![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
User:ChemSpiderMan (aka Antony Williams) has very kindly taken on an absolutely mammoth task - he is checking every single drugbox (and chembox)for accuracy. He is MANUALLY checking every IUPAC name and structure, as well as generating an InChI and InChiKey for each one. Last I heard he'd spent over 36 hours of hard slog on this! His plan is then to link to Wikipedia from each relevant substance entry on his ChemSpider website. Obviously this is great news for us all round, but we need to get fixing the errors.
-- Somebody buy ChemSpiderMan a beer! that's awesome! Aj1976 ( talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
He has sent me a couple of PDF files listing probable errors (mostly in the IUPAC names). He is using ACD/Name to generate IUPAC names, which scored very highly in this recent study (I was amazed to see how often even ChemDraw is wrong!). I don't feel right making decisions about drugboxes when I'm not a member of this project, and I also have limited time right now, so I'd like to ask for help from people here. If anyone has time to help me work on these, email me and I will send you the PDF; I am trying to put some basic info onto Wikipedia and I will also try to post the PDFs on my college's website tomorrow. I'd like to hold an IRC meeting on the [ IRC channel wikichem channel next week to discuss some of this - obviously you guys are very welcome. Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a rough list on wiki, see User:Walkerma/Sandbox, where you can leave comments. The original PDF is available here. Some of these invite a decision by this project. I will update this page as he sends me more. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to any direct feedback or questions about the process I am taking with the curation project. I am taking a short hiatus but have progressed quite well. I have some other deadlines then will return to the project. Walkerma has the latest file and will post on his Sandbox when he gets a chance I'm sure.-- ChemSpiderMan ( talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey friends,
I recently came across the temazepam article and found it to be bloated, poorly cited, and generally messy. I did an initial overhaul, and two other users helped tweak it some, but the individual responsible for the bulk of the content was not pleased about this, reverted to the old version, and began a discussion. Another user reverted back to the trimmed-down (but still in need of work) version, but the aforementioned author reverted it back to his again.
We are in a rather civil conversation -- I'm making the argument for my modifications and further modifications from others, and he's making the argument for his work. I'd like to build a consensus, but right now there's only two people in the conversation. Should anyone with solid expertise in benzodiazepine medications be interested in contributing, I'd love to hear your input. Even if you're not a BZ expert, the article is in desperate need of style improvement. Please have a look at the discussion page first (it is starting to get a just a little wordy, but still easily readable in about 5 or 10 minutes -- and a very interesting read, I assure you), then check out the edit history for both versions. Let's see if we can't all improve it together!
Thanks, RJSampson ( talk) 06:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
GoodSon ( talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I know discussion on whether or not to include details of drugs being developed, and reporting in articles on trials currently in progress, gets obliquely discussed from time to time, and the issue came up again at WT:MED#Alzheimer.27s_disease and subsequent widening of this at WT:MED#.22Notability.22_for_experimental_medical_treatments. Please join there to discuss and see if we can come up with some guidence rules of thumb on this ( inclusion and fair weight) (formal firm policy clearly impossible as each case needs be considered on its own merits). David Ruben Talk 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We at WP:CHEMS are organising an IRC meeting on Tuesday to discuss data harvesting from our pages - and the drugboxes are a major potential source of chemical information. If you're interested in joining us, please see the details here and sign up. Thanks! Walkerma ( talk) 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month has been resurrected in 2008! The previous collaboration, Receptor antagonist, is now a current Good article nominee, and the new collaboration is Melatonin. Theobromine continues to be a nominee (I've extended its deadline); any user is welcome to nominate other pharmacology articles for Collaboration of the Month! Dr. Cash ( talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Fuzzform has let me know that
DrugBank now includes links to Wikipedia articles on all its entries. The database has had a major overhaul (version 2.0, see
PMID
18048412), and entries now contain quite a bit more information; search capabilities are also sexier more advanced. This should provide an extra push for our improvement efforts.
Fvasconcellos (
t·
c) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your cannabis article makes plenty of sense, assuming that the reader's perspective is dominated by the American taboo of the drug. I found it nearly useless for objective research.
While searching for the pharmacological properties of cannabis administration, the most relevant article I could locate was titled "Health issues and effects of cannabis." It introduced itself by summarizing the position of cannabis in American political debate and cited research relevant to the American political controversy (yes, I am aware that other nations hold similar taboos).
For the scope of the entire project, I propose that it maintain a strong separation of pharmacology (research resource) and political debate (cultural curiosity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.109.183 ( talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is not easy to write an article on a subject that many people have cherished opinions about. How about being BOLD and trying to improve things yourself. If the concern is about pharmacology, you can always request our assistance with specific problems. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Treatment of multiple sclerosis on the Main Page today. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Howdy from the Wine Project! I was wonder if some folks from the Pharmacology project would be willing to lend an expert eye to the Resveratrol article. While it is an important wine-related topic, it is a bit too technical for me to evaluate whether the recent furry of changes in the last few weeks should be cause for concern or not. It seems that a few editors (whose contribution history seems to be mostly confined to this one article) are sparing over competing agendas. I noticed that the Pharmacology Project has also posted their banner on the Resveratrol talk page, so I figured this was as good to seek an expert view or help in sorting things out. :) Agne Cheese/ Wine 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I wonder if anyone could have a look at my list of missing topics related to drugs and pharmacology. Thank you. - Skysmith ( talk) 12:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Carlo Banez ( talk · contribs) whilst making some very useful edits, also transfered large parts of product labels wholesale and directly into many drug articles. This is probably a copyvio (data on FDA site might be freely copiable, but at very least would have need acknowledgement of source) and more certainly as per WP:MEDMOS WP:NOT a collection of technical sheets nor generaly giving specific dosage instructions. Finally inserting "Contraindication" section in all articles which mere duplicates the standard to "known hypersensitivity" is not helpful etc.
