs by chemical classification. There could even be a third root through, starting with Category:Drugs by therapeutic classification. Note that, if you change Category:Drugs by type to Category:Drugs by anatomical classification, you lose the organizing power of a single root for the whole ATC system.
 * Let me take the example given at Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System: furosemide (C03CA01), which is in Category:Sulfonamides (C03AC). One step higher would lead to both Category:Diuretics (C03) and Category:Drugs by chemical classification. In turn, diuretics would be categorized in both Category:Cardiovascular system drugs (or similar name) and Category:Drugs by therapeutic classification. Physchim62 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Category:Drugs by mode of action for the root of the biochemical classification? Physchim62 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Below I have started a second draft.  Someone start by adding a name to the uppermost parent category, and we can take the discussion from there.  Nothing is set in stone, this is simply a way to get things moving a little more. kilbad (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Draft II
Here's an example based on the system I proposed above: Physchim62 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Perhaps we can back up even more and decide what the uppermost parent category for all pharmacology-related content should be? Right now, the uppermost pharm category I can find is .  Should this be the uppermost category, or should it be, or something else entirely? kilbad (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend making "Pharmacology" the level-1, changing "Pharmaceutical sciences" to "Pharmaceutical practice", and making it a subcategory of "Pharmacology" (level-2). Then I'd recommend two other level-2s: "Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics",  "Pharmacological agents", and "Pharmacological mechanisms". (More detail here.) --Arcadian (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So I have something like this::
 * Pharmacology
 * Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
 * Pharmacological agents
 * Pharmacological agents by mechanism
 * First level DrugBank categories
 * Pharmacological agents by organ system
 * First level ATC categories
 * Pharmacological mechanisms
 * If this looks ok, then my next question is how the First level ATC names should be named to make good wikipedia categories? Also, where is the DrugBank organization structure available online? kilbad (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the former: rather than explicitly including the letters "ATC" in the category, I'd recommend using phrases such as "drugs for digestive system". For the latter: when I referred to Drugbank-style, I meant organizing that tree around the mechanism when known (especially if the receptor is known), but we shouldn't copy Drugbank verbatim. In most cases, the information about the relevant mechanism is in the article, the navboxes, or the existing categories. However, if it isn't, you can usually get the needed information from the Drugbank article on the specific drug. --Arcadian (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about these category names (ATC section --> Category name):
 * Alimentary tract and metabolism --> Drugs for the alimentary tract and metabolism
 * Blood and blood forming organs --> Drugs for the blood and blood forming organs
 * Cardiovascular system --> Drugs for the cardiovascular system
 * Dermatologicals --> Dermatological drugs
 * Genito-urinary system and sex hormones --> Drugs for the genito-urinary system and sex hormones
 * Systemic hormonal preparations, excluding sex hormones and insulins --> Systemic hormonal preparations
 * Anti-infectives for systemic use --> Anti-infectives for systemic use
 * Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents --> Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents
 * Musculo-skeletal system --> Drugs for the musculo-skeletal system
 * Nervous system --> Drugs for the nervous system
 * Antiparasitic products, insecticides and repellents --> Antiparasitic products, insecticides and repellents
 * It might be better to merge this into the anti-infective category. (This is one heading where the ATC subheads are a disaster, in my opinion.) --Arcadian (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Respiratory system --> Drugs for the respiratory system
 * Sensory organs --> Drugs for the sensory organs
 * *Various --> Various other drugs
 * kilbad (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would scrub the proposed Category:Various other drugs: its members can go in the top category without causing problems. Also, we need to decide between "drugs", "pharmacological agents" and "preparations" for category names: as these categories will mostly contain sub-categories, i.e. very few articles will be labelled directly, I think the more precise (but less familiar) name "pharmacological agents" would be better, except where the ATC uses "preparations". Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Kilbad's proposal, with Physchim62's modifications. --Arcadian (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Physchim62, I am fine with dropping "Various other drugs." Also, do you have a preference with regard to the "drugs", "pharmacological agents" or "preparations" terminology?  I would favor "pharmacological agents" as that terminology seems less specific to me, and, thus more flexible and inclusive (i.e. able to include drugs, ointments, and other products). kilbad (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't very clear there! I also support "pharmacological agents" for these categories, except when ATC uses "preparations" or "products". In other words, I would like to see (on the basis of the growing consensus here) Category:Pharmacological agents for the alimentary tract and metabolism and Category:Systemic hormonal preparations. Wikipedia might have to go wider than ATC as to what is a "pharmacological agent" – for example, toothpaste could be argued to be a "pharmacological agent for the alimentary tract and metabolism" – but I can't see any major problems with the system. Physchim62 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, with that being the case, how does this look? Also, what would you recommend for the dermatologicals category name?
 * Pharmacological agents for the alimentary tract and metabolism
 * Pharmacological agents for the blood and blood forming organs
 * Pharmacological agents for the cardiovascular system
 * Dermatologicals --> Dermatological drugs  (What should this category name be?)
 * Perhaps "Pharmacological agents for the integumentary system" --Arcadian (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pharmacological agents for the genito-urinary system and sex hormones
 * Systemic hormonal preparations
 * Anti-infective pharmacological agents for systemic use
 * I would prefer "Anti-infective agents for systemic use", as 'pharmacological' seems redundant with 'systemic' Physchim62 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Antineoplastic and immunomodulating pharmacological agents
 * Pharmacological agents for the musculo-skeletal system
 * Pharmacological agents for the nervous system
 * Antiparasitic products, insecticides and repellents
 * Pharmacological agents for the respiratory system
 * Pharmacological agents for the sensory organs
 * kilbad (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest Category:Dermatological preparations, as virtually the only thing you put on your skin in pure form is water, and we would have Category:Systemic hormone preparations as well. Physchim62 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Arcadian, and others, with regard to the DrugBank-related subcategories under the proposed "Pharmacological agents by mechanism," are there some actual DrugBank-related subcategories you can suggest at this time for the purposes of this draft? kilbad (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The current Category:Drugs by type has several sub-categories which could be parked in a Category:Pharmaceutical agents by mechanism while awaiting further discussion: e.g. Category:Enzyme inhibitors, Category:Sigma agonists, and so on! Physchim62 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some ideas: "receptor agonists", "receptor antagonists", "reuptake inhibitors", "channel blockers", "channel openers", "cytosolic agents", "agents acting at nucleus", "cell membrane disruptors", "extracellular agents". Template:Receptor agonists and antagonists and Template:Enzyme inhibition should provide several examples of named classes. --Arcadian (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This one is good. I like this and draft III but think this one is better. Both will be suitible though.Cssiitcic (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For subcategories under Category:Pharmacological agents for the integumentary system I would also like to propose the following (since these categories are most applicable to my project):
 * Existing ATC code D structure:
 * D01 Antifungals for dermatological use
 * D02 Emollients and protectives
 * D03 Preparations for treatment of wounds and ulcers
 * D04 Antipruritics, including antihistamines, anesthetics, etc.
 * D05 Antipsoriatics
 * D06 Antibiotics and chemotherapeutics for dermatological use
 * D07 Corticosteroids, dermatological preparations
 * D08 Antiseptics and disinfectants
 * D09 Medicated dressings
 * D10 Anti-acne preparations
 * D11 Other dermatological preparations
 * My proposed subcategorization
 * Pharmacological agents for the integumentary system
 * Antifungals for dermatological use
 * Emollients and protectives for dermatological use
 * Preparations for treatment of wounds and ulcers
 * Antipruritic pharmacological agents
 * Antipsoriatic pharmacological agents
 * Antibiotic and chemotherapeutic agents for dermatological use
 * Dermatologic corticosteroid preparations
 * Antiseptics and disinfectants for for dermatological use
 * Medicated dressings for dermatological use
 * Anti-acne preparations
 * Any thoughts? kilbad (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Draft III
''I have tried to take the discussion we have been having and create a new working draft that we can continue to discuss. kilbad (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)''

