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

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-HT_1A 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.

--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• How about Drugs by Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification System as the top level category. —G716 <^T·_C> 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)

	ATC	Therapeutic	Chemical	Biochemical
0	Drugs
1	Drugs by type	Drugs by therapeutic classification	Drugs by chemical classification	Drugs by mode of action
2	Drugs of the alimentary tract and metabolism	Agents for caries prophylaxis	N/A	Mineral supplements
3	Stomatological preparations
4	Agents for caries prophylaxis
A	Sodium fluoride (A01AA01)

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 Category:Pharmaceutical sciences. Should this be the uppermost category, or should it be Category:Pharmacology, 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

Comments

• Good. I think this draft is easy to follow and streamlined. Keep me informed.Cssiitcic (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• From the feedback being posted, it seems there is still some work that needs to be done with the third and fourth level categories. However, the proposed level one category (Category:Pharmacology), and level two categories (Category:Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, Category:Pharmacological mechanisms, Category:Pharmacological agents) have been open to discussion for about a month, and not received any criticism. Therefore, if nobody objects, perhaps we could move these categories to the main WP:PHARM:CAT page, under "Proposed categorization scheme"? Certainly, nothing is ever set in stone, but I think these categories are probably ok to include on the main categorization page as it seems a rough consensus has been reached regarding them. kilbad (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. --Arcadian (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Draft IV (Fvasconcellos)

Pharmacology

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Pharmacologic mechanisms

The study of mechanisms of action should be considered part of pharmacodynamics, and should therefore be a sub-category of Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic agents

Drugs by mechanism of action

Ion channel blockers

Ion channel openers

Receptor agonists

Receptor antagonists

Monoamine reuptake inhibitors

etc.

Drugs by target organ system

Drugs acting on the alimentary tract and metabolism

Drugs acting on the blood and blood forming organs

Drugs acting on the cardiovascular system

Drugs acting on the integumentary system

Or "Drugs for dermatology" (as per Physchim62), or simply "Dermatological drugs" (as per me) to avoid the technical term "integumentary"? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system

Sex hormones

Systemic hormonal preparations

Anti-infective agents

Anti-infective agents for systemic use

Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents

Drugs acting on the musculoskeletal system

Drugs acting on 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)

Drugs acting on the respiratory system

Drugs acting on the sensory organs

Comments

• It seems that most people support the level 3 Category:Drugs by mechanism of action, though the subcategories are still under discussion. Therefore, if nobody objects, I would like to move it to the main categorization page? Please express your support or opposition. kilbad (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

There seems to be clear consensus for the general approach, even if there are one or two oustanding discussions on the naming of categories. With the proviso below, I suggest that we actually start creating those categories for which we have consensus on the names, and recategorizing the appropriate categories from Category:Drugs, so that we can concentrate our attention here to resolving the outstanding problems.

My major concern before we can start this is that we need a clear consensus over the use of the word "drugs". kilbad brought up the question last week of using "pharmacological agents"; Fvasconcellos has given his reasons as to why he prefers "drugs". I'm easy either way, but I think we should take a short moment to consider the queston further.

Arguments in favour of "drugs"

• It's short and simple (KISS principle)
• It mirrors the usage on Commons
• It mirrors WHO usage
• The alternative "pharmaceutical agents" creates problems in the accurate naming of subcategories which seem simpler to resolve by using "drugs"

Arguments against "drugs"

• The term has distinct meanings in different national varieties of English. As a Brit myself, I find it hard to resist a smile when I have to write a section entitled "arguments against drugs": we use "medicines" in this usage, reserving "drugs" for controlled/illegal substances.
• "Drug" ("medicine") is usually associated with small-molecule pharmaceuticals. Is a vaccine a drug? or an insecticide? or physiological saline? "Pharmaceutical agent" clearly covers all possibilities: by definition, it refers to something active used in pharmacology.

Other arguments

• These are high-level categories which will almost never appear on articles themselves, so it's probably not worth getting too worked up about their names!