I've reverted those edits which were direct copy&pastes (about half of all the edits, as I said many edits most helpful) from today and yesterday, but there are a further 200 odd edits which need checking through. Could others help out on this please :-) David Ruben Talk 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
With no clear consensus (IMHO) in past discussions to use Adrenaline over Epinephrine and with WP:MEDMOS giving clear guideline to stick with INN, the article recently got moved. I have reverted back, to what IMHO the WP:MED & WP:PHARM projects would generally consider as a useful approach set out in our WP:MEDMOS guidelines. As previously, Google results being cited, but if this is to be the case, then paracetamol would be Tylenol and penicillin would be whatever is the No 1 US brand (Google reflecting the US-predominant internet) and we would have no use of any generic names, let alone INN terms.
Anyway could WP:PHARM members comment at Talk:Epinephrine David Ruben Talk 12:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Contained in the drug box it states bioavailability. Surely it would be more accurate to rename it to oral bioavailability, as that is what it is usually implying. I understand that this is mainly because the bioavailability of a drug given by I.V. is 100%, but what if the drug is given transdermally, rectally, by the eye etc. Alternate routes of administration are chosen largely because they offer different levels of bioavailability. Surely it would worth putting it in a drug box and if a drug isn't delivered by some of the routes the user could delete the different types of bioavilability as needed? Medos Talk 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at haloperidol and talk:haloperidol? There is an editor (using a variety of IP addresses) that has been consistently adding what appears to be non-NPOV material to the article and its talk page. He's been reverted by a number of people, and I have removed some content from the talk page that I thought was not consistent with Wikipedia's talk page policies - WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. He has been pushing hard and his attitude borders on incivility. I'm certainly open to being wrong, but it really seems inappropriate to me. So I would like others to give a second or third opinion. I don't want to get into a revert war or violate WP:3RR, so if others agree, can you please help out? Thanks. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to ask you to take a look on the opioid article. There seems to be a problem (for me, at last) in whether semisynthetic derivatives (like hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxycodone, diamorphine, etorphine, buprenorphine etc.) can be classified as opiates, which are, in my opinion, only native opium alkaloids (morphine, codeine, thebaine, oripavine); I learned in my lectures, that opiates are only those opioids which can be isolated directly from opium, while other opioids are...semisynthetic or synthetic opioids, can't be called opiates. I know it's perhaps just a pitty wordplay, but I think, and would appreciate, if a consensus about these naming, or a kind of "convention" within WP could be achieved. Thank you in advance.-- Spiperon ( talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that there is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Drug_names_in_non-main_articles in regards to drug names that may be of interest to the wikiproject. WLU ( talk) 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
On warfarin, an editor is demanding a citation for interactions between alcohol and warfarin. Every "yellow booklet" mentions that excessive alcohol intake interferes with the INR, yet this editor has insisted (referring to uncited evidence) that problems only occur if someone with a previously high alcohol intake suddenly cuts down. I have asked the editor to provide sources himself rather than ramming {{ fact}} on the page, but I was wondering if anyone else had some good sources for this. JFW | T@lk 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to revitalize the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month program, Melatonin will be the current collaboration until the end of February (another week or so). The article is looking good so far, but there's still a few areas that need to be tightened up (a {{ cleanup}} tag in the antioxidant section and a {{ POV-Section}} tag in the safety of supplementation section. I think with a bit more editing, the article can be at least brought up to Good article standards, possible featured.
I'll select a new collaboration in March ( nominate here; so far, Theobromine is in the lead). Dr. Cash ( talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What do project members feel about current version of Levocetirizine with its "Names per country" section taking up almost as much space as the details on the drug itself ?
On basis of WP:NOT (this is not a directory listings) and WP:MEDMOS#Drugs noting for the leader that only "The initial brand name and manufacturer follows..." with nowhere in the suggested-article sections-list making room to try and systematically list out every brand in every country - which is the role of an international pharmacopoeia, and of course WP:NOT#DIRECTORY... I propose to delete the "Names per country" section entirely. Before being WP:BOLD I note this would step on the toes of several editors who have worked to add such information, so any prior views from the project (not that we are a Cabal). David Ruben Talk 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there would be a consensus to change "The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses." to ""The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses. Unless notable and widely used other brand names should not be mentioned." In many drug articles the lists of brand names are huge and ugly, and sometimes are even larger than the rest of the article. Paul Gene (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That'll lead to possibly ugly fights over what a notable or widely used brand name is, but it at least provides more guidance than the extant version. I'd say there's merit to that. WLU (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW: there should be a comma after "widely used".) Seem like instruction creep. Sometimes there's more than one "initial brand" (among English-speaking countries) but additional brands of generic versions are, in general, not notable. On the few occasions when the current restriction is unsatisfactory, WP:IAR applies. Colin°Talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Makes sense, since people do not generally read instructions. But what is the purpose of this particular discussion, then? And referring to the instructions creep is the instructions creep in itself. instruction creep is not even a guideline but an obscure assay. Paul Gene (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Paul, I wasn't citing WP:CREEP as a formal guideline, but I do think it is a good one. I agree with the principle of your suggested addition, but want to consider carefully whether it is strictly necessary. The more you write, the more people will disagree with and the less they will actually read or take notice of. If you still think the addition is a good one, then I've not got any formal reason to object. Colin°Talk 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Paul Gene ( talk) 10:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The variants on Levocetirizine arise as the manufacturer attempts to achieve a similar pronunciation but following language-specific spelling rules. English Wikipedia does not generally concern itself with non-English words so why should foreign-language brand names appear at all? The list/section is no longer required if restricted to English-language countries and non-generic brands. Stick Xyzal in the lead per MEDMOS and forget the others. Colin° Talk 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just added merge tags to multiple products used for aphthous ulcers which have Benzocaine as their sole active ingredient. Unless good reasons can be agreed for any single product being notable in its own right, then under WP:MEDMOS#Drugs I think they should redirect to the main benzocaine article. Discussion at Talk:Benzocaine#Mergers. David Ruben Talk 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this product really a pharmaceutical? Does it belong in this project at all?