Pharmacology
 * Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
 * Pharmacological mechanisms
 * Pharmacological agents
 * Pharmacological agents by mechanism
 * Channel blockers
 * Channel openers
 * Receptor agonists
 * Receptor antagonists
 * Reuptake inhibitors
 * Pharmacological agents by organ system
 * What about "Drugs acting on the XXX system"? I prefer "drugs" instead of "pharmacological agents" as it a) follows the KISS principle, b) mirrors the categorization scheme used at the Commons and c) mirrors WHO usage. "Pharmacological agents for the XXX system" is also a bit inaccurate, as drugs are used "for" the treatment of a condition, and "act on" a target. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pharmacological agents for the alimentary tract and metabolism
 * Pharmacological agents for the blood and blood forming organs
 * Pharmacological agents for the cardiovascular system
 * Pharmacological agents for the integumentary system
 * I don't like the term "integumentary system", as it seems needlessly arcane. How about "Pharmaceutical agents for dermatology" if there is an objection to my previous suggestion of "Dermatological preparations". Physchim62 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If we use the term "Dermatological preparations," I am concerned that many non-pharmacologic skin care products will be included in the category, like Burt's Bees for example. What do you think? kilbad (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the lines of Fvasconcellos, what about "Dermatological drugs"? The term "integumentary" may not be familiar to many people. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pharmacological agents for the genito-urinary system and sex hormones
 * Systemic hormonal preparations
 * Anti-infective agents for systemic use
 * Antineoplastic and immunomodulating pharmacological agents
 * The title reads badly with the string of adjectives; I would prefer "Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents" (I think we can assume that they're pharmacological here). Physchim62 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pharmacological agents for the musculo-skeletal system
 * Pharmacological agents for the nervous system
 * Antiparasitic products, insecticides and repellents
 * It might be better to merge this into the anti-infective category. (This is one heading where the ATC subheads are a disaster, in my opinion.) --Arcadian (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I'm not 100% certain. Having a category with this name would certainly mess things up on the Greater Scale of Things. We could always start by putting these into Category:Anti-infective agents for systemic use, from whence it would be relatively simply to bud them out if necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pharmacological agents for the respiratory system
 * Pharmacological agents for the sensory organs

