Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization: Difference between revisions
→Comments: Support consolidation |
|||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
* '''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 [[:Category:Drug templates|drug navigation boxes]]. Templates like {{tl|Antifungals}} are based on ATC, work well, and can be used straight away as models for our categories. --[[User:Anypodetos|ἀνυπόδητος]] ([[User talk:Anypodetos|talk]]) 11:33, 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 [[:Category:Drug templates|drug navigation boxes]]. Templates like {{tl|Antifungals}} are based on ATC, work well, and can be used straight away as models for our categories. --[[User:Anypodetos|ἀνυπόδητος]] ([[User talk:Anypodetos|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. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]]<small> ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]])</small> 12:18, 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. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]]<small> ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]])</small> 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. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] ([[User talk:Arcadian|talk]]) 18:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:18, 4 June 2009
Template:Archive box collapsible
Consensus question
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,[1] and their subsequent subcategory trees should, to some degree, mirror the remainder of the ATC classification scheme.[2]
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.
Footnotes
- ^ For example, Category:Dermatologic drugs corresponds to the ATC code D
- ^ The degree to which the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the ATC classification system is the focus of this discussion.
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)