The article also reads like an advertisement and contains no references to 3rd party sources. I feel that it should be either (a) deleted or (b) rewritten to wiki content standards, avoiding opinion (e.g. it is said to be "palatable" - to whom?) -- TraceyR ( talk) 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the Pharmacology template and added the Wikiproject Food & Drink template. "Nutritional supplements" are not "Pharmaceuticals", and not even regulated as drugs, either. Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with {{ drugbox}}. In drugboxes in which the width of images is specified, the image is incorrectly displayed. I think this is a result of changes made elsewhere - discussion is at Wikipedia talk:ClickFix. Can anyone figure out how to fix it? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
See, for example, this history of Propofol. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have already investigated the "empty width parameter" issue with the {{ drugbox}} template and responded how to fix that at Template talk:Px. And no, this isn't the fault of {{ px}}, but David Ruben asked about it there. But I can't fix it for you since that template is locked.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
For some time, there has been debate over which term to use when naming sections of articles. Notably, there are minor edit conflicts occurring on the diphenhydramine and dimenhydrinate articles. I've added some comments to the talk page of the latter, but I realized that this is wider issue that needs to be addressed.
Personally, I don't see the two terms as interchangeable. One can abuse a drug without using it recreationally, and (conversely/controversially) one can also use a drug recreationally without abusing it (though not often is the latter possible). One can also simultaneously be abusing a drug and using it recreationally. There is an overlap between the two terms, but they're not synonymous.
The issue is essentially about POV. Typically, those in favor of using the term "abuse" see (illicit) drug use as a moral failure, whereas those who prefer "recreational use" either use illicit drugs themselves, or see drug use/dependence as an illness. I tend to prefer the latter term, since I see drug dependence as a biological/medical issue, rather than a moral issue.
There is also the related term "misuse", which is less severe than abuse. E.g., someone takes 2g of APAP rather than 500-1000mg - something they're doing out of ignorance (perhaps thinking that it will be more effective), rather than deliberate abuse or a desire for recreational effects. APAP of course has no recreational value. Which leads me to my next point...
Some drugs have no accepted medical use, and are used exclusively for recreational purposes (e.g. LSD). Does this mean that all use of such drugs qualifies as abuse? If this is the case, it means that "abuse" is a relative term which is based on whatever legal system one is living under. For example, in the UK heroin is used in hospitals, whereas in the US it is completely illegal. So, suppose an American is visiting the UK, gets injured, goes to a British hospital, and receives heroin as an analgesic. Does this mean that they are abusing heroin? According to the US government (or any other government), all illicit drug use is necessarily abuse. What it comes down to, in this particular case, is the use of semantically loaded language. How do you discourage drug use? Call it "drug abuse" instead. Leading to my next point...
When doctors want to know if their patient is using drugs, what does he/she ask? Surely not "Are you a drug abuser?". They ask "Do you use drugs recreationally?". Why do you suppose they do this (rhetorical question)? So they don't insult the patient, which might cause him/her to avoid visiting the doctor. The point here is that "drug abuse" is inherently insulting language for anyone that uses drugs to achieve euphoria (i.e., uses them recreationally). Let me end this string of comments with a few open-ended questions.
What is the relationship between drugs and dysphoria/euphoria? Why is reduction of dysphoria seen as good, whereas induction of euphoria is seen as bad (i.e. a side effect)? Are the two mutually exclusive?
Finally... What should the naming standard for drug articles be? Abuse? Misuse? Recreational use? All three? Separate sections for each? I'd appreciate any and all input in this matter.
Fuzzform ( talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think an admin needs to look at this talk page. It seems to have died down now but there has been some serious POV pushing going on. Massive junks of chlordiazepoxide and clonazepam were being deleted with little valid justification. Anyway just to let you know. Medos ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on Nootropics (aka "smart drugs", "smart nutrients", "cognitive enhancers", or "brain enhancers") needs some very serious attention. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 11:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute brewing on this featured article that could do with some editors with the kind of knowledge you guys have! -- Slp1 ( talk) 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As you know, over at WP:CHEMS we have been trying to get the core data from Chemboxes and Drugboxes organised and validated. You can see the list that includes the articles with drugboxes (and chemboxes) here. CAS agreed last month to collaborate with us, and in the coming weeks they will be validating our complete set of CAS numbers for us (they currently have a test dataset of 150 articles). We are currently discussing how we will organise the data, and ensure that the validated data doesn't get corrupted. If you're interested in being part of that discussion (probably on IRC), please let me know, because it will obviously affect CAS numbers in drugboxes too. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Many medicine articles have problems with the talk pages being used for soap boxing. Most of the anti-depressants, (either individually, eg venlafaxine) or as a family (eg ssri) will have talk pages that are made difficult to use for improving the article. Does this project have a nice, friendly, template that says "this is to discuss way to improve the article, not to discuss the subject of the article, and off topic discussions will be removed"? It might be nice to have a standard template. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Could I request some expert opinion on this reopened AfD? A substub on this drug combination was created and listed at AfD. I have moved the article to Paracetamol/metoclopramide hydrochloride per the naming convention in your style sheet, expanded it and added a reference in an attempt to save it, but it is currently heading for deletion. It seems to me that there is no reason why a combination drug should not have an entry, and also that the combination differs from the separate actions of the drugs because metoclopramide is suggested to affect paracetamol's absorption. However, I know nothing of this therapeutic area and so might be missing something. Thanks for your expert opinions, Espresso Addict ( talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I switched flunixin meglumine to the combination drugbox since there are two components. But now I'm rethinking it because meglumine is not an active ingredient (I think). So I'd like to ask here it is fine the way it is now, or if the article should be moved to the title flunixin and changed to a normal drugbox. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why the drugboxes in Quinupristin/dalfopristin and Imipenem/cilastatin will only display one of the images? Did I do something wrong? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles that you may be interested in, Janet Wolfe, and Wolfe Laboratories have been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe Laboratories. Thank you. Paulbrock ( talk) 01:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to announce the formation of WikiProject Drug Policy. This WikiProject will seek to organize the existing article set better and coordinate efforts to bring drug policy-related articles to featured status. All are welcome to join. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents ( talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hemostatic agent was originally created to focus on topical antihemorrhagic products like QuikClot. It is now starting to focus on other antihemorrhagics as well. Since there is no article on antihemorrhagics, I am currently proposing that this article focus on the ATC code B02 drugs in addition to the topical products. Any input you have would be welcomed at Talk:Hemostatic agent#Focus of article. -- Scott Alter 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Aspirin is a current Good article nominee. I have reviewed it against the criteria, and made several comments regarding the article. It is currently on hold, so if editors could go over there and address the concerns, it could be hopefully promoted. Dr. Cash ( talk) 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