Why CatDiffuse in 2nd level?
Perhaps I've overlooked something, but why does ATC category display CatDiffuse for 2nd level codes? Our categorisation scheme doesn't include 3rd level categories (and this would make the tree too complicated in my opinion), so 2nd level categories like Category:Immunostimulants shouldn't show CatDiffuse. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be fine stopping categorization at the second level as well. kilbad (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the outlined scheme only goes to the 2nd level, I think that many categories really should have three levels. Usually, the third level categories intersect with Category:Drugs by mechanism of action.  For example, take a look at Category:Anti-diabetic drugs, Category:Antihypertensive agents, and Category:Antiasthmatic drugs.  I don't think we should group all drugs for these medical conditions into one group.  If most categories won't have third-level categorization, then I guess CatDiffuse should not be displayed on these categories.  --Scott Alter 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Any problems if I remove CatDiffuse from ATC category altogether? The alternative would be a separate parameter in ATC category to decide whether or not to display CatDiffuse, but this really wouldn't be easier than just adding the latter manually. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think our categorization scheme should include third- and fourth-level categories! All the same, I've no problem with removing CatDiffuse from the project banners, as it's easy enough to add it by hand where needed. Physchim62 (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On any particular ATC code page in wikipedia, like ATC_code_D01, is the listing of third- and fourth-level codes comprehensive, or have you ever found some to be missing? Also, if we are ultimately going to be categorizing articles in the fourth-level categories, perhaps we should decide on those category names now before we start recategorizing everthing; else, we are going to be editing all these articles atleast twice. kilbad (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with removing CatDiffuse from the template...though, I thought it would be easier to automatically include it. If we are going to use 3rd and possibly 4th level codes for every category, then maybe we should keep it.  But if we use different levels for different drugs, then it might be better removed.  --Scott Alter 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about my other comment that perhaps we should decide on the third- and fourth-level category names now before we start recategorizing everthing; else, we are going to be editing all these articles atleast twice? kilbad (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to discuss every category name. Most should be pretty intuitive to us.  If there are any issues/questions, we can bring them up.  Once articles are in 3rd or 4th level categories, the categories can be relatively renamed (if necessary) using CFD or a tool like AWB.  It shouldn't be necessary to go through all the articles for subsequent recategorization.  --Scott Alter 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that systematically categorising all drugs down to the 4th level would result in a lot of categories with very few entries (like ATC code L03). And how would we name such a category, "Interleukin drugs" (as distinguished from all interleukins)? Also, we'd either have categories with a singe subcat and nothing else (see ATC code L03 or "jump over" a category like L03A and end up with a non-exact mirror of the ATC tree. So I still think we should only include 3rd and 4th levels if there is a specific reason like the intersections with Category:Drugs by mechanism of action Scott mentioned above. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So here's another twist...should Category:Interleukins (which should be created containing all of the interleukins, in any case) be a subcategory of Category:Immunostimulants and Category:Cytokines? Should Category:Alpha blockers be a subcategory of both Category:Drugs for benign prostatic hyperplasia (as G04CA) and Category:Antihypertensive agents (as C02CA)?  Or would be need to break these categories down further (as in "Interleukin drugs" and "Alpha blockers for BPH"/"Alpha blockers for HTN")?  My choice is probably not make these very specific categories, and include Category:Alpha blockers as a subcategory of both Category:Drugs for benign prostatic hyperplasia and Category:Antihypertensive agents - even if not all alpha blockers are used for both (if either) purposes.  However, another option is to not put these mechanism of action categories within Category:Drugs by target organ system (unless they are all-inclusive), and instead put alpha-blocker articles directly in categories like "Peripherally acting antiadrenergic agents" (C02C) and "Drugs used in benign prostatic hypertrophy" (G04C).  --Scott Alter 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Drugs without ATC codes
What about drugs without ATC codes (experimental drugs like talarozole) and therapies which are not drugs (like light therapy)? Should they be removed from the ATC based categories (Category:Anti-acne preparations in these cases)? If yes, how shall we categorise them? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they should be removed or else it defeats trying to mirror the ATC system (as much as is possible). Perhaps the articles that have no location under the ATC structure can be included somewhere under "Drugs by mechanism of action"? kilbad (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see trying to mirror the ATC codes too closely. Patrolling to try to keep other things out  out would be too difficult.  If one wants a category structure that strictly mirrors the ATC codes, it should be automatically generated using the ATC codes in drugboxes.  (i.e. the drugbox should categorize the item).  The purpose of categories is to facilitate finding related items.
 * If strict relation to the ATC is intended, then the category names themsleves should make that clear. (Category:ATCB05 ...).  Zodon (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I, too, think that including all related drugs would make navigation easier. If articles were missing in categories with likely titles (like an anti-acne preparation in Category:Anti-acne preparations) just because they had not received an ATC code (yet), they would be pretty hard to find for the general audience. But I'm not sure how this could be reflected in Template:ATC category, even if we could reach consensus about this point. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, our navboxes are also meant to reflect the ATC codes, yet they contain other drugs as well (e. g. Template:Acne Agents). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would like to see some very clear guidelines on what should be included in these ATC mirroring categories, else I will end up with the same problems I have had in the past, which is anything and everything being considered a Dermatological preparation. If we do not specify that the Category:Dermatological preparations reflects ATC code D, then what is to keep people from including vasoline, Burt's Bees, lipstick, makeup, etc? Personally, I would like to see the Category:Drugs by target organ system branch of our categorization follow the ATC organization as closely as possible.  For other non-ATC items perhaps we can create another branch? kilbad (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, what is inherently wrong in including Category:Cosmetics as a subcategory of Category:Dermatological preparations? We also need to consider three other cases:
 * veterinary drugs
 * obsolete drugs
 * experimental drugs
 * Physchim62 (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To respond directly to your question, I guess I would then have to ask how we are defining "dermatological preparations"? What is a "dermatological preparation"?  However, on a more general note, and I think a more important question to address is this, to what degree should Category:Drugs by target organ system be mirroring the ATC classification system? kilbad (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the category scheme should be loosely based on the ATC organization, instead of trying to copy it directly. If people want to see all of the drugs under a certain ATC code, they can go to the ATC website directly.  Wikipedia's categories should be designed to help in the navigation of articles for ordinary people.  So any drugs that do not have an ATC code should still be placed in somewhere within "Drugs by target organ system."  I don't see any benefit to having 2 roughly parallel category schema for "Drugs by target organ system" and "Drugs by ATC code."


