Template talk:ATC category

Style

Since this template is supposed to be used on categories, I changed the template to use cmbox (category mbox), rather than ambox (article mbox) template[1].

I also changed the message box type/severity to notice. (It is informational, rather than indicating a "Major warning or problem"), and removed the part about it being an accuracy/neutrality dispute (since it doesn't indicate that).

Should this template go on the category page, or on the category's talk page? If it is to go on talk page, then should use tmbox (or mbox) template. Since it is more administrative than relating purely to content, it might be argued that it is more appropriate on the talk page. Not advocating that, just observing that should be made clear where it goes.

I think it would be ok to place this banner on the actual category page based on Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_description (see the first sentence). kilbad (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template Name

Suggest changing the name to {{ATC category}}, which combines brevity of initialism with better compliance with WP:Name. (Using spaces between words, spelling out words). Zodon (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. kilbad (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text

I think the text shouldn't be quite as restrictive. "Only drugs outlined within the [[ATC code {{{First level code}}}]] should be included in this category." For instance, as noted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization#Contraceptive agents, there are drugs that are not included in the ATC code, and there may be cases where it makes sense to cross-link the the categories in ways that do not correspond to the code. Also, patrolling the categories to assure compliance would be difficult unless handled by a bot.

Removing that sentence would shorten and simplify the template. Zodon (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be some text "guiding" people on what to included and what not to include in the category. From my personal experience with Category:Dermatological preparations, all sorts of stuff gets placed in there (i.e. drugs, chapstick, bandaids, etc) because there is nothing outlining the scope of the category. Therefore, I think having the second sentence, or something similar, would be beneficial. kilbad (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]