On the Main Page today. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is up for deletion and needs not only the WikiProject Chemicals but also the help from WikiProject Pharmacology!!-- Stone ( talk) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Aspirin has been listed for GAC, but the request is on hold because of some disagreements. With a little push this vital article could well achieve GA. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a page on small molecule to fix some articles which give the impression that every ligand is a protein and end up getting confused in the middle. three points:
Cheers -- Squidonius ( talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Resistance to an antibiotic changes rapidly, and differs from region to region (even among hospitals within a region). Because of this, different regions (and even individual hospitals) publish antibiotic guides for their particular population. Activity sections don't seem to do this problematic fact justice. Cipro, for example, hasn't been recommended as a treatment for N gonorrhea since 2007 in the US (even as early as 2005 for MSM), but we still state that Cipro is active against N gonorrhea. Depending on where you are, this is either generally true, occasionally true, or generally false. Should we go full-throttle and try to be the Sanford guide, keeping up to date with our bug-drug activity? Should we shy away from making species-specific pronouncements? Do something in between? Antelan talk 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
On varenicline, 72.82.227.16 ( talk · contribs) (probably Akele67 ( talk · contribs) logged out) wants to use iGuard as a source for its side effect profile. This seems to be user-generated data that is not "peer reviewed" (despite claims in an edit summary that it is). Does anyone have experience with this system, and how reliable would it be as a source? JFW | T@lk 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't like being lectured, Yohimbine ("come on folks"). Rather than downplaying registries, could you address our methodological concerns with regards to iGuard? Specifically, could you provide us with a good source that assuages our fears that the entire resource is simply user-generated content? JFW | T@lk 06:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This whole side-effect thing needs a careful think. Even in well-designed trials, most side-effects are non-specific and poorly understood. I think we need to focus on the common side-effects that are at least partially understood and might influence clinical decision-making (e.g. not giving cefalosporins to people who have previously had anaphylactic reactions to penicillin). Just long lists of "when I took this drug I felt lousy" are not likely to be encyclopedic, or factually correct for that matter. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Colin, I wasn't for a moment suggesting that we should cast this in stone. Rather, I thought it might be better to generally avoid listing enormous laundry lists of side-effects, and my tests serve only to whittle down those lists. Judgement is required, not rules. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot in the chemicals in bananas section appears to be incorrect. I'd appreciate some comments. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Great news! Sertraline has been featured on the main page as Today's Featured Article! It's also interesting to note that, with Sertraline being featured, at least half of the articles from this wikiproject that have been featured on the main page, have been featured in the last six months! That should say a lot regarding the recent progress of the Pharmacology project! Congrats to all! Dr. Cash ( talk) 13:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see this proposal for an initial two subtypes that I've proposed, with the likelihood of more to follow. I'd especially like to hear some input from this project as to what other such would be desirable... Alai ( talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I find one of these anywhere? It's a pain having to think of drugs, check if they've already got articles etc. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Warfarin is now the current Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week/Month/Fortnight! Let's try and improve the article up to GA or FA status. There are also two new nominations for the next collaboration: Barbiturate and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor. Go to WP:RxCOTW and support these nominations (or nominate a new article). Dr. Cash ( talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A "Reproductive medicine" task force has been proposed. It would be hosted by WikiProject Medicine, but would also have as parent projects WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and WikiProject Pharmacology. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. Lyrl Talk C 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The editor who created article 7-acetoxymitragynine has stated that said 'alkaloid' can be synthesized from 7-Hydroxymitragynine ?! I have limited knowledge in this field although ScienceDirect has nothing regarding this. Editor states it is a semi-synthetic alkaloid?! Thanks, Nk.sheridan Talk 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Two articles which someone last month proposed merging. I have no expertise. If I read that a substance has a hypnotic effect vs. sedative effect, I feel that these are not the same. Authoritative clarifying would be good, as these are important introductory articles, IMO. Thank you. -- Hordaland ( talk) 19:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that if there is no consensus to merge those two pages that there should then be a seperate page created for an article called "Sedative-hypnotics", which includes barbiturates, benzodiazepines and alcohol. Sedative-hypnotic drug classification was created by the W.H.O. to replace the previous confusing classifications of minor tranquillisers and sleeping pills, because doctors got mixed up thinking sleeping pills were completely different from minor tranquillisers. It is a drug classification for drugs which have both sedative (tranquillising) as well as hypnotic (sleep inducing) properties. Most drugs classed as sedative hypnotics work via a GABAergic mechanism of action.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 691 of the articles assigned to this project, or 19.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Barbiturate has been selected as the next Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month for July. Please help work towards helping the article meet the good or featured article criteria. Also, please go to WP:RxCOTM to nominate or vote for the August collaboration of the month! Dr. Cash ( talk) 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just spent a few hours trying to improve the barbiturate page. I can't get it up to a good article or featured article alone but at least it is now referenced, a bit more tidy and the flags/tags can be removed or are removed. If anyone wants to work on it a bit more then let me know.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the psychoactive drug article is rated top importance to this project, I want to call attention to a dispute that is ongoing there and solicit input from the community. The dispute centers around a chart (Venn diagram) created by User:Thoric, which is a graphical representation of the subjective and behavioral effects of various psychoactive substances. This classification is very interesting and seemingly quite popular amongst wikipedia users, but some editors object to it as original research while others object to the classification itself. If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do. Steve Carlson Talk 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, since some time we ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals) have been working on verifying data on chemical compounds (which are to a large exstend stored in {{ chembox new}} and {{ drugbox}} and some other infoboxes). Data includes e.g. CAS-numbers, etc., and some chemical data.
Lately I have been writing a 'bot' on IRC ( User:CheMoBot) which is capable of following changes to data in these infoboxes, and to report them on-IRC. I have now asked for permission for the bot to edit in project space, in order to set up a copy of the infobox data, which is then to be verified properly. This data is then used by the bot to compare changes in mainspace articles with (or even, repair or update etc.).