As I say, I'm happy with either option, but I would like to be sure that others have at least considered the pros and cons before embarking on a fairly major recategorization. Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I would support Category:Drugs by target organ system and the general scheme outlined by Fvasconcellos. However, I think a few of the proposed subcategory names need to be refined, like Category:Sex hormones (what limits this category to pharmacology?) and Category:Antiparasitic products, insecticides and repellents. Additionally, should the word "preparations" be used (for example, as with Category:Systemic hormonal preparations).
• Also, with regard to "moving forward," as a rough consensus is being built, I have been moving our scheme to the main categorization page, and I think we are getting close to moving some more of the proposed level three categories over (i.e. Category:Drugs by mechanism of action and Category:Drugs by target organ system). However, I think it is important that we do reach a rough consensus on these category names and structure (as you are trying to do) because this will be an major recategorization as you have stated. With that being said, would a pharmacology categorization task force be something worth creating to aid in this eventual recategorization? kilbad (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use "agent" instead of "pharmaceutical agent"; its pharmaceutical nature can be inferred from the parent cat. --Arcadian (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Could we rename Category:Pharmacologic agents to simply Category:Drugs, and then implement some form of Fvasconcellos' Category:Drugs by target organ system scheme? kilbad (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Draft V

I have tried to take the discussion we have been having and create a new working draft that we can continue to discuss. Also, in order to keep any particular draft easy to read, I respectfully ask that you please keep comments confined to the "Comments" section. Also note, the categories listed below in italics are those that have already been agreed upon by rough consensus during the course of this conversation. kilbad (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacology

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Pharmacologic mechanisms

Drugs

Drugs by mechanism of action

Drugs by target organ system

Drugs acting on the alimentary tract and metabolism

Stomatological preparations drugs

Drugs for acid related disorders

Drugs for functional gastrointestinal disorders

Antiemetics and antinauseants

Drugs for bile and liver therapy

Laxatives

Antidiarrheals, intestinal anti-inflammatory or anti-infective agents drugs

Antiobesity preparations drugs, excluding diet products

Digestives, including enzymes

Drugs used in diabetes Antidiabetic drugs

Vitamins

Mineral supplements

Tonics

Anabolic agents drugs for systemic use

Appetite stimulants

Drugs acting on the blood and blood forming organs

Antithrombotic agents drugs

Antihemorrhagics

Antianemic preparations drugs

Blood substitutes and perfusion solutions

Drugs acting on the cardiovascular system

Drugs for cardiac therapy

Antihypertensives

Diuretics

Peripheral vasodilators

Vasoprotectives

Beta blocking agents drugs

Calcium channel blockers

Agents Drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system

Lipid modifying agents drugs

Dermatological preparations

Antifungals for dermatological use

Emollients and protectives

Preparations for treatment of wounds and ulcers

Antipruritics, including antihistamines, anesthetics, etc.

Antipsoriatics

Antibiotics and chemotherapeutics for dermatological use

Dermatological preparations of corticosteroids

Antiseptics and disinfectants

Medicated dressings

Anti-acne preparations

Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, and sex hormones

Gynecological antiinfectives and antiseptics

Sex hormones and modulators of the genital system

Urologicals

Systemic hormonal preparations, excluding sex hormones and insulins

Pituitary and hypothalamic hormones and analogues

Corticosteroids for systemic use

Thyroid therapy

Pancreatic hormones

Calcium homeostasis

Antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs

Antineoplastic agents drugs

Drugs for endocrine therapy

Immunostimulants

Immunosuppressants

Drugs acting on the musculoskeletal system

Anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic products drugs

Topical products for joint and muscular pain

Muscle relaxants

Antigout preparations drugs

Drugs for treatment of bone diseases

Drugs acting on the nervous system

Anesthetics

Analgesics

Antiepileptics

Anti-parkinson drugs

Psycholeptics

Psychoanaleptics

Antiinfective agents

Antiinfective agents for systemic use

Antibacterials for systemic use

Antimycotics for systemic use

Antimycobacterials

Antivirals for systemic use

Immune sera and immunoglobulins

Vaccines

Antiparasitic agents

Antiprotozoals

Anthelmintics

Ectoparasiticides, including scabicides, insecticides and repellents

Drugs acting on the respiratory system

Nasal preparations drugs

Throat preparations drugs

Drugs for obstructive airway diseases

Cough and cold preparations drugs

Antihistamines for systemic use

Drugs acting on the sensory organs

Ophthalmologicals

Otologicals

Ophthalmological and otological preparations drugs

Comments

To start this segment of our discussion off, I have distilled some of the yet to be decided issues into several question that perhaps the community could respond to (kilbad (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)):

• Should Category:Drugs by mechanism of action have immediate subcategories that are (1) broad in scope, like Category:Receptor agonists or (2) more specific in scope, like Category:Serotonin receptor agonists?