 * Including cosmetics in Category:Dermatological preparations would also make them a subcategory of Category:Drugs by target organ system which would not be appropriate. Perhaps we have to rethink the name of Category:Dermatological preparations?
 * Obsolete and experimental drugs should be placed in the category corresponding to the most likely ATC code (e. g. abafungin in Category:Antifungals for dermatological use). If in doubt, they can be placed in multiple categories.
 * Veterinary drugs with ATCvet codes corresponding to human ones should go in the "human" categories. Other veterinary drugs (e. g. QI...) need their own subcats of Category:Drugs by target organ system. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that, if successful, experimental drugs will eventually be assigned ATC codes :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, but if WHO doesn't follow our classification, we can still recategorise :-) ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think a better name for Category:Dermatological preparations would be? kilbad (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Dermatological drugs" would be more specific. The only argument against "drugs" I can find in our previous discussion is that they are not applied in pure form (which is the case for most other drugs as well). Sorry, can't think of anything better. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we are already deviating in name from ATC a little, how about "Dermatologic drugs" because the use of the adjective "dermatologic" is more consistent with other already existing derm categories? kilbad (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine with me. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Now we have Category:Dermatologic drugs. kilbad (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Two follow-up questions about drugs without ATC codes (kilbad (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)):
 * Would there be any benefit to having a "utility" category (I am not sure what they are called exactly), something like "Drugs without ATC codes" on the talk pages of these articles so we can track what drugs we are categorizing without ATC codes?
 * What type of information should be have on the main page regarding the categorization of drugs without ATC codes? Right now there are no guidelines for #2 under "How to categorize a pharmacology-related article"


 * A very easy thing to do is add a category to all drug articles using Drugbox that do not have an ATC code. This would add a category to the article page (not the talk page).  We could have the category "Drugs without ATC codes" as a subcategory of Category:Drugs.  While it could be used as a maintenance category, it is also a valid way to categorize drugs.  If you really do think of this as a maintenance category, another possibility is to keep it on the article and make the category hidden.  As for instructions for categorization of these articles, how about "use your judgment or ask for help on the talk page."  --Scott Alter 23:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to a "Drugs without ATC codes" category, I would have no objection to making it a regular category. What does everyone else think?  However, as far as helping editors with the categorization of these articles, I think "use your judgment..." does not guide them at all. kilbad (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Perhaps we could have subcategories to indicate the highest numbered clinical phase in which the drug had been evaluated, if it has ever been formally evaluated. We could also add a category for drugs for which ATC codes had been proposed (see http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/) but not yet confirmed. --Arcadian (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting the "Drugs without ATC codes" category and subcategories be used for drugs without ATC codes instead of trying to fit them into the ATC-mirroring "Drugs by target organ system" category? Or do people still want to put drugs without ATC codes into the "Drugs by target organ system" category as well? kilbad (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All drugs should be within "Drugs by target organ system." The goal of categorization is for users to easily find what they are looking for, not to strictly follow a specific classification system...if we wanted to do that, the category names should include "ATC."  I like the idea of categorization by clinical trial phase, but I think this should be separate from "Drugs without ATC codes," rather than subcategories.  How about adding a parameter to Drugbox for clinical trial phase and categorizing based on that?  And I don't think a category for proposed codes is necessary.  The page you linked contains a temporary list of new codes, not a list of temporary codes.  So once a code is assigned, it is okay to remove it from "Drugs without ATC codes."  --Scott Alter 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent If going to do the category Drugs without ATC codes automatically (based on empty ATC field in drugbox), then it should be a maintenance category, since it just indicates something about the structure of the article, and not about the drug itself. (The fact that the ATC field has not been filled in does not imply that the drug does not have an ATC code.) Perhaps it should be called something like " Drugs with no ATC code in drugbox " [edit - came up with shorter category name "Drugboxes with no ATC"]  Such a maintenance category seems like it could be useful.