As this project is the keeper of {{ drugbox}}, I would like to hear some input from this group as well. The bot request for approval is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CheMoBot. On IRC (if there are members here who are active on IRC) the bot resides in #wikichem (the chemistry wikipedia channel). Hope to hear more. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This comment was left at WT:CHEM, but may be more relevant here:
-- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made a few updates and enhancements to the pharmacy and pharmacology portal, rearranging a few things and highlighting some of the activities of this project. If anyone has any suggestions for the portal, please leave them here. Dr. Cash ( talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Slashdot has an interesting article right now on two new wikipedia-like sites that are offering up medically-related content. One is Google's Knol, which allows verified experts the opportunity to publish independent articles on a variety of topics. It's not exactly limited to medical topics, though they do have a reasonably good amount of them currently. It's not exactly as collaborative as Wikipedia, however, as one expert writes an article on their own, and this is published, but others can't edit it -- they have to write their own article. But a lot of the content looks reasonably good, with high quality text, and reliable. So I suppose that these articles could be used as sources or links from wikipedia articles.
The other site is Medipedia. Medipedia is an online medical encyclopedia sponsored by Harvard, Stanford, UCB, and Michigan, using the same wikimedia software that wikipedia uses, and edited by registered experts and not anonymously. The site is not really live yet, and states that it will launch by the end of the year. But they are looking for contributors; to contribute, you must have a M.D. or Ph.D. in a medically-related field. Dr. Cash ( talk) 02:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
After the aprotinin debâcle, it was to be predicted that someone would start a class action. MonheitLaw ( talk · contribs) added information on an ongoing class action suit. I have removed this for COI reasons, but I am wondering what kind of test of notability we could apply for drug litigation? Surely, not every drug article needs content on where the ongoing class actions are running! JFW | T@lk 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The above article was recently split out from Antibiotic by Epastore ( talk · contribs) (a good move if you ask me). Would anyone object to its being moved to List of antibiotics? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There some press coverage here and here (and probably elsewhere, too) on a new drug called Rember, for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. It targets the Tau protein in neurons and initial trials indicate that it halts progression of the disease in some cases. More research is planned. The main chemical in Rember (apparently, not the only one) is Methylene blue, used as a blue dye in laboratory experiments, and available by prescription since the 1930s for chronic bladder infections. It appears, though, that a different form of the drug is used in the Alzheimer's study. Dr. Cash ( talk) 14:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Contaminated currency, an article about how US dollars, British pounds sterling and euros all contain heavy drug contamination. If you folk feel it belongs, let me know (or add us up). - Hexhand ( talk) 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't deal with the pharmacology of a drug but then again it is about a drug. It doesn't come under substance use disorders. I am stumped as to whether it should be categorised in pharmacology project or not. What about this category? -- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Collaboration of the Month for August ought to be popular with editors . . . Viagra! :-) As much traffic as it gets, the article ought to be AT LEAST GA status; hopefully FA. Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been in the "History and development" section of the propranolol article since January. How did no one (myself included) pick up on this? Now would be a good time to check if key articles like this one are on our Watchlists. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm creating a few new pharmacology stubs ( Semagacestat, Lurasidone, more to come if I find the time). Should I add a WP Pharmacology template on the talk pages or just a stub template on the article pages? Cheers -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 11:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on the curation of the chemical structure collection on Wikipedia for a number of months now (likely most of you are aware of the effort but if not see here Wikipedia curation. I am now working through another 500 entries for the database and in the process of doing so am cross-validating the structures on Wikipedia with those that will find their way into the SDF file.
There has been a discussion about integrating to ChemSpider via outlinks (similar to PubChem, Drugbank and eMolecules) and it has garnered support from WP:CHEMS Outlink Discussion. ChemSpider is different from other outlinks since it offers access to detailed reaction analysis, to analytical data and forms an integrated hub to over 150 data sources. In the process of reviewing the data it is easy for me to add a ChemSpider link. This is already going on for ChemBoxes and I could do the same for DrugBoxes while curating. I would prefer to do this with the support of WP:PHARM if possible.-- ChemSpiderMan ( talk) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was also interested in adding some Chemspider IDs. There are several predicted properties that are pharmacologically relevant, such as number of rule-of-five violations, polar surface area, logP/logD, etc. I think adding this to the infobox would give users access to more information. Any thoughts? Casforty ( talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Granted, but that will be be a problem with any predicted property of a molecule, we won't know how accurate the prediction is unless we do the actual experiment. So if one posts a predicted property (be it logP, IR spectra, etc.), I think the main problem would be that some people who are not familar with prediction would assume that the answer is 'right' without knowing the caveats of property prediction. Should this preclude us from making predicted properties available? For the most part I think people would take any of the predicted properties with a grain of salt, and not interpret them as absolute fact. 198.180.131.16 ( talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Noted, I will refrain from adding any more until a consensus is reached Casforty ( talk) 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should be side tracked by the predicted properties issue. I think the effect of linking to ChemSpider would be to marry a well curated database (ChemSpider) with monographs (WP). To elaborate, the database contain various intrinsic properties (MW, isotopic composition, structure, stereo), experimentally-determined properties (bp/mp/appearance), experimentally-determined spectra (1H/13C NMR, IR, etc., e.g. [1]), apart from predicted data. Monographs: our articles discussing the synth, applications, chemistry, etc. of various compounds, drug-, drug-like, or otherwise. Seems like everything to gain and not much to lose, except for another entry in the drugbox and perhaps concerns of table creep. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Done Thanks everyone - that seems clarification that people would find this helpful and, in particular, thanks for addressing ChemSpiderMan own reservation. I've added to {{
drugbox}}, eg see
Verapamil.
David Ruben
Talk 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Apricitabine is up for deletion. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll re-poke this discussion (there are older threads around, and similar threads above). The BRFA (bot request) found the solution using revids of pages for the 'storage' of verified data in infoboxes the best method for User:CheMoBot. For that we now have 2 index pages, one for the {{ chembox new}}, and one for {{ drugbox}}:
Both contain a few sample entries, but now the big task is coming: verifying the pages and getting them into the indices. What needs to be done for that:
The bot now only compares the data/change of data with the box in the older revid of the page, and logs these changes. It is not a huge problem if there are some wrong values in there, but the majority should be right. If a page gives too many problems, ignore it and move on. The bot 'ignores' pages which have not a verified revid in the index, as well as fields which don't have a value in the infobox in the 'verified' revid.
