![]() | Pharmacology Project‑class | ||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
Now that we have consensus that consolidating ATC categories when possible is the way to go, I think it would be helpful to have an "ATC code to category conversion table," so editors can easily look up where a drug should be placed. With that being said, how should the table be structured? Perhaps we could start developing the table with ATC code D ;) and see what issues arise?
Regardless, I have created a section for the table to be placed in at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization/Scheme#ATC_code_to_category_conversion_table. Thanks again everyone for your help! --- kilbad ( talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I would tend to favor having both the category tree view and a conversion table as I think combining them might make organization a big more cumbersome. So, for your example, I would display the information as follows:
Proposed categorization scheme
... with the cell color coding being based on the main table in the ATC article. Of course, we can add additional stylization to the tree or table to make things even easier to read/better organized. What do you think? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
ATC code | Corresponding category | Other ATC codes in this category |
---|---|---|
S01ED | Beta blockers | C07 |
-- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I added in some of the derm categories just to better develop the rough draft, not to suggest the categories I have used are going to stay that way. In fact, please consolidate where desired. Perhaps some of you other editors can help me design the derm scheme? Also, perhaps we should somehow indent the third and fourth level category rows somehow, to improve readability? --- kilbad ( talk) 00:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple things...
Ok, thanks again for your help. --- kilbad ( talk) 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a bit of formatting and put some explanations on top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization/Tables. As always, feel free to change anything you don't like. I also merged table rows again since the formatting (italics/other ATC codes) gets a bit confusing otherwise in my opinion. Please tell me if you find a better solution (or just change it). Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 11:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The category names I added to section D are tentative. Please comment or just change them if you have any better ideas.
Some questions and thoughts:
As always, feel free to change anything you think appropriate. Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 12:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
ἀνυπόδητος, I think you have been doing a great job, particularly with the conversion table. However, I feel that the proposed dermatologic categorization is becoming too complicated. What would you think about simply having only the first level ATC derm cats, and just categorize everything at that level without further subdivision? --- kilbad ( talk) 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Pharmacology Project‑class | ||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
Now that we have consensus that consolidating ATC categories when possible is the way to go, I think it would be helpful to have an "ATC code to category conversion table," so editors can easily look up where a drug should be placed. With that being said, how should the table be structured? Perhaps we could start developing the table with ATC code D ;) and see what issues arise?
Regardless, I have created a section for the table to be placed in at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization/Scheme#ATC_code_to_category_conversion_table. Thanks again everyone for your help! --- kilbad ( talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I would tend to favor having both the category tree view and a conversion table as I think combining them might make organization a big more cumbersome. So, for your example, I would display the information as follows:
Proposed categorization scheme
... with the cell color coding being based on the main table in the ATC article. Of course, we can add additional stylization to the tree or table to make things even easier to read/better organized. What do you think? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
ATC code | Corresponding category | Other ATC codes in this category |
---|---|---|
S01ED | Beta blockers | C07 |
-- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I added in some of the derm categories just to better develop the rough draft, not to suggest the categories I have used are going to stay that way. In fact, please consolidate where desired. Perhaps some of you other editors can help me design the derm scheme? Also, perhaps we should somehow indent the third and fourth level category rows somehow, to improve readability? --- kilbad ( talk) 00:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple things...
Ok, thanks again for your help. --- kilbad ( talk) 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a bit of formatting and put some explanations on top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization/Tables. As always, feel free to change anything you don't like. I also merged table rows again since the formatting (italics/other ATC codes) gets a bit confusing otherwise in my opinion. Please tell me if you find a better solution (or just change it). Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 11:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The category names I added to section D are tentative. Please comment or just change them if you have any better ideas.
Some questions and thoughts:
As always, feel free to change anything you think appropriate. Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 12:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
ἀνυπόδητος, I think you have been doing a great job, particularly with the conversion table. However, I feel that the proposed dermatologic categorization is becoming too complicated. What would you think about simply having only the first level ATC derm cats, and just categorize everything at that level without further subdivision? --- kilbad ( talk) 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)