• I think the broader categories will be of more use to both readers and categorizers. Physchim62 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• I support (2). Version (1) would still need subcategories like Category:Serotonin receptor agonists, which would make the tree needlessly complicated. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• My general feeling is that categories don't need to be too hierarchal. I'd prefer the immediate subcategories to be more specific in scope.-- Ed (Edgar181) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you support the name Category:Drugs acting on the integumentary system, or should Category:Drugs for dermatology or Category:Dermatological drugs be used?

• "Dermatology/dermatological" seems to be more widely known (or at least used): 15.700.000/3.140.000 vs. 970.000 Google hits. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Dermatology/dermatological", certainly, and looking at ATC code D I still think we're best with Category:Dermatological preparations. Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Dermatological preparations" works best for me too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• DermatologIC preparations or DermatologicAL preparations? kilbad (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• DermatologicAL, see ATC code D11. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be a consensus here, so I am going to change it in the above draft to "Dermatological preparations." kilbad (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you support the name Category:Sex hormones, or does it need to be made more specific so as to limit it to pharmacology articles?

• Category:Human sex hormones might well be a useful specification. Incidentally, the category probably should go under both Category:Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system and Category:Systemic hormonal preparations. Physchim62 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Tricky one. If we want to mirror ATC, Category:Systemic hormonal preparations should exclude sex hormones, but this isn't clear from the name. Also, there is no ATC code for "sex hormones"; G03 includes antihormones as well, so perhaps we should drop that category altogether (or at least not make it a direct subcategory of "Drugs by target organ system" as per footnote 1). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. probably best to leave Category:Sex Hormones out of the tree entirely at this level. Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you look at ATC code D, "Genito-urinary system AND sex hormones," and ATC code H, "Systemic hormonal preparations, EXCLUDING sex hormones and insulins," we are not reflecting the inclusion or exclusion of sex hormones anywhere within our current categorization scheme (that is if we drop Category:Sex Hormones, which I tend to support as I want these categories to reflect the ATC structure as closely as possible). Therefore, if we are going to adhere to the ATC structure, should be have something like Category:Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, and sex hormones? kilbad (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can cope with sex hormones being classed as "drugs acting on the genito-urinary system". Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• So what should the actual name of that category be so people know sex hormones are included? kilbad (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you support the name Category:Systemic hormonal preparations, or should "preparations" be changed to something else?

• Support for consistency with ATC. "Systemic hormonal drugs" seems a worse option, as most of these are natural hormones, not mimics or antagonists etc. Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you support the Category:Anti-infective agents and Category:Anti-infective agents for systemic use names and structure?

• Support. Structure should be completed with Category:Antiparasitic agents (note hyphenation: OK for "anti-infective"). Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Could you clarify what you mean by "Structure should be completed with," and possibly provide example(s)? I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Thanks. kilbad (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've added it to the draft, as I don't think it's contentious. Physchim62 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I understand now. Thank you. Also, should the hyphen be included in the name (i.e. "Anti-parasitic agents") for consistency sake? kilbad (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• ATC says "Antiinfectives" (without hyphen). I have corrected it in the draft above. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why don't we use "Antiinfective/Antiparasitic drugs" for the sake of consistency? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think that seems reasonable. kilbad (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you support the proposed category names and structure Category:Drugs with the two subcategories Category:Drugs by mechanism of action and Category:Drugs by target organ system? Expressing support for these categories does imply support for their sub-subcategories which are currently under discussion.