The indexes can be edited by anyone, and if a newer version of a page contains more verified data, then the index should be updated (it also means we need to keep an eye on it, as 'vandalism' on these pages will also have effects on the working of the bot ..
I really would like to get some help here, getting verified revids of the pages would improve the reliability of the encyclopedia, and when there is enough verified data (and we are confident that there are not too many mistakes), we may even consider using the bot to protect the verified data! Poke me (here, on my talkpage, or on IRC) when you have questions. Thanks! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
User:John Moss recently tagged Eucalyptus oil with both WPMED and WPPHARM banners, on the grounds that the extract is mentioned somewhere or another in BP and is present (as an inactive ingredient) in cough drops. European Pharmacopeia identifies it as an ingredient in a homeopathic preparation. [2] I've removed the WPMED banner (and added the AltMed banner), but wanted to let you make your own choices. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)
This leading Serbian pharmaceutical company article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemofarm Group. Other input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This leading Serbian pharmaceutical company article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galenika (company). Other input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm helping User:Crohnie, who has already uploaded some great clinical photos, to upload some pictures of drugs. We're working on some photos of fentanyl patches and lollipops, for which no photos seem to exist yet on Wikipedia/Commons.
Once this is done, the question will arise: will it be useful to take images of other, perhaps more every-day drugs, e.g. Pentasa (or anything else that just looks like a little white pill)? Note that it is quite troublesome for this user to create these images, and I appreciate the work that's being put into it. So is it really worth all the trouble for some of the more simple pills?
I'm curious to here the position of some of the editors here. More importantly: are images of drugs something that some of you are putting energy in yourselves? Do you have a dedicate pharmacist here who would be willing to create a drug image catalogue?
Let me know what you think about this effort.
cheers from the doctor's mess, -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
←Perhaps it's best to do this as a case-by-case basis, then? If a particularly interesting medication could use a picture, then we can try and provide one. I don't see much advantage in every medication having it's picture here. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Just the pills for the minute to replace a low quality picture on the Mirtazapine page. I'll get a packaging and possibly packet shot too when I get my next batch. Can also do the same for 20mg Fluoxetine if required. Lanfear's Bane | t 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I request that these monoclonal antibody pages which should be created (which there either in INN lists or USAN decisions, if sufficient Google hits).
After you create these monoclonal antibody pages, put the name on the check list after they're verified. Thanks, -- 210.50.14.165 ( talk) 10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check if the given CAS number is OK? According to this, the CAS number is the one of heparin sodium salt. -- Leyo 17:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Can some one please add a drugbox to Parafon Forte. ALSO, IT NEEDS MAJOR CLEANUP!!! Cssiitcic ( talk) 20:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, do we have any endocrinologists around here that could have a look at this page? Someone has added a long and detailed section describing the nasty side effects of androgen antagonists, which is factually accurate but serves to make the page rather unbalanced as there is little corresponding description of the positive effects or reasons why bicalutamide would be prescribed (e.g. treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia or prostate cancer). This is not really my area of expertise but perhaps someone round here could try make this article a bit more balanced? Meodipt ( talk) 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
We need to look at finasteride at the same time. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
First, let me thank you all for the work you have been doing on the pharmacology articles on wikipedia. Routinely I am reading well written and documented pharm articles, and I very impressed with them.
Recently, I started the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force, and have been working to create a better organization to the articles. After extended discussions on the Wikiproject Medicine page, a proposed categorization scheme was developed for all dermatologic articles, which included a "Cutaneous pharmacology" division.
However, after considering this "Cutaneous pharmacology" category, I am (1) realizing that the title is likely too narrow (for example, would it be appropriate to include sunscreen under this category? Is that "pharmacology"?), and (2) uncertain what the subcategories of this category should be.
Right now, there are four existing categories that I think should be merged under "Cutaneous pharmacology" (or whatever the category should be called), and they are: Category:Dermatological preparations, Category:Keratolytics, Category:Skin care, and Category:Sunscreening agents; however, I am just not sure how best to name this category and how to subdivide it.
Therefore, I am writing to ask if any of you would be willing to help create a categorization scheme for dermatology related drugs/preperations/etc? I am not asking you to actually do the tedious work of implementing and categorizing all the articles (unless you want to), I merely need help creating a good categorization scheme that somehow entails all these vastly different items (i.e. anitmicrobials to steroids (Oral vs systemic) to PUVA (Psoralen + UVA treatment) to sunscreen, etc).
Will someone be willing to help create this categorization scheme? Also, if there are any pharmacologists interested in derm, we would love for you to join our task force as well.
Regardless, thanks for your consideration! kilbad ( talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Over-the-counter drug needs a makeover. See WPMED. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Guaifenesin has been much improved, but pharmacological details are lacking. Please help to improve this article. Thanks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As promised. Not inserted into article. Mirtazapine still to come. Lanfear's Bane | t 12:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
User:CheMoBot has been approved this morning, and from now on it is saving logs 'below' Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Log (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Log/2008-11-11). I am a bit tweaking with it now. The logs are a bit long at the moment, but it is easy to hide parts by adapting the Logline template ( User:CheMoBot/Logline), I think everything with a 'level' of 0 can be hidden in the logs.