The actual lack of an ATC code is a separate piece of information (subject to verifiability, etc.) Could have a distinct category for this (which would make sense as a regular category). Not sure how useful/interesting it is. Seems like it would take more care to create/maintain it. Zodon (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at this discussion Template talk:Drugbox/Archive 3 suggested that perhaps the drugbox should have option of ATC_prefix or ATC_suffix = none. Don't think that could be confused with a code, would allow suppression (or other specific display) for items for which ATCs don't exist, and would give a way to categorize such drugs in a non-maintenance category of "Drugs that do not have an ATC code".  Thoughts?  Zodon (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your idea of ATC_prefix or ATC_suffix = none placing drugs into a category for items without an ATC code. However, I would like to come up with a more succinct name than "Drugs that do not have an ATC code." kilbad (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Open to suggestions on category name. I dummied up some of the code.  (See Template talk:Drugbox) Currently using Category:Drugboxes missing ATC for maintenance category, and Category:Drugs not assigned ATC for the other one.  (Further discussion of category name should probably be in the drugbox talk).
 * This category would be supplemental to, not in lieu of categorizing drugs that aren't assigned ATCs in appropriate places in the by organ system hierarchy. Zodon (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Zodon, thank you for setting that code up. With that being said, revisiting a question I posted earlier, what type of information should we have on the main page regarding the categorization of drugs without ATC codes? Right now there are no guidelines for the second bullet point under "How to categorize a pharmacology-related article" ---kilbad (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic categories
As discussed above, the drugbox template has been changed to automatically categorize pages that do not have an ATC code specified into the maintenance category Category:Drugboxes missing ATC code. If the ATC_prefix is set to "none" the page is categorized in Category:Drugs not assigned ATC code.

Right now there are 1,474 pages sans ATC codes. Zodon (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, but shouldn't these be hidden categories? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OOps - thought I had done that. Actually only Drugboxes missing ATC code should be a hidden category, since it relates to the status of an article (missing parameter).  The other category relates to the drugs themselves, so it is a normal category.  Zodon (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right there. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Using drug boxes to help categorize
Could we modify the drug box template to automatically categorize drugs into these ATC mirroring categories based on the drug's ATC code? kilbad (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Has there even been consensus that "Drugs by ATC code" is even a necessary or useful hierarchy to have? I also don't think this would be beneficial with "Drugs by target organ system," since we are not (currently) using the strict ATC classifications for categorization.  It would also be extremely difficult to do with our current category tree, since we would need to maintain a mapping of ATC codes to categories.  I would only weakly support automatic classification if we decide to have "Drugs by ATC code."  A better thing to do is to create guidelines for which categories should be included on an article - probably eventually adding these to WP:MEDMOS.  Most medications should have a category for mechanism of action, classification of drug (if by mechanism of action is not all inclusive), and chemical structure.  --Scott Alter 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been toying with ideas about linking the ATC code (e.g. in ATC category or in drugbox) to the categorization.


 * With a template that converts ATC codes to category names ATC to category, if the ATC Category took two arguments - one for the including category, and one for what item this is in that category, then  would make it a subcategory of the appropriate ATC category.


 * Could also cross-check that the right category entered


 * Making drugbox categorize page in given ATC category would be harder since as far as I have found Mediawiki doesn't have much facility for disassembling a string. At this point looks like one would have to provide the ATC appropriately disassembled (including category as one argument, this item as another).


 * Since many items have multiple ATCs, would have to figure how to handle such cases. Zodon (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Automatic categorization could be done via ATC, which is used by Drugbox for each ATC code. ATC takes two parameters for prefix and suffix, the prefix being "C03" and the suffix "CA01" - so we could categorize articles up to the second ATC code level (A01, C03, etc).  ATC would add a category each time it is called.  If this is implemented, it should use a separate category structure called "Drugs by ATC code", with categories named "ATC code C03".  If it is useful, we could even sort articles in the category by full ATC code.  --Scott Alter 00:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think having two near-identical sets of category trees would be useful. The pages ATC code A01 (etc), which are linked from the drug articles via the drugboxes, already mirror ATC. Adding a category with the same content (except for sorting) to each article wouldn't add much information, and it would double the maintenance work.
 * On the other hand, I don't see any harm in adding articles with ATC templates automatically to the Category:Drugs by target organ system tree and add any other articles (e. g. about experimental drugs) manually. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem for me would be that many, if not most, articles will need to go into third or fourth level categories. Once the template-based categorization is set up, it's quite difficult to change it (eg, to create new third level categories if needed). I don't think there's any escaping the job of going through the articles and lists and checking that things are where they should be! Physchim62 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia does not allow string parsing, it is impossible to automatically categorize articles into third and fourth level ATC categories. Even if there was a way to do so, we would need to create and maintain a mapping of ATC codes to Wikipedia categories.  This is not be a good approach, and I think the best option is to add categories manually for each article.  --Scott Alter 23:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is maintaining such a mapping not a good approach? (Not saying that it is, but not immediately obvious that it isn't either.)
 * I take it that the chances of getting the string handling module included in Wikipedia aren't good? (I found documentation for the functions at one point, but they didn't seem to be used in this Wiki.)  Zodon (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've seen any mappings on Wikipedia that converts a non-Wikipedia entity to a Wikipedia-entity. I have seen mappings for things like US State names to abbreviations, but these are basically static and almost never expected to be changed.  I am typically against any static listing of a dynamic process - especially involving categories.  Wikipedia should be allowed to evolve on its own, and not require constant maintenance to make sure things work (other than reverting vandalism).  My philosophy is that everything should be self-contained.  If all of us here suddenly disappear from editing, new editors should not have to deal with managing non-standard things to keep articles properly categorized.  I'd say that lists and mappings like this are okay for things in the Wikipedia namespace, but not the article namespace and categories and templates used on articles.
 * The MediaWiki software does have an extension for string handing (mw:Extension:StringFunctions), but it is not implemented on Wikipedia. --Scott Alter 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

