Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Stifle (talk · contribs)
Comment	Inactive for over a couple of months

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Arcadian

Where is the issue taking place?

Pharmacology templates (Stimulants, Antidepressants, Antifungals, etc)

Who's involved?

Prisonnet, Arcadian

What's going on?

Arcadian has made numerous changes to medicine-related templates that, I believe, serve little purpose and make the templates look sloppy and hard to read.

For example, Arcadian's template versus Prisonnet's template.

I am not opposed to a more formal taxonomy, however my primary concern is making the chart easy to read and understand for wikipedians.

What would you like to change about that?

We would like a compromise to be reached.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No preference, contact via messages through wikipedia

Mediator response[edit]

I will be taking up this case. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During the mediation, I would strongly ask both of you to refrain from editing the pages in dispute. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Arcadian 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

Discussion[edit]

For context, the list of templates is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs#Navigation-_medications. I will concede that for antidepressants the use of ATC codes made the template more muddled (and I did not object to Prisonnet's revertion), but I believe in most other cases, increased use of the codes is helping to provide badly needed organization and rigor. --Arcadian 00:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look over the templates, it appears that in only the case of the antidepressants was the entire code used to prefix the drug name, whereas only the last two digits are used in the other templates. Maybe this is the root of the problem? I thought the primary purpose of these templates was for easy navigation between substances of the same class (as opposed to ATC organization). The codes are important within the article body, but are they necessary within the navigation template? I think only if they are included with the minimal amount of clutter and confusion. A compromise might be to make sure to only prefix the drug name with the minimum required digits. --Thoric 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point, the addition of ATC codes does not help navigation between substances of the same class, but only adds clutter. I agree that these codes can be useful on the main page of the drug, and suggest that they only be placed on that page. Here's another example of clutter, even with abbreviated codes: Arcadian's template Prisonnet's template. Most people who go to wikipedia to find out information about a certain drug would not even know what an ATC code is, and the addition of these codes in the template can only --Arcadian 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)serve to confuse. --Prisonnet 02:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're well on the way to a solution already. Do you think that having the codes on the template is going to be of benefit to the Wikipedia community at large? If so, how? Stifle (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary benefit of having the codes on the templates it that people who know a code can easily navigate to the appropriate article, and also wikipedians can see the gaps in the codes, and know which articles are missing. Personally I feel that it appears to offer more benefit to the wikipedian than to end user, but I could easily be wrong as I do not use ATC codes. Possibly a better solution would be to provide redirects from ATC codes to the drug articles. My only vote on the matter would be that if we are to keep the ATC codes on the templates, that they be as non-intrusive as possible (i.e. only using the significant digits, and in a subtle color). --Thoric 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am largely in agreement with Thoric, but before moving forward, I would like to ask for a more precise description from Prisonnet as to what he is actually requesting. His initial message to me on my talk page was "Please stop changing pharmacology-related templates to conform to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System", which is what prompted me to request that we take the issue to mediation. I was pleased by his later statement on my talk page "I am not opposed to a more formal taxonomy", but I've yet to see what taxonomy he would support if he objects to the one used by the World Health Organization. I'm also not sure what you meant by your reference to "Prisonnet's template". That template has an ATC code on it; does that mean you support the ATC code at the top but not at the bottom? Or do you want all the ATC codes removed from all the templates? Would you support using the ATC codes to sort but not to display, so that chemically related substances can get grouped together? Were you objecting to the grouping of the phenothiazines in the latest edit of the Antipsychotic template? Of the following pairs, which do you prefer: this or this? This or this? This or this? On that last one, I can understand why you might prefer the first one, but because the "A" means "Esters of aminobenzoic acid" and "B" means "Amides", I believe a numerical sort is far more useful than a alphabetical one. I certainly concede that there are many ways to make these templates more clear and more consistent (though they were worse a few months ago than they are now.) And I certainly welcome any effort to make them better. But if you can lay out your precise vision and say what you want, rather than just saying what you don't want, it will be easier for us to move this process forward. --Arcadian 19:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer medication to be categorized like this, with subtables, instead of arcadian's version. I think organization by ATC code is sloppy and confusing. I want templates to be easy to understand and navigate. The main goal of templates is, as has been stated before, to help users navigate between similar agents. The addition of the ATC codes do not help this purpose, and hence I believe that these ATC codes should be eliminated from the templates entirely. --Prisonnet 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For context on the unnesting of the subtables, see Template talk:Antidepressants. To see what it looked like before the unnesting, see here. --Arcadian 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be easier to sort them by the common name but include the ATC code as well? It's not disruptively long. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a matter of how disruptive the ATC codes are, but their usefulness in templates. It doesn't help navigation, it just adds more information about the drug that isn't needed. This would be like including the chemical formula of drugs with their compound names. ATC codes are already included on the main drug page, and I think that's the only area where they're appropriate. --Prisonnet 01:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we are going through mediation, I would like to ask Prisonnet to stop making edits like this one. Granted, the absence of a edit summary is better the edit summary here, but it still seeems like an unfortunate choice to make, after you consented to mediation. So, in an attempt to move in a more positive direction, I would like to offer you a Wikipedia:Truce. I'll promise to not add any more ATC codes to existing navigation templates for the next two months, if you'll promise not to remove any more during that same time. That will both of us an opportunity to identify ways to best align our goals with those of the broader Wikipedia community. Do we have a deal? --Arcadian 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't want to prolong this any further than it needs to be. What is supposed to happen from here, do the mediators make the ultimate decision to which we must abide, or do they only help us to reach an agreement? --Prisonnet 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second one. There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia. I can make recommendations but it is up to you to agree on something or not. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonnet, what are your thoughts on the compromise I offered above? If you do not accept, please counterpropose, so we can move this process forward. --Arcadian 16:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the various drug templates is to both show in a simple manner how the particular drug of an article falls within the overall scheme of things, and allow the user to jump to articles on otehr members of the group. Whilst an ATC code in the template's top title would allow the user to jumpt to the relevant ATC-listings article, adding ATC codes to each drug seems poor encyclopedia styling: it is not of interest to the lay-reader, bulks up the templates so they occupy additional lines and generally looks messy. On a related issue is whether items within the template list should be (bracked enclosed), comma-separated · pipped · or | piped | . I really don't mind which of these (although comma-separation gives teh most compact system), but some internal consistancy in drug templates is needed, if not within wikipedia as a whole. David Ruben ^Talk 14:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Davidruben's second issue (separators), I agree with him completely. Per the first issue, if I'm reading the room correctly (both here and on other talk pages), the consensus is that:

• #1 - At the top of the template, ATC codes are usually appropriate. (I'm assuming this isn't controversial; even the versions that Prisonnet held up as examples of his preferences included them.)
• #2 - For templates that have many lines of drugs, ATC codes are sometimes appropriate at the start of the line.
• #3 - Next to the drug itself, ATC codes are never appropriate, and should be removed from all templates.
• #4 - However, it is usually appropriate to sort the drugs on each line by ATC code, rather than sorting them alphabetically. If there are medications with no ATC code yet, or medications which editors believe belong on the line though not indicated as such by the WHO, then those would come at the end of the line.
• #5 - In determining which medications actually belong on a template, then ATC will be used as a default, unless there is a consensus to use a well-defined alternate external classification (per Wikipedia:No original research.)

If there are not any objections to this in the next few days, and assuming that Prisonnet does not make more misleading edit summaries in the future, I will consider my participation in this mediation complete. --Arcadian 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree all points above, except that I would have thought best sort drugs on a particular line into alphabetical - however is the ATC sequence a particular logical system or by date entry into the ATC system (latter I may be convinced as using if good reason proposed) ? David Ruben ^Talk 18:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadian, I will agree to the truce and will not revert any edits until we've reached a decision. To that end: I largely agree with the five points you have outlined above, with a few exceptions. Here is my proposal:

• 1. 1 - ATC codes should be used at the top of a template
  2. 2 - ATC codes may be used next to classes of medication with in a template (ie, by SSRIs in the Antidepressant tables) when it does not make it cluttered
  3. 3 - ATC codes will be excluded next to the names of specific drugs
  4. 4 - However, medications within a template should be alphabetized for ease of reading, not sorted by ATC code

I believe this accomplished both our goals, yours of adding the ATC system of categorizing, and mine of making the templates easy to read. --Prisonnet 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend sorting alphabetically. The reason for this is that someone who knows the ATC code is likely to also know the regular name, whereas the converse is not true. Therefore, sorting alphabetically will make the templates accessible to the widest audience. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consent to the judgement of the mediator. --Arcadian 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we have interested parties here, perhaps we can address Davidruben's concern about inconsistencies. I've set up some categories below. While this wouldn't be a vote (per m:Don't vote on everything), it could be a way to help drive to a consensus by identifying what people prefer. --Arcadian 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with straw polls, although this one may have a limited audience :) Stifle (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separators[edit]

• Brackets "{}"
• Dots "·"
• Pipes "|" --Arcadian 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Commas ","
• Parentheses "()"
• Other (specify)

We're moving towards consensus on the other items; additional feedback on this header would also be welcome. --Arcadian 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the dots.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer dots. --Prisonnet 23:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll switch my preference from pipes to dots. --Arcadian 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commas - most compact, standard English punctuation (and quickest to type in). (Second choice would be dots '·') David Ruben ^Talk 13:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize first letter of drug[edit]