I will be busy tweaking this all in the next days, please let me know if there are things which should be different. @Admin-template-programmers, it would be nice if I could get some help with User:CheMoBot/Logline, fancy that up a bit. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears we have a university project underway—see Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: Drug discovery and development, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist:drug discovery and development, and Cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors: drug discovery and development. Anyone care to welcome these new users? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 14:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one - Cannabinoid Receptor 1 Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development - these are really quite good review articles, I guess we will now have to make similar reviews for all the major drug classes of note... Meodipt ( talk) 00:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am “responsible” for this “University Project“. I teach a course in Medicinal Chemistry and it is now the third year that I have given the students a project to write a Wikipedia Page on Medicinal Chemistry topic (Now we have narrowed it down to Wikipedia Page about the discovery and development of a certain class of drugs). The idea is to give the students some experience in publishing their work where it will be evaluated by a whole community rather than just one teacher. The students must be responsible, and set their own standard high, as their work will remain in the public domain. Another reason for this project is that most of my students are now training to be health care professionals. They must now adjust to a world where health care professionals do not monopolize knowledge anymore as patients and customers have quick and easy access to high quality information through the internet sources such as Wikipedia. Another aim of this project is therefore to let them learn about this new medium. The projects are considerable challenge for the students. They must select a suitable Medicinal Chemistry topic, locate all the most relevant references and write about the topic in English, which is a foreign language to them. This year’s projects were: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: Drug discovery and development, Cannabinoid Receptor 1 Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development, Neurokinin 1 Receptor Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist:drug discovery and development, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: Drug discovery and development, Cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors: drug discovery and development, Triptans: Drug Discovery and Development. I am very grateful for all suggestions regarding merger and changes in title. If anyone has the time it would be interesting to have your evaluation according to the criteria set fir Wikipedia: i.e. if individual pages are well written and factually accurate and verifiable. If they addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail and if they are sufficiently and correctly illustrated. I am also certainly willing to share my experience with anyone interested in starting a similar “University Project“.-- MarMas ( talk) 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this project have any guidelines as to how to appropriately categorize drugs or drug-containing categories? It seems like all drug-containing categories are thrown in Category:Drugs by type. What exactly does "type" mean? Is it the system the drugs act on (as in Category:Gastrointestinal system drugs), the medical condition they are used to treat (as in Category:Anti-diabetic drugs), the effects of the drug (as in Category:Sedatives), or is it the chemical properties of the drug (as in Category:Bisphosphonates)? Rather than having the ambiguous Category:Drugs by type, how about having separate "Drugs by" categories for each of these four types? This should make the drug categories easier to navigate. Also, should drug articles be placed in categories for each of these 4 ways of classifying drugs (or at least in sub-categories of each)? -- Scott Alter 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) OK, kilbad has proposed an overhaul of our current categorization scheme, and I think it's a great idea. I suggest we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/WP:DRUGS Classification (since the current classification tree was created before WP:DRUGS was merged into WikiProject Pharmacology) and start discussing our new scheme at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization. If no one objects, I'll move the page in two days. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 17:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
ATC can be mind-numbingly complicated as it combines (as the name suggests) the target body system, therapeutic indication and chemical content of each drug. Not only are combination therapies occasionally problematic, but even single ingredient drugs can have more than one ATC code. For example, aspirin is classified as A01AD05 ( WHO) (stomatological preparations), B01AC06 ( WHO) (antithrombotic agents), and N02BA01 ( WHO) (analgesics). If consensus agrees to use ATC, I hope we would use at least the first (anatomical) and second (therapeutic) levels Regards— G716 < T· C> 18:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Pharmacology members may already have heard about the study, but here it is anyway: Kevin Clauson and his collegues compared Wikipedia drug information against Medscape Drug Reference:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)It has also caught the attention of mainstream media:
— fnielsen ( talk) 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Drug_Information_in_Wikipedia -- Cherubino ( talk) 20:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Some major problems with the Ambien CR page. I favour merging it with the main ambien/ zolpidem page. As much of it seems to be copied and pasted as well as a number of other serious issues I feel it is best to raise awareness here so that we can get a speedy decision of whether to merge it with zolpidem or delete it outright. I favour keeping basic info from the article but merging it into a section on ambien CR in the main zolpidem article and deleting the page and changing it to a redirect to the zolpidem page. Please see the following links. Ambien CR and Talk:Ambien CR#Merger proposal and Talk:Zolpidem#Merger proposal. Thanks.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Good job.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting article which talks very favourably about wikipedia [4].-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started including group names and navigation templates in the lead sections of the ATC level 2 pages (see e. g. ATC code A01). Any objections or alternative suggestions?
Also, the ATC code pages should have a uniform layout. The third-level groups are sometimes headers (as in ATC code A01), sometimes not (as in ATC code A02). The first layout is clearer, in my opinion; but it produces rather long TOCs. The first layout also seems to be the more common, so it would be less work changing in this direction. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. We have had a article requested with the above title at WP:AFC. I have little idea whether it should be created or not and am looking for advice. There's not much to it yet; it seems to be a loosely rewritten version of http://compbio.epm.br/kunitz/. If anyone would care to take a look and venture an opinion, it can be found at Articles for creation/Submissions/KUNITZ STI protease inhibitors. Thanks, Martin 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
P-kun80 appears to be systematically changing the IUPAC names of large numbers of drugs, with no reference given for the change (eg saquinavir diff: [5]). The edit summaries state "corrected IUPAC name" or "corrected IUPAC name (according to stereochemistry of the given image)". Could someone with chemical knowledge please take a look and see whether these make sense? I'm worried that the IUPAC name ought to be identical to whatever's given on the package insert. Thanks for your help, Espresso Addict ( talk) 08:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings to all, Reading the Microdosing page, I would be really interested to hear if anyone has any experience of using this technique and what you thought of it. Any views would be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisastockdale ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposing to do it here Need to get second/third opinion. Now we have hundreds of requests of non notable proposed drug names and chemicals or misspelled diseases. And each day dozens article removed from Wikipedia because of non notability. Look at articles for deletion. So what I thinking is to remove non notable chemicals from requested articles list to save time and efforts(and requests for AfD take ppl time to discuss/vote etc., not mentioning actual creation of the arrticle itself).
Please comment on talk page of requested list. Thank you. TestPilot talk to me! 12:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
User:ChemSpiderMan (aka Antony Williams) has very kindly taken on an absolutely mammoth task - he is checking every single drugbox (and chembox)for accuracy. He is MANUALLY checking every IUPAC name and structure, as well as generating an InChI and InChiKey for each one. Last I heard he'd spent over 36 hours of hard slog on this! His plan is then to link to Wikipedia from each relevant substance entry on his ChemSpider website. Obviously this is great news for us all round, but we need to get fixing the errors.
