Talk:IRAC classification

Starter-for-ten

@Bosula. Here is a first stab at a sortable wikitable. It needs to be expanded and this is easiest in the source editor, where the structure of each row should be obvious. I've tried to wikilink as much as possible and I don't think we should add any common name that doesn't have a WP article, which will cut down the number. There are still going to be too many OPs and pyrethroids, IMO, so maybe some other exclusion criteria would help?

I've drafted this as "List of modes of action of insecticides" rather than "List of insecticide modes of action" (which could be a redirect) because I want to have the possibility of "List of modes of action of fungicides" etc later.

If you haven't already, I suggest you set your preferences for "sticky headers" for tables, which makes it easier to see what's there when scrolled down near the foot of big tables. See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and search for "sticky".

Note that WP is unlike Excel in that you can't sort a table using multiple levels/column names. Hence it is very important that the table as seen in its source code has the precise sequence of rows necessary. The software is clever in that it sorts by the piped name, so that's the alphabetising that should be used (see Cinerin I for an example, when you sort by Common name). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, The table looks great. It would have taken me weeks to amass the know-how to do that. Here my suggestions.

That was the first table I've ever made. I just followed the wikitable link and looked at a table in another article.

Title of page: We should have "classes" or "chemical classes" in the title as well as "mode of action".

Might become inelegant and don't forget we can use WP:REDIRECTs. Can wait till we finish and move to mainspace.

Column heading: For "IRAC code" we add the letter A, B etc. Carbamates are 1 A and Organophosphates are 1 B etc.

Could be tricky as currently sorts as numbers. If text, would sort 1A, 1B, 10, 2, 3.....

Column heading: "chemical class" instead of "class", although both variants have their advantages.

Fine, I'll bow to your judgement.

We write the classes as they are written in IRAC. For example "avermectins, milbemycins". There are two pages in WP in this case, which is not a problem because we can link to each of them. If the name of the class in WP is egregiously different from the IRAC one we change it; If it is different but OK we link to the WP name. If it means the text is too long to fit nicely in the space available, then some of the rows will be thicker, and we give up attractiveness for exactitude.

Agreed. Note that wikitable columns automatically expand to fit to biggest content unless otherwise instructed.

We either list all common names in the class or just one example, irrespective of how many of them have WP pages. If we have just one example then we need an addition column with heading "number of insecticides in class", or "Nr", or possibly two columns, one for the IRAC list and one for the BCPC list. The column heading "common name", becomes "example of common name" or something like that. Bosula (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think just the IRAC number as that's our main source. However we need to add the extra column now to save time later. Note that having such a number complicates the updating of the table once list is live: we could instead just have a disclaimer in the text at the beginning or put an asterisk against those classes where there are extra unlisted examples. Anyway, go ahead and start adding more columns/rows as you see fit and we'll see how this develops. I didn't mention it before but I don't think we should include biologicals. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should first consider carefully and settle on a concept before populating the table. I will make a comment on the Talk:Insecticide page with a link to this page so others can give their input. Also such a link on the Talk:List of insecticides page.

One variant we did not discuss is using your List of insecticides page. We leave the title of the page as "list of insecticides" and add "class" and "MOA" information to all 548 insecticides. This would then give the table you created but much longer. We then only have one page and one table. Bosula (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it works so well when pages try to do too much. The current list of insecticides is fairly compact and readers can easily click from the letters at the top to the set beginning with that letter where they'll see most of the entries together, at least if they are using a PC monitor. If we had a 3-column table there, it would be much more difficult to scroll to see any given entry. For the same reason, I think that the table here should be comprehensive for moa and classes but not worry that it is missing many common names. Thanks for alerting others, we can now wait about a week to see if anyone comments. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed today the table at HRAC classification. Maybe we should switch to doing something very similar as IRAC classification and then FRAC classification? User:RustyOldShip would you like to comment? Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It makes good sense to put this table in the IRAC page. However I suggest not creating a separate IRAC classification page. There is no HRAC page and so the page HRAC classification fulfils the role that the page Insecticide Resistance Action Committee serves. We can leave it as one page for each, so as not to create parallels. The IRAC page is not large and can easily handle a table. FRAC has no page. How should it be named? Bosula (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be Fungicide Resistance Action Committee, which is currently a redirect, as you'll see by following the link. I think that this type of naming is better than using a title like HRAC.... since most readers will want to see the name associated with the main type of pesticide. Redirects are useful to cover all possibilities for obvious search terms. Meanwhile, I think we should use this draft page to finalise the table now to be placed into the IRAC article. Please go ahead and expand it in line with the live example at HRAC classification. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I that table is the main motivation for making the article. I suggest only on the insecticide/fungicide tables that a column for examples should exist, with links to the most common or best documented.

IRAC is for such a long phrase I can imagine nobody typing it into a search bar. So long as it redirects to whichever is chosen as the main page then either way is quite reasonable. RustyOldShip (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers and names of the MOA and classes are exactly as in IRAC. The column Nr (A) is the number of insecticides in each class in the IRAC listing. The column Nr (B) is number in each class in the compendium of common names (BCPC), which is more complete. Recently the BCPC listings use the class names that IRAC use, but most of the common names in the BCPC listings were assigned to chemical classes of their own design, which we do not want to use here. So I assigned them to the BCPC classes. I combined the BCPC insecticide and acaricide lists. In cases where the MOA is known but is not on the IRAC list (e.g. strobilurins) I put them with the unknowns. The table needs a legend for the column headings. I will wait for comments before adding links etc. Bosula (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filling this in. I added the extra IRAC codes in the first column so that the table would sort correctly but now I'm not convinced that sorting is a good idea. We think we should just use a simple unsortable table, which will more closely resemble what IRAC use and means that the first column doesn't need duplicate numbers. What do you think? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. It is unlikely that anyone would want any other order than the IRAC order. The only reason I could imagine for wanting to sort the table would be if they could not find a chemical class. Bosula (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be tidier to merge columns 1 and 2 under a single IRAC code header, which would also save some space. Please go ahead and add the links now: I can help tomorrow if you wish. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and say if I have any questions. Bosula (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bosula Thanks for expanding the table and adding the links. I think the whole thing can now be moved into the relevant section at Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, following our decision to do that (above). My only concern is how to do a move correctly to maintain both the edit history of the table, if necessary, and the discussion on this Talk Page, which ideally should be moved into IRAC's Talk Page, I think. I'm going to ping @DMacks to advise us on what would the best way forward. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added text on the IRAC page. Explaining insecticide classes and preparing for the table. Bosula (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I lost track of the ping! One way forward is to move this draft to mainspace itself and then merge+redirect into the Committee article. The tagging that accompanies the merger would keep the attribution chain and discussions available. This draft isn't a "list article" (that has a wiki technical meaning), so how about IRAC classification? That would be parallel to the HRAC classification naming scheme and its content. DMacks (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completed WP:BOLD move to mainspace and merge as suggested above. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]