Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Creation of an "ATC code to category conversion table"[edit]

Now that we have consensus that consolidating ATC categories when possible is the way to go, I think it would be helpful to have an "ATC code to category conversion table," so editors can easily look up where a drug should be placed. With that being said, how should the table be structured? Perhaps we could start developing the table with ATC code D ;) and see what issues arise?

Regardless, I have created a section for the table to be placed in at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization/Scheme#ATC_code_to_category_conversion_table. Thanks again everyone for your help! ---kilbad (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What about arranging the categorisation scheme like the ATC tree? Since some of the categories will have more than one parent, we can't avoid some categories appearing in the scheme several times (at least I can't think of a way) – and this would give us an "ATC code to category conversion table" and a categorisation scheme in one go. To avoid (or reduce) confusion because of the categories appearing several times, we could add cross references. Something like this:
Drugs by target organ system
C: Drugs acting on the cardiovascular system
C07: Beta blockers (also S01ED)
S: Drugs acting on the sensory organs
S01: Ophthalmologicals
S01E: Antiglaucoma drugs and miotics
S01ED: Beta blockers (also C07)
And I apologise to kilbad for not using ATC code D as an example ;-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I would tend to favor having both the category tree view and a conversion table as I think combining them might make organization a big more cumbersome. So, for your example, I would display the information as follows:

Categorization scheme[edit]

Proposed categorization scheme

Drugs by target organ system

Drugs acting on the cardiovascular system
Beta blockers
Drugs acting on the sensory organs
Antiglaucoma drugs and miotics
Beta blockers

ATC code to category conversion table[edit]

ATC code Corresponding category
C Drugs acting on the cardiovascular system
C07 Beta blockers
S Drugs acting on the sensory organs
S01 Ophthalmologicals
S01E Antiglaucoma drugs and miotics
S01ED Beta blockers

... with the cell color coding being based on the main table in the ATC article. Of course, we can add additional stylization to the tree or table to make things even easier to read/better organized. What do you think? ---kilbad (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The colour coding is a good idea.
  • I am not sure whether there are advantages of having the scheme twice in different layouts, but I have no objections.
  • Pages like ATC code S01ED don't exist, so I'd suggest using either "S01ED" (linking to the ATC code page) or simply "S01ED" (no link, since there is already one from the row "S01 Ophtalmologicals") or perhaps "S01ED" (linking to the relevant section; but this could cause maintenance problems in case the name of the ATC section changes).
  • It would be nice to include the cross refs. What do you think of this:
ATC code Corresponding category Other ATC codes in this category
S01ED Beta blockers C07

--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the tree gives us a nice view of how the structure looks/is developing, while the table gives us an easy reference to see where categories have been consolidated. With that being said, I like the additional cross reference column you created. Are there any other columns you think we should add? Also, with regard to links, should we just have links to the first level codes? ---kilbad (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of any other important columns. Other links (like to the corresponding articles) can be included in the category headers, otherwise the table might get a bit bloated. What do you mean with your last question? Where could other levels link to? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I believe leaving ATC codes like "S01ED" unlinked is fine. Also, I have put together a rough start to this table, using ATC code S as an example of how it will start to look when expanded. I tried to style the table more with some borders around each group (like a fine border encompassing all the code S rows) but couldn't figure out how to do it. Any additional improvements you can make to the table would be greatly appreciated. ---kilbad (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, HTML supports only borders around a whole table or around a single cell. I tried tables within a table, but that looks disastrous. I think we are fine with the different background colours; but I have added an additional caption line above each section... the table will get rather long. Please revert if you disagree. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I separated all the first level codes into their own tables; how does that look? Perhaps we should move these ATC to category conversion tables to their own page since they're going to get long? ---kilbad (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, they look a bit erratic, but we'll be fine if we put them on separate pages (or on one page with section headers in between – perhaps we should wait and see how long they really get before splitting). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added in some of the derm categories just to better develop the rough draft, not to suggest the categories I have used are going to stay that way. In fact, please consolidate where desired. Perhaps some of you other editors can help me design the derm scheme? Also, perhaps we should somehow indent the third and fourth level category rows somehow, to improve readability? ---kilbad (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to distinguish the "bottom level" categories form those that should only contain subcategories. For example, D -> Dermatologic drugs is of the second kind, while D01AC -> Azoles is of the first kind. What about printing the first kind in boldface? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Or place the second kind in brackets? Or whatever? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a bit of expanding to the ATC code D table. As your additions, mine are open to change – please rename categories, undo changes or whatever you think appropriate.
A few thoughts:
  • Where there is only one subgroup of a group (e.g. D01BA), we need only one category. Is my layout (one category reference spanning two rows) fine?
  • I have marked ATC codes with no corresponding categories with a "—" (e.g. empty ATC groups or groups with only combination products which don't need their own WP articles). Probably needs an explaining sentence at the top; but how does that look?
  • I'd propose only going down to level 3 in the following groups: D02, D03, D05, D09; otherwise the categories will get very small. This isn't saying I want all the other ATC codes split down to level 4; I'm not sure about those.
  • Indenting categories is a good idea, but I can't work that out.
--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple things...

  • I moved the table over to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization/Tables.
  • I think since this is simply a conversion table we shouldn't get to fancy merging cells, but, when needed, simply list the same category twice. So for D01B and D01BA, I would prefer to simply list the "Systemic antifungals" category twice. How do you feel about that?
  • For ATC codes with terms like "other" or "various," like "D04AX Other antipruritics," should we just categorize those drugs in the category that is found immediately above? So for the drugs under D04AX, we would put them in the category for D04A?
  • I am fine simply categorizing D02, D03, D05, D09 only to level three, but how should we denote that on the table?
  • What about simply omitting the level 4 categories in the table (and mentioning the fact on top of the page)? Would that be confusing? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Further experiments on table formatting[edit]

I did a bit of formatting and put some explanations on top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization/Tables. As always, feel free to change anything you don't like. I also merged table rows again since the formatting (italics/other ATC codes) gets a bit confusing otherwise in my opinion. Please tell me if you find a better solution (or just change it). Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The category names I added to section D are tentative. Please comment or just change them if you have any better ideas.

Some questions and thoughts:

As always, feel free to change anything you think appropriate. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

ἀνυπόδητος, I think you have been doing a great job, particularly with the conversion table. However, I feel that the proposed dermatologic categorization is becoming too complicated. What would you think about simply having only the first level ATC derm cats, and just categorize everything at that level without further subdivision? ---kilbad (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my original intention (some months ago) until someone pointed out that some of the lower levels correspond to pharmacological categories (e. g. Category:H1 antihistamines could be a subcategory of D04 Category:Antipruritics as well as Category:Receptor antagonists). I think these cross-refs between the ATC category tree and Category:Drugs by mechanism of action plus its subcategories would be useful; however most of the lower level categories (Category:Cicatrizants etc.) could indeed be left out as far as I am concerned. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have inserted the level one ATC derm cats into the scheme at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization. If those look ok to you, I may start categorizing articles? ---kilbad (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you wait with D03, D07 and the antihistamines (or just have a look at the issues I posted above)? The internet access here is way to slow for some useful recherche and/or discussion. I'll be properly back in two weeks' time. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
NP. I don't mind waiting. ---kilbad (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm back again! I'd propose the following:
Thoughts, anyone? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)