• Yes
• No --Arcadian 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - will be easier to distinguish one drug from another. We should take this opportuniy to agree amongst ourselves a consesnus that can be applied to all drug templates, eg. might have Sodium valproate Valproate semisodium - much easier with the capitalisation than sodium valproate valproate semisodium David Ruben ^Talk 18:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems more logical. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I am certainly happy to defer the consensus, perhaps I could explain my position a bit -- sometimes, the use of a capital letter is reserved to specify a particular brand of a drug. --Arcadian 17:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps an approach to take within an article to distinguish the generic INN from the brand. However in the templates we are discussing, surely only the INN will be listed ? In the rare cases where another additional name or brand needs to be included then placing it in brackets would be an option (but only wikilink if to a separate article). Hence one might have Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) and Ibuprofen (Nurofen) but not Paracetamol(Acetaminophen) as the latter is redirected to paracetamol. This is a further (minor) reason for my dislike of bracket-separating items in the lists (vs commas or pips or whatever this is: • ) David Ruben ^Talk 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --Prisonnet 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I consent to the consensus. --Arcadian 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment[edit]

• Centered
• Left-aligned --Arcadian 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Left-aligned --Prisonnet 18:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Left-aligned - would keep the bold specific group title clearly to the left. I think whilst centering looks Ok for some templates, looks untidy in many with multiple indented lines compared to others. David Ruben ^Talk 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Template:Antiglaucoma preparations and miotics based upon my understanding of the principles described above. Feedback is welcome. --Arcadian 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, but i'm still not convinced of the usefulness of the ATC codes to the left. -Prisonnet 21:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is of use to pharmacists and a substantial minority of users. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dislike group ATC codes - the ATC code in the title bar allows access to the full list of codes and is therefore useful (i.e. it allows following to the class of agents "Antiglaucoma preparations and miotics" and seeing the whole treatement structure). However added to each sub-group (ie ATC codes for each class) is highly offputting for the average reader. The class type needs come first for clarity. I strongly disagree that "of use to pharmacists" - its of no use to my community pharmacist wife ! It may be of interest to undergraduate or commercial pharmacists, but a trivial minority of general wikipedia readership, especially as stated that the title bar links to overall ATC coding structure. Personally I would switch this:

Antiglaucoma preparations and miotics (S01E) edit

S01EA Sympathomimetics in glaucoma therapy: {Apraclonidine} {Brimonidine} {Clonidine} {Dipivefrine} {Epinephrine} S01EB Parasympathomimetics: {Aceclidine} {Acetylcholine} {Carbachol} {Demecarium} {Ecothiopate} {Fluostigmine} {Neostigmine} {Paraoxon} {Physostigmine} {Pilocarpine} S01EC Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors: {Acetazolamide} {Brinzolamide} {Diclofenamide} {Dorzolamide} {Methazolamide} S01ED Beta blocking agents: {Befunolol} {Betaxolol} {Carteolol} {Levobunolol} {Metipranolol} {Timolol} S01EE Prostaglandin analogues: {Bimatoprost} {Latanoprost} {Travoprost} {Unoprostone} S01EX Other antiglaucoma preparations: {Dapiprazole} {Guanethidine}

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates

to this ATC-light

Antiglaucoma preparations and miotics (S01E) edit

Sympathomimetics in glaucoma therapy: {Apraclonidine} {Brimonidine} {Clonidine} {Dipivefrine} {Epinephrine} Parasympathomimetics: {Aceclidine} {Acetylcholine} {Carbachol} {Demecarium} {Ecothiopate} {Fluostigmine} {Neostigmine} {Paraoxon} {Physostigmine} {Pilocarpine} Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors: {Acetazolamide} {Brinzolamide} {Diclofenamide} {Dorzolamide} {Methazolamide} Beta blocking agents: {Befunolol} {Betaxolol} {Carteolol} {Levobunolol} {Metipranolol} {Timolol} Prostaglandin analogues: {Bimatoprost} {Latanoprost} {Travoprost} {Unoprostone} Other antiglaucoma preparations: {Dapiprazole} {Guanethidine}

and if we declutter the table by switching from bracketedd to pips we have a table that is less bulky (remember not all readers will have nice 1280x1024 resolution screens)

Antiglaucoma preparations and miotics (S01E) edit

Sympathomimetics in glaucoma therapy: Apraclonidine · Brimonidine · Clonidine · Dipivefrine · Epinephrine Parasympathomimetics: Aceclidine · Acetylcholine · Carbachol · Demecarium · Ecothiopate · Fluostigmine · Neostigmine · Paraoxon · Physostigmine · Pilocarpine Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors: Acetazolamide · Brinzolamide · Diclofenamide · Dorzolamide · Methazolamide Beta blocking agents: Befunolol · Betaxolol · Carteolol · Levobunolol · Metipranolol · Timolol Prostaglandin analogues: Bimatoprost · Latanoprost · Travoprost · Unoprostone Other antiglaucoma preparations: Dapiprazole · Guanethidine

or comma-separated:

