Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization

More comments

I have been keeping an eye on this discussion since I instigated it months ago. To be forthright, my lack of participation has been due to apathy - not because I don't think it is necessary. Here are some general comments on the matter. First of all, I see this scheme as a way to categorize the existing categories - not as a complete replacement. Most of the new categories will probably contain no articles - only subcategories. I agree that this categorization should follow the ATC groups, but it does not need to do so strictly. Starting with categorizations "by target organ system" and "by mechanism of action" are appropriate.

As this has been in discussion for months now, I think it is time to start the implementation. All of the minor issues still in discussion can be finalized at a later date - either by talk page discussion or by cfd. There will always be something you are forgetting, or other issues that will need to be discussed. Implementing the draft is going to be difficult - because we are dealing with thousands of articles that are already properly categorized (unlike WP:DERM, which basically started from scratch). For the most part, we are just categorizing the categories. The goal now should be to clear out Category:Drugs by type. The new scheme can be initially created by recategorizing the subcategories of Category:Drugs by type. As we create parents for the existing categories, the discussed scheme will be built. Any of the existing categories that need to be deleted should be left in Category:Drugs by type (for now) and discussed. Once the preliminary scheme is created from the recategorization, any categories mentioned in the proposal and not yet created should be created and populated. --Scott Alter 14:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support Scott's suggestion, and think it is time to more forward with this. --Arcadian (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for some additional feedback from a few more editors, particularly User:Fvasconcellos, but will support moving forward if that is what people want, leaving additional development to occur as the actual re/categorization ensues. Therefore, I have moved our working categorization scheme to the WP:PHARM:CAT page, and placed it next to an expandable tree outlining the existing categorization.
Personally, I want to get started creating the pharm categorization that pertains to dermatology content, and would rather defer the more drastic upper level restructuring to someone with a little experience (i.e. like making "Pharmacology" the parent category instead of "Pharmaceutical sciences," etc.), like perhaps you, User:Arcadian?
Regardless, and I think this is important, as we restructure and integrate existing pharmacology categories (i.e. ones not currently in our proposed scheme), please add them to proposed categorization scheme at WP:PHARM:CAT. For example, if you decide to leave Category:ATC codes directly under Category:Pharmacology, please add it to the tree on the left side of WP:PHARM:CAT. This way we can all be on the same page. kilbad (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to move forward to move anywhere. We have spent a lot of time discussing possible errors without actually reclassifying articles. Now that we have shown that we can be careful, perhaps we can start to look at the practical problems which will occur with reclassification. I speak from experience, as I did I private test run on the lower levels of ATC code P (antiparastics, basically) and got lost in the complexities. Hopefully without doing any damage ;) Let's make sure that categories (especially) and articles are under the correct high level categories! Physchim62 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just keep in mind this will evolve - possible con to organizing by topic

Just remember that "old" drugs will occasionally be found to work somewhere else at a later date. As long as this is always kept in mind and placed as a warning or disclaimer somewhere in the template scheme, I'd be happy. But the one thing that I would like to see templates interlinking drugs by "class" - in a way that lippincot's organizes text organizes.