GI drugs
Currently, we have Category:Drugs acting on the alimentary tract and metabolism and Category:Gastrointestinal system drugs. While "alimentary tract" is the term used by the ATC, I think "gastrointestinal system" would be better to use, since it is more common. So how about combining these two categories as Category:Drugs acting on the gastrointestinal system and metabolism? --Scott Alter 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support that name. kilbad (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please continue to update the main page as proposed category names evolve. kilbad (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. And can you voice your opinions at the Cfd?  --Scott Alter 23:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple proposed guidelines
What do you all think of these rough guidelines? If there is no opposition, and after we work on some better wording, perhaps we could place them on the main page?
 * 1) Within each of the ATC mirroring subcategories of Category:Drugs by target organ system should be categorized the respective ATC code page.  For example, within Category:Antifungals for dermatologic use the ATC code D01 article is categorized.
 * 2) All of the ATC mirroring subcategories of Category:Drugs by target organ system should utilize the ATC category banner.
 * 3) ATC-related pharmacology should have the ATC code(s) present in the article before it is added under the Category:Drugs by target organ system tree.

Alright, what do you think about those bullet points? kilbad (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the bullets to numbers for easier discussion. I definitely support 1 and 2.  I do not support 3 for the following reasons.  First, these categories are not strictly based on the ATC classification.  Drugs not categorized by the ATC, for whatever reason, could and should still be categorized within Category:Drugs by target organ system.  Second, we shouldn't empty properly populated categories, simply because the ATC code is missing from the article.  Third, if we do remove articles from all sub-categories of Category:Drugs by target organ system, we may lose track of the articles.  In my opinion, we should never be removing an article from all its categories.  If an article is miscategorized, it should be appropriately re-categorized, rather than decategorized.
 * Kilbad, I noticed that some of the anti-acne articles now are not categorized within Category:Drugs by target organ system (and some have no categories, excluding stubs). How would you go about finding these articles again?  Do you plan on going through all of the drug templates and ATC code lists to recategorize every drug?  And what about the brand name combination drugs?  Do these even have unique ATC codes?  Should they be double categorized in their component drugs, or placed in one higher-level category (ie Category:Anti-acne preparations instead of two more specific categories, for example).  --Scott Alter 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to your first two questions, I do plan on going through all of the drug templates and ATC code lists to recategorize every derm drug. I know it is a big job, but it needs to be done.  The reason the new dermatologic drug categories are not populated yet is that I am waiting to read more feedback with regard to banners, drug boxes, etc. before I put in all that effort (as I do not want to redue all that work if consensus changes at some point in the near future).  As far as brand name and combination drugs, I have brought this topic up before, and I am not sure where they belong.  What does the community think?  Again, I personally would like to see the Category:Drugs by target organ system part of our tree follow the ATC structure/organization as closely as possible, so my preference would be to put non-ATC coded items somewhere else. kilbad (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I support 1 and 2, and oppose 3 for the same reasons as Scott. I think I've said before that I'd like to have drugs lacking ATC codes in subcategories of Category:Drugs by target organ system because we cannot expect of our readers that they find out whether a drug has an ATC code (yet) to know in which category tree to look for it.
 * I agree with kilbad that we'll have to go through all the drug articles manually. This can hardly be avoided anyway if we are serious about setting up a new categorisation scheme. I've already done this experimentally with the small ATC code L03 – see Category:Immunostimulants. This is also interesting because some new borderline cases turned up, e. g. L03AX11 Tasonermin which is a recombinant TNF-α and redirects to Tumor necrosis factor-alpha. This is also a reason why I prefer not to be too restrictive about our inclusion criteria; how would we treat such cases if only articles with ATC codes should go into the categories?
 * As for combination products: ATC contains many codes for combination products, but I am not sure whether all combination products have an ATC code. If in doubt, I'd put an article in multiple categories. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How to categorize a pharmacology-related article
I added a "How to categorize a pharmacology-related article" to the main page and thought that perhaps we could come up with some text the guide people on how to actually categorize these article? That way we can easily refer people to the link for guidance. kilbad (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft I
The question is still how closely we want to mirror the ATC categories. For example, the subcategories of Category:Antifungals for dermatologic use could look somewhat like this:


 * Antifungals for dermatologic use
 * Antifungals for topical use
 * Antifungal antibiotics
 * Antifungal imidazole and triazole derivatives
 * (Other antifungals for topical use) these articles should be categorised directly in "Antifungals for topical use", as discussed somewhere above
 * Antifungals for systemic use

However, there is also ATC code J02AA containing antimycotic antibiotics; so should there a separate category mirroring J02AA ("Antimycotic antibiotics" or the like), or should "Antifungal antibiotics" be a subcategory of "Antimycotics for systemic use" (the category mirroring J02A) as well, or should we merge J02A and the "Antifungals for systemic use" from the outline above?