• Support Physchim62 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support except for "integumentary" (there seems to be a rough consensus for "Dermatological preparations" or the like) and "sex hormones". I am also a bit ambiguous about the terms "Antiinfective/Antiparasitic agents" (see above). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really have a problem with any of these proposed categories necessarily, but I'm still a bit confused at what's being proposed. Are you proposing to completely replace all existing categories with the above list (which I would be opposed to)? Or, are you proposing to simply add the categories (and sub-categories) listed and populate them with articles? Dr. Cash (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I started this discussion with the hope we could come up with "a working (1) categorization scheme and (2) guidelines for categorization," so that people like me (nonpharmacologist working on other projects, like WP:DERM) could have a guide for how to categorize pharmacology, which I discuss in my initial post. At this time, I am personally not proposing the replacement of any categories, simply a consensus on how pharmacology articles should be categorized and, when needed, guidelines on how to do that. kilbad (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

I have added second level ATC codes into the categorization scheme as many (**but not all) of the first level ATC category names have been agreed upon by rough consensus. If available, please continue to provide your feedback, and it is much appreciated! I am anticipating that many of these second level ATC category names with need some modification to make them specific to pharmacologic articles. kilbad (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals and questions regarding the second level ATC codes

• Categories which name therapies (etc.) instead of drugs should be renamed, i. e. "Bile and liver therapy", "Cardiac therapy", "Thyroid therapy", "Calcium homeostasis", "Endocrine therapy" → "Drugs for bile and liver therapy" or "Bile and liver therapeutics" or simply "Bile and liver therapy drugs"?

• I would tend to favor the format "Drugs for bile and liver therapy." kilbad (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• "agents", "products" and "preparations" should be replaced with "drugs" where possible.

• I agree. Which uses of agents/preparations would you like to see changed? kilbad (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• All of them, and "products" as well. But perhaps a native English speaker should think this through.--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have used the strike-through tag to insert drug for most instances of preparation, agent, and product. What do you all think? Also, should the ""Antiinfective" categories use the word "agents"? kilbad (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Category names shouldn't get too long or too enumerative. Specifically, I'd like simpler names for: "Antidiarrheals, intestinal anti-inflammatory/anti-infective agents", "Antiobesity preparations, excluding diet products", "Digestives, including enzymes", "Antipruritics, including antihistamines, anesthetics, etc.", "Ectoparasiticides, including scabicides, insecticides and repellents" and "Ophthalmological and otological preparations".

• The same holds for the first-level cats "Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, and sex hormones" and "Systemic hormonal preparations, excluding sex hormones and insulins". Any ideas?

• Yeah, this is definitely a problem. As you can see from prior discussions, if this category tree is to mirror the ATC classification, categories like "Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, and sex hormones" and "Systemic hormonal preparations, excluding sex hormones and insulins," pose problems because excluding the term from "sex hormone" from either creates ambiguity about where sex hormone related articles are supposed to go. Anyone have any suggestions? kilbad (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would be fine with "Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system", this includes sex hormones, doesn't it? The second one ("Systemic hormonal preparations...") is really difficult. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I do not think the name "Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system" is precise enough for editors of readers as to whether it includes or excludes sex hormones. kilbad (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Drugs used in diabetes" → "Antidiabetics"?

• How about "Antidiabetic drugs"? kilbad (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have made the change above. kilbad (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is it helpful to use categories like "Corticosteroids, dermatological preparations" and "Corticosteroids for systemic use"? Many corticosteroids come in both cats, so there could be only "Corticosteroids", included both in "Dermatological preparations" and "Systemic hormonal preparations". The same might be true of other cats named "X for systemic use".

• What about having a parent category "Corticosteroids" to include "Corticosteroids, dermatological preparations" and "Corticosteroids for systemic use"? kilbad (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean "Corticosteroids" to be outside the tree, and the other two to be subcats of "Corticosteroids" as well as the appropriate level 1 ATC cat? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry... now that I am reading over my idea, I don't like it. Perhaps we could create a parent category for those two subcats based on their mechanism of action. Then we could stick that in the "Drugs by mechanism of action" category. So the structure would be something like:

Drugs by mechanism of action

Some MOA category pertaining to corticosteroids

Dermatological preparations of corticosteroids

Corticosteroids for systemic use

...and then these two subcats could also be categorized in the ATC tree

kilbad (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

OK, here I am. I do apologize again for not providing any input sooner, but I have been unable to until now. I've been reviewing the proposed classification, and I'm very happy with it apart from two minor quibbles (which may turn out not to be minor at all :) I'm not

I'm not happy at all with the "for systemic use" qualifiers: I think they are unnecessary for Wikipedia, due to the very nature of our categorization system (subcategories nested within broader parent categories). The way it stands, we have an overlap in which "Antibiotics and chemotherapeutics for dermatological use", for instance, should actually be a subcategory of "Anti-infective agents", and not only a subcategory of "Dermatological preparations" (I hope that didn't come out as convoluted as it sounded in my mind). IMHO, we should only use "for topical/dermatologic use" qualifiers, and these categories should themselves be subcategories of "Anti-infective agents".