Antiglaucoma preparations and miotics (S01E) edit

Sympathomimetics in glaucoma therapy: Apraclonidine, Brimonidine, Clonidine, Dipivefrine, Epinephrine Parasympathomimetics: Aceclidine, Acetylcholine, Carbachol, Demecarium, Ecothiopate, Fluostigmine, Neostigmine, Paraoxon, Physostigmine, Pilocarpine Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors: Acetazolamide, Brinzolamide, Diclofenamide, Dorzolamide, Methazolamide Beta blocking agents: Befunolol, Betaxolol, Carteolol, Levobunolol, Metipranolol, Timolol Prostaglandin analogues: Bimatoprost, Latanoprost, Travoprost, Unoprostone Other antiglaucoma preparations: Dapiprazole, Guanethidine

Finally I woukld suggest that as the title header indicates "antiglaucoma preparations" and links to glaucoma, no special further reference need be made for listed items being for this use (e.g. "Sympathomimetics in glaucoma therapy". Hence:

Antiglaucoma preparations and miotics (S01E) edit

Sympathomimetics: Apraclonidine, Brimonidine, Clonidine, Dipivefrine, Epinephrine Parasympathomimetics: Aceclidine, Acetylcholine, Carbachol, Demecarium, Ecothiopate, Fluostigmine, Neostigmine, Paraoxon, Physostigmine, Pilocarpine Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors: Acetazolamide, Brinzolamide, Diclofenamide, Dorzolamide, Methazolamide Beta blocking agents: Befunolol, Betaxolol, Carteolol, Levobunolol, Metipranolol, Timolol Prostaglandin analogues: Bimatoprost, Latanoprost, Travoprost, Unoprostone Other agents: Dapiprazole, Guanethidine

David Ruben ^Talk 02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with David, and think that the his templates with the pips are the best way to go. Besides, if someone really needs the ATC code, he or she need only to clink on the drug to find the ATC code on that page's information box, which is very hard to miss. Furthermore, templates should be designed to cater to the average user, not a specific group. Including the ATC codes anywhere other than the top of table caters to a demographic that isn't the majority on wikipedia, and should thus be excluded for ease of understanding.--Prisonnet 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this last template is quite tidy. I agree that having a visible ATC code for each group isn't really useful for the general reader (which Wikipedia is primarily to be aimed at). I'm no pharmacist but I assume folk are fairly happy with the groupings the ATC have chosen. I'm very much in favour of using established independent standards rather than us editors trying to decide how to group the drugs (sorry if this has been discussed already). Losing the group-ATC code hides the rationale behind the grouping. Therefore future editors might rename groups or add their own. So could we have some way of indicating to future editors, that each group is actually a formal ATC-defined group? Could this be done with comments? Perhaps this grouping rationale could be explicitly stated in the Project page. Colin°^Talk 09:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the last one, but with pips/dots instead of commas -so lose the codes on the left for each separate group. Colin makes a good point about the grouping, maybe it would be nice to have some of the how-to-write-pharmacology-articles experience integrated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with the emerging consensus. I've created a new header in the manual of style at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Medicine-related_articles)#Navigation_template, but I've left it unpopulated for now. I'd recommend that we take the emerging consensus here and reflect it in that document. --Arcadian 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. This is the easiest sort of mediation case, hehe. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no other issues, I propose closing this case. If no objections to the closure are posted here within a week, I will close it. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and am confident that remaining issues can be best addressed at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Medicine-related_articles)#Navigation_template. --Arcadian 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, we've agreed to use david ruben's style with the pips? --Prisonnet 20:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought the commas produced a more compact list, and were standard English. The pips are fine :-) Colin°^Talk 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise my preference was for last example with commas as 1st choice, and dots/pips second choice. A few votes up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates#Separators to clarify consensus please and then we can write up the guideline and enact standardisation of the templates. (All interested parties should have been aware of these discussions as messages are on both the Drugs and Clinical Medicine project pages) David Ruben ^Talk 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with no further postings in the last week, I have started to enact the above consensus (ATC codes just in title bar, left align, alphabetically sorted drugs in each group with compact comma separators). David Ruben ^Talk 04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussions need be accessable from the Drugs navigation category where these pharmaceutical/treatment templates are now listed, so I'm adding cat to this page too. David Ruben ^Talk 00:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this case due to inactivity, feel free to ask me on my talk page if you need further mediation. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]