This is not meant to be a question just about these two categories but whether we want a category tree in the strict sense or something like this. I'd prefer the latter since we would need less categories and avoid multiple categories with very similar content and names. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft II

 * ATC code J02 is a broader category than ATC code D01 as the former contains all "antimycotics for systemic use," while the latter only contains antimycotic for dermatologic use; therefore, I would favor seperate categories. Perhaps something like this?:
 * Antifungals for dermatologic use
 * Antifungals for topical dermatologic use
 * Topical antifungal antibiotics for dermatologic use
 * Topical imidazole and triazole derivatives for dermatologic use
 * Drugs in "Other antifungals for topical use" can be placed directly in "Antifungals for topical dermatologic use"
 * Antifungals for systemic dermatologic use


 * Let me know what you think. ---kilbad (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure about this... won't the category names become too complicated? On the other hand, mirroring ATC closely might make things clearer for readers. At any rate, I'd like some more opinions about this before we start implementing. Where is everybody? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to look to the lower ATC level groupings for guidance, but not necessarily mirror them directly. I think the best way to determine lower level grouping is to go through review articles and pharmacology textbooks and see what they have in common. We can't copy any individual system, but if you look at enough documents, certain patterns emerge. --Arcadian (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to have such narrow subcategories, especially since overlap is inevitable in many cases. Miconazole, for instance, would fall in the proposed and ; I'd rather not mirror the ATC directly in this instance, and have it simply under . I can, however, understand an argument to follow the ATC verbatim—although I would certainly prefer a more succinct category tree, I could go either way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you all could give me some specific diagrams on how you could like Dermatologic drugs categorized on the 3rd and 4th levels. Basically, I would like to have a rough outline to go by before I start categorizing everything, as I do not want to have to go through those articles twice. Of course, I understand that this is a developing process, and I am sure some articles will be moved a couple of times, but I like to start with a rough draft, and then refine from there. So what do you think?? ---kilbad (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I miss something, but don't the existing hierarchical templates (e.g. Template:Antipsoriatics or Template:Antifungals) provide a good guideline to come up with categories? MichaK (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, why not? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft III

 * The resulting category tree for dermatologicals would start somewhat like this:
 * Dermatologicals
 * Antifungals (also a subcat of Antiinfectives, see Template:Antifungals)
 * Azoles
 * Polyene antimycotics
 * Squalene monooxygenase inhibitors
 * Emollients and protectives
 * Preparations for treatment of wounds and ulcers
 * Cicatrizants
 * Proteolytic enzymes
 * Antipruritics
 * Antihistamines for topical use
 * Anesthetics for topical use
 * And yes, Kilbad, I know this brings us further away from following ATC verbatim. I'm just trying to collect some ideas. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes, Kilbad, I know this brings us further away from following ATC verbatim. I'm just trying to collect some ideas. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes, Kilbad, I know this brings us further away from following ATC verbatim. I'm just trying to collect some ideas. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft IV

 * ἀνυπόδητος, thank you for your feedback. As usual, I appreciate your work in this area, and always value your opinions, even if I am an ATC strict constructionist... jk ;)  However, with that being said, what do you think of this third level scheme:
 * Antifungals for dermatologic use
 * Antifungals for topical dermatologic use
 * Antifungals for systemic dermatologic use
 * Emollients and protectives
 * Protectives against UV-radiation
 * Preparations for treatment of wounds and ulcers
 * Cicatrizants
 * Enzymes for dermatologic use
 * Antipruritics
 * Antipsoriatics
 * Antipsoriatics for topical use
 * Antipsoriatics for systemic use
 * Antibiotics and chemotherapeutics for dermatologic use
 * Antibiotics for topical dermatologic use
 * Chemotherapeutics for topical dermatologic use
 * Antibiotic s and chemotherapeutic combinations for dermatologic use
 * Dermatologic preparations of corticosteroids
 * Plain corticosteroids for dermatologic use
 * Corticosteroid s combinations with antiseptics for dermatologic use
 * Corticosteroid s combinations with antibiotics for dermatologic use
 * Antiseptics and disinfectants
 * Medicated dressings
 * Anti-acne preparations
 * Anti-acne preparations for topical dermatologic use
 * Anti-acne preparations for systemic dermatologic use


 * ---kilbad (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could stick to "drugs" where ATC uses "preparations"? Also, I boldly removed three plurals where I think this is gramatically more correct. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking consensus?

 * We should settle the "Strict constructionist vs. We Do It Our Way" once and for all. As far as I can tell, you are for keeping strictly to ATC, Fv leans a bit more the other way, but is open to both, and I'd prefer simplifying the system where the WP categorisation system allows (like merging ATC code D01 and ATC code J02). Can we announce a poll to get more opinions, or something? And how is this done, anyway? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think getting some consensus on this issue is a great idea, and although I favor following the ATC scheme more closely, I am willing to do whatever the community decides. Perhaps between those of us using this talk page currently, we can develop a straight forward question stem addressing the issue at hand (i.e. something like "Should the 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the ATC structure exactly, or be consolidated when possible?").  Then, once we have that question, we can start a thread with it here with that question in mind, and ask editors to post their position, after which we can have a third party admin determine what the consensus was.  What do you think of that idea?  If you like it, how would you word the discussion question? ---kilbad (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like your idea very much. Next draft for the question:
 * "Should the 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the ATC structure exactly (e. g., Category:Antifungals for dermatological use for ATC code D01 and Category:Antimycotics for systemic use for ATC code J02), or be consolidated when possible (e. g., a single Category:Antifungals for both D01 and J02)?"
 * --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your draft, but what would you think about putting the examples in a some type of footnote section, in order to keep the main question less cluttered? Something like:

///////////////////////DRAFT BELOW////////////////////////////

Consensus question

 * Should the 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Comments
///////////////////////DRAFT ABOVE////////////////////////////


 * Also, a couple other things. Perhaps we could make Category:Antimycotics for systemic use just for now so it shows up blue?  Also, what do you think about putting some type of time limit, after which consensus is determined?  Like a month?  Alright, let me know what you think. ---kilbad (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your draft is very good, it makes the point clear enough. A time limit is certainly necessary, and considering the time we have already spent at WT:PHARM:CAT, a month will be just as well. Also, I've blued the category. Shall we start, or can you think of anything else we need to arrange beforehand? Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus question: Strict vs consolidation
Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Background
Editors who have not participated in this discussion until now should consider reviewing this project's archive before commenting.