For instance, instead of

Anti-infective agents

Anti-infective agents for systemic use

Antiparasitic agents

We would have

Anti-infective agents

Anti-infective agents for topical use

Antiparasitic agents

Etc. I'm also not sure we need to make a distinction between "antifungals" and "antimycotics", even if it means straying a bit from the ATC codes... but perhaps I'm wrong? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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 better/more templates interlinking drugs by "class" - in a way that lippincot's text organizes. 24.43.8.159 (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a major problem, because you can have more than one category on a page! Let's not forget that some drugs are listed under multiple ATC codes as well. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

organizing by class / mechanism of action

while this isn't and wouldn't be the primary way of organizing articles, I rec that it be considered for future improvement of templates at the botton of article. There IS a spot already for drug class in the drugbox, but it isn't used as well as it could be since there is lack of room there - people will put diuretic or thiazide - both are classes but one is more specific than the other. If in the bottom of the articles in a nav template we included a tree similar to the branches of nerves template in anatomy. Diuretic would be on the left, then thiazide, loop, etc would be the next column. This would be very useful and may already be in existance and I am not aware of it. The other suggestion is nav templates by MOA. This could be collapsable. I would also argue that MOA could be added to the Drugbox. Epocrates gives a 1 liner on MOA and I think WP drugbox could as well. 24.43.8.159 (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed in existence already—our navboxes use the exact system you suggest ("Diuretic would be on the left, then thiazide, loop, etc..."). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

I just started moving around categories, and Physchim62 has joined in. What I have been doing is making new categories and clearing out Category:Drugs by type. I left behind any categories that do not fit in to the new scheme, so that they do not get "lost." For now, I moved categories that are named slightly differently, but these can be renamed later with cfd.

Regarding the highest level categories, we need to consider how it will effect other pharm-related hierarchies. Although this project starts at Category:Pharmacology, I think Category:Pharmaceutical sciences is appropriate as a parent. I'm not quite sure how Category:Pharmacy fits in. For now, I think we should leave the upper levels alone, and concentrate on the contents of Category:Pharmacology. --Scott Alter 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately Scott and myself seem to have made a couple of GF mistakes, one or the other of us! We can sort them out, no harm done, but we might need a helpful administrator ;) Category:Drugs by type is now nearly empty. There is an extremely unhelpful Category:Chemotherapeutic agents, which seems to mirror Category:Drugs and will need dealing with. Physchim62 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that chemotherapy is used by some people to refer to antineoplastics, and by others in a much broader sense (see "chemotherapy" at Dorland's Medical Dictionary and Chemotherapy at the U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)). It would be best to merge that category away. --Arcadian (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted a CfD for the renaming of the dermatology pharm category. If avaliable, could you please review it? See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_16#Category:Dermatologic_pharmacology

If you need an admin move, I'd be happy to. --Arcadian (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting empty categories is something we can legitimately do here, but moving entire categories is probably best left to CfD where they have bots to make the process easier. Physchim62 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted two more CfD's pertaining to dermatology-related pharm cats, and that should be it as far as derm CfD's. Perhaps you could review and comment on them here and here. Thanks again. kilbad (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there, with a "hold on" about the sunscreens. Physchim62 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories to consider adding

Hi, I looked over your proposed categories. First off let me say that I like what you are doing and how you are doing it. At first glance the are categories/subcategories that I would consider adding are: New category: Antidotes Under "Drugs acting on the nervous system" alcohol deterrents Under "Antibacterials for systemic use" beta-lactam antibiotics, macrolide antibiotic, etc Under "Analgesics" narcotic analgesics Under "Analgesics" non-narcotic analgesics I could keep going but before I do let me ask: Do you prefer if I make recommendations here or should I put them right into the project page? Since I'm new to this project I don't want to step on any feet. -J04n (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback. I think it is best to start off placing your recs here for feedback from everyone else. As far as the categories you have suggested, Category:Drugs by target organ system and its subcats are designed to mirror the ATC levels; therefore, many of the drugs you are trying to categorize probably already fall into an existing proposed category. Perhaps you could review the archived comments on this page to see how the discussion has evolved. Thanks again! kilbad (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Antidotes is a separate category under Category:Drugs, as with the other categories which come from ATC code V ("various", not a very helpful name for a WP category!)

Yes, we need a category to mirror ATC code N07BB "Drugs used in alcohol dependence" or perhaps code N07B "Drugs used in addictive disorders". The exact category tree hasn't been figured out yet, but they can be parked in Category:Drugs acting on the nervous system for the time being, as that would be their higher-level parent.

Category:Antibacterials for systemic use mirrors ATC code J01 so yes, it would need to include categories for beta-lactams, macrolides, tetracyclines and a host of others. Do we call them "antibiotics" (mirroring common usage) or "antibacterials" (more correct, mirroring ATC) or nothing at all (given that these are mostly chemical classifications)?? Comments please!

Category:Analgesics (mirroring ATC code N02) has Category:Opioids as a necessary sub-category. I don't think "narcotic" is a useful term for the category names.

Physchim62 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm... OK, I objected to the creation of "X for systemic use" categories above... and :Category:Antibacterials for systemic use was just created :P

We already have categories for beta-lactams, macrolides, etc. Most of these narrower, lower-level categories won't need to be created at all. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, that's not the only mistake I've made in implementation… I'll wear the dunce cap and donkey's ears for a week, to remind me to go back and check what we've actually agreed on instead of relying on memory! :P

Seriously, it's not a major problem: it is relatively easy to move categories around within higher level categories, but difficult to change category names once they're full up. Speedy deleting an empty category is something any admin can do, and I've requested a "G7" for the category in question. Physchim62 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories should link to this page

This page/discussion/etc. should be better connected to the categories themselves. I recently noted some changes to the categorization of things like category:chemical contraception, and therefore looked at the categories involved. There was no indication there that this system/proposal/discussion existed. If this is to be guiding/design principle for part of the category tree, there should be indicators on the related categories so people know to come look at this. (I added a couple links on talk pages, but may want something a little more prominent and coverage on the affected categories.) Zodon (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a small banner to be placed on affected category talk pages? kilbad (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Contraceptive agents

Handling of contraceptive agents seems to be peculiar at the moment. This listing indicates that sex hormones are supposed to be under Category:Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, but Category:Hormonal contraception is under Category:Systemic hormonal preparations. Perhaps there should be a see also from Category:Systemic hormonal preparations to Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, since general users (as compared to pharmacists) may not know about the odd details of the ATC classification system. (Or maybe should just make them subcat of both.) Since this is supposed to be to help general audience users find things (not just for specialists).

I think a "see also" would be fine. kilbad (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution would be to have contraceptive agents and other human sex hormones placed under both Category:Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system and Category:Systemic hormonal preparations.That way we guard compliance with both ATC and a "natural language" approach to searching. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is Category:Chemical contraception supposed to go? (Before I discovered this page, I put it as close as I could find to a logical place based on category structure.) Things like copper and other spermicides act against a kind of cell, rather than targeting an organ system. Zodon (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that category need to be under "Drugs" at all? Some of it's members are drugs, some aren't. Those that are drugs will be linked back to Category:Drugs by another route; the category as a whole can stay as a subcategory of Category:Methods of birth control. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem if the category doesn't all fit in this classification - I found where IUDs go in the ATC code, but have been having difficulty figuring out where items like Spermicide or Nonoxynol-9 go. (Either in the ATC code (if they have one), or in the categories). Thanks. Zodon (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would put them into Category:Drugs acting on the genito-urinary system, as "Other X" (where X is probably "gynecologicals", but that doesn't make much difference for the categorization). I can't find them anywhere in the ATC classification itself… Condom and female condom should probably be included as well. Physchim62 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IUD's and condoms are not pharmacology though? kilbad (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IUDs have ATC code G02BA. Several other non-pharmacological products can be found at ATC code V07. Condoms and nonoxynol are not included in the 2009 ATC. Physchim62 (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ATC category banners

To help readers and editors know that they are viewing a category that reflects the ATC structure, I think having a banner at the top of the category page would be helpful. I have created the Template:ATCcat, which is a rough draft of something we could use. I thought I would post it here, and we could change up the icon, text, etc, as people want. Here are some examples of the template (see the code for parameters):

This category reflects the organization of Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System code D.
Generally, drugs outlined within the ATC code D should be included in this category.
Please see WP:PHARM:CAT for more information.