There is a consensus that drug articles should be categorized in both Category:Drugs by mechanism of action as well as Category:Drugs by target organ system, with the latter being based on the ATC system. The first level subcategories of Category:Drugs by target organ system correspond to first level ATC codes, and their subsequent subcategory trees should, to some degree, mirror the remainder of the ATC classification scheme.

The above question aims to establish consensus as to whether similar ATC code should have separate categories, or be consolidated into a single category. An example of following the ATC structure exactly would be having both a Category:Antifungals for dermatologic use for ATC code D01 and a Category:Antimycotics for systemic use for ATC code J02. An example of consolidating categories would be having a single, combined Category:Antifungals for both ATC code D01 and ATC code J02.

Duration
As per previous discussions, this consensus question will be open to comments for one month, ending 03 July 2009 20:10 UTC, after which consensus will be determined by a third party administrator who has not been part of the discussion.

Authors

 * kilbad
 * ἀνυπόδητος

Comments

 * Support strict - Following the ATC classification as strictly as possible allows editors to independently create, populate, and monitor categories based on an already devised, well-organized scheme.  No individual editor will ever be able to categorize all these drugs.  This process is going to be a group effort over a long period of time—a project that needs guidelines to help editors know how a drug should be categorized.  Strictly following the ATC classification lends itself to (1) simple guidelines (i.e. “drugs should be categorized based on the ATC system”), and, as a result, (2) an organized, straightforward categorization for drugs with ATC codes.  Consolidation of different ATC codes into different categories, in my opinion, will make categorization of drugs less clearcut.  Now, looking at the big picture, the primary function of the category system is to allow readers to browse through articles easily, and, if I am being honest, either option (following ATC strictly vs consolidation when possible) in the end will probably allow readers to easily browse through drug articles.  Therefore, it comes back to which is easier to implement and maintain, and I think the answer is adhering to the ATC classification as strictly as possible for the reasons I stated above. ---kilbad (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support consolidation – Implementation and maintenance should not be much more difficult: The categories' lead sections will name the ATC group(s) they correspond to, so that new drugs can be easily categorised. Implementing new ATC groups will admittedly need a bit more work since editors will have to check whether to create a new category or implement the new group into an existing category. In my opinion, however, this is worth the effort: It will make the category tree more concise since a number of near-identical categories (like Category:Beta blockers for cardiac therapy and Category:Beta blockers for glaucoma therapy) will be avoided. It will also make the categories section in the drug articles shorter and clearer, i. e. only Category:Beta blockers instead of the two categories above. Finally, we already have a classification system very similar to this: the drug navigation boxes. Templates like Antifungals are based on ATC, work well, and can be used straight away as models for our categories. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support consolidation. As I've mentioned before, this avoids unnecessary overlap, and also makes categorization more lay-friendly. Drug navboxes already fulfill the function that would be provided by strict ATC categorization. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support consolidation. However, I do think that the precise, low-level ATC categories can be useful resources in resolving disputes. --Arcadian (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support consolidation. Browsing by ATC cdode is already possible via the ATC pages. I think the ATC codes are not an ideal categorization for the purpose of Wikipedia, so they should be consolidated. MichaK (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds fine with me. Though I thought we agreed on these categories a long time ago, so I'm kind of wondering why it hasn't been done yet. Not sure if every minute little detail needs to be constantly voted on. I'd say, just go ahead and boldly implement this; if there are some minor disagreements with some articles, those can be dealt with individually. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about "some minor disagreements with some articles", we just don't want to categorise two dozen beta blockers into two separate categories and then re-categorise them into a single one, or the other way round. And then do the same with dozens (or hundreds) of other drugs. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This response confuses me. To a question in the form of "Shall we do A, or Not-A?", like this one, a response of "Yes" is not possible to interpret.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support consolidation I have been thinking about this area of clinical classification for some time and had been intending to put together a proposal to use ATC for categorisation. My initial interest in ATC came when I found the large number of Pharmacology Stubs that were unsorted. This was followed by coverage of ATC at a recent classification conference. I now find, to my delight, that this has been quietly going on in the background for some time. I read the archive and then spent 24 hours thinking about my response. I see the advantages of both sides. I am a clinical classification expert in real life and thus do prefer classifications to be used as they are structured and in that way, I subscribe to Kilbad's philosophy of classification. However, I do see the distinct advantages of grouping classes of drugs by their type rather than splitting the types by site of action. In the end as someone who comes from an ICD background I have to come down on the consolidation side of things. By that I mean that the ICD classifies drugs by their type rather than by their use. To me, I can't really justify splitting beta-blockers for cardiac purposes from beta-blockers for glaucoma in Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.