This category reflects the organization of Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System code D03.
Generally, drugs outlined within the ATC code D03 should be included in this category.
Please see WP:PHARM:CAT for more information.

Ok, let me know what you think. kilbad (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple changes, and added some comments at template talk:ATCcat. Zodon (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded and moved the template to Template:ATC category kilbad (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried for a simpler syntax, let's see how it works. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Anyone else have any comments? Also, would anyone object to me placing a section on the WP:PHARM:CAT mainpage discussing the use of this banner? kilbad (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got a couple of suggestions, but I'm still checking around to see to see how widespread the problems are. The general idea is a great one: I was thinking of doing one myself and I've no objection to having a section at WP:PHARM:CAT about it. Just not sure the wording is what we want: I'll be back with details for discussion later. Physchim62 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... look forward to discussing further. kilbad (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about an alternative wording starting with "Generally," or something similar? See above. kilbad (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. We can still change the exact wording if anyone thinks of anything better.

Is there consensus that we include the banner? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's consensus that we need the banner, yes. Let's roll it out, and sort out any remaining problems later. I would favour it going on the category page itself, not on the category talk page (even if that means removing the link to this page under Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid). Physchim62 (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Before rolling out the banners, I think there should be further discussion on the point below. Will there be a separate category structure for "Drugs by ATC code" (which could be populated automatically by the infobox)? If so, we would have two sets of similar categories that may effect the name and/or content of this banner. --Scott Alter 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Physchim62 about the self-reference problem and removing the link to this page. The content of this banner is most appropriate for the Category namespace; however, links to the Wikipedia namespace are best left for talk pages. I think we can start implementing this...and any category within Category:Drugs by target organ system that does not have an associated ATC code should probably be noted and removed from the categorization scheme. --Scott Alter 23:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One more comment...should {{CatDiffuse}} be automatically added to the category if the second parameter (third and fourth level ATC codes) is not used? This could be put in {{ATC category}}, rather than manually put on all of the first and second level category pages. --Scott Alter 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. However, on another note, is the current format of the parameters the best option, or should it be with additional pipe separation as follows for example: {{ATC category|D|03|B|A}} ? kilbad (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of that too - it could give greater options for future use, but has limited (if any) use now. Can you think of any benefits? --Scott Alter 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just in case the wording or formating of the banner changes in the future, I think it is good to be able parse the ATC levels as much as possible. Also, do we want labels with the code, like so?: {{ATC category|Level one =D|Level two = 03|Level three = B|Level four= A}}, or something like that? I don't have a strong preference. kilbad (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd ever want to expand the ATC levels on this template, but it's always nice to have the option. The only benefit I see right now is adding catdiffuse to third level ATC categories too. (I'm currently working on this code for the first and second level categories.) --Scott Alter 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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#L03AC Interleukins). 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#L03A Immunostimulants 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#No drug identifier vs missing value 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#Missing or no ATC) 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 [[Category:{{ATC to category|{{{1|}}} }}]] would make it a subcategory of the appropriate ATC category.

Could also cross-check that the right category entered {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{ATC to category|{{{1|}}}{{{2|}}} }}|ATC is correct|ATC is wrong}}

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)

3rd and 4th level ATC mirroring categories

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 Category:Antimycotics for systemic use and Category:Antifungals for dermatological use; I'd rather not mirror the ATC directly in this instance, and have it simply under Category:Imidazole antifungals. 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)

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

Antibiotics and chemotherapeutic combinations for dermatologic use

Dermatologic preparations of corticosteroids

Plain corticosteroids for dermatologic use

Corticosteroids combinations with antiseptics for dermatologic use

Corticosteroids 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 (kilbad (talk)) 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. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Conecensus is clear for consolidation. BJ^Talk 01:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

A part of the category tree how it could look with strict ATC mirroring (above) and with consolidated categories (below).

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.