-- Somebody buy ChemSpiderMan a beer! that's awesome! Aj1976 ( talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
He has sent me a couple of PDF files listing probable errors (mostly in the IUPAC names). He is using ACD/Name to generate IUPAC names, which scored very highly in this recent study (I was amazed to see how often even ChemDraw is wrong!). I don't feel right making decisions about drugboxes when I'm not a member of this project, and I also have limited time right now, so I'd like to ask for help from people here. If anyone has time to help me work on these, email me and I will send you the PDF; I am trying to put some basic info onto Wikipedia and I will also try to post the PDFs on my college's website tomorrow. I'd like to hold an IRC meeting on the [ IRC channel wikichem channel next week to discuss some of this - obviously you guys are very welcome. Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 05:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a rough list on wiki, see User:Walkerma/Sandbox, where you can leave comments. The original PDF is available here. Some of these invite a decision by this project. I will update this page as he sends me more. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to any direct feedback or questions about the process I am taking with the curation project. I am taking a short hiatus but have progressed quite well. I have some other deadlines then will return to the project. Walkerma has the latest file and will post on his Sandbox when he gets a chance I'm sure.-- ChemSpiderMan ( talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey friends,
I recently came across the temazepam article and found it to be bloated, poorly cited, and generally messy. I did an initial overhaul, and two other users helped tweak it some, but the individual responsible for the bulk of the content was not pleased about this, reverted to the old version, and began a discussion. Another user reverted back to the trimmed-down (but still in need of work) version, but the aforementioned author reverted it back to his again.
We are in a rather civil conversation -- I'm making the argument for my modifications and further modifications from others, and he's making the argument for his work. I'd like to build a consensus, but right now there's only two people in the conversation. Should anyone with solid expertise in benzodiazepine medications be interested in contributing, I'd love to hear your input. Even if you're not a BZ expert, the article is in desperate need of style improvement. Please have a look at the discussion page first (it is starting to get a just a little wordy, but still easily readable in about 5 or 10 minutes -- and a very interesting read, I assure you), then check out the edit history for both versions. Let's see if we can't all improve it together!
Thanks, RJSampson ( talk) 06:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
GoodSon ( talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I know discussion on whether or not to include details of drugs being developed, and reporting in articles on trials currently in progress, gets obliquely discussed from time to time, and the issue came up again at WT:MED#Alzheimer.27s_disease and subsequent widening of this at WT:MED#.22Notability.22_for_experimental_medical_treatments. Please join there to discuss and see if we can come up with some guidence rules of thumb on this ( inclusion and fair weight) (formal firm policy clearly impossible as each case needs be considered on its own merits). David Ruben Talk 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We at WP:CHEMS are organising an IRC meeting on Tuesday to discuss data harvesting from our pages - and the drugboxes are a major potential source of chemical information. If you're interested in joining us, please see the details here and sign up. Thanks! Walkerma ( talk) 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month has been resurrected in 2008! The previous collaboration, Receptor antagonist, is now a current Good article nominee, and the new collaboration is Melatonin. Theobromine continues to be a nominee (I've extended its deadline); any user is welcome to nominate other pharmacology articles for Collaboration of the Month! Dr. Cash ( talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Fuzzform has let me know that
DrugBank now includes links to Wikipedia articles on all its entries. The database has had a major overhaul (version 2.0, see
PMID
18048412), and entries now contain quite a bit more information; search capabilities are also sexier more advanced. This should provide an extra push for our improvement efforts.
Fvasconcellos (
t·
c) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your cannabis article makes plenty of sense, assuming that the reader's perspective is dominated by the American taboo of the drug. I found it nearly useless for objective research.
While searching for the pharmacological properties of cannabis administration, the most relevant article I could locate was titled "Health issues and effects of cannabis." It introduced itself by summarizing the position of cannabis in American political debate and cited research relevant to the American political controversy (yes, I am aware that other nations hold similar taboos).
For the scope of the entire project, I propose that it maintain a strong separation of pharmacology (research resource) and political debate (cultural curiosity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.109.183 ( talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is not easy to write an article on a subject that many people have cherished opinions about. How about being BOLD and trying to improve things yourself. If the concern is about pharmacology, you can always request our assistance with specific problems. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Treatment of multiple sclerosis on the Main Page today. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Howdy from the Wine Project! I was wonder if some folks from the Pharmacology project would be willing to lend an expert eye to the Resveratrol article. While it is an important wine-related topic, it is a bit too technical for me to evaluate whether the recent furry of changes in the last few weeks should be cause for concern or not. It seems that a few editors (whose contribution history seems to be mostly confined to this one article) are sparing over competing agendas. I noticed that the Pharmacology Project has also posted their banner on the Resveratrol talk page, so I figured this was as good to seek an expert view or help in sorting things out. :) Agne Cheese/ Wine 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I wonder if anyone could have a look at my list of missing topics related to drugs and pharmacology. Thank you. - Skysmith ( talk) 12:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Carlo Banez ( talk · contribs) whilst making some very useful edits, also transfered large parts of product labels wholesale and directly into many drug articles. This is probably a copyvio (data on FDA site might be freely copiable, but at very least would have need acknowledgement of source) and more certainly as per WP:MEDMOS WP:NOT a collection of technical sheets nor generaly giving specific dosage instructions. Finally inserting "Contraindication" section in all articles which mere duplicates the standard to "known hypersensitivity" is not helpful etc.
I've reverted those edits which were direct copy&pastes (about half of all the edits, as I said many edits most helpful) from today and yesterday, but there are a further 200 odd edits which need checking through. Could others help out on this please :-) David Ruben Talk 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
With no clear consensus (IMHO) in past discussions to use Adrenaline over Epinephrine and with WP:MEDMOS giving clear guideline to stick with INN, the article recently got moved. I have reverted back, to what IMHO the WP:MED & WP:PHARM projects would generally consider as a useful approach set out in our WP:MEDMOS guidelines. As previously, Google results being cited, but if this is to be the case, then paracetamol would be Tylenol and penicillin would be whatever is the No 1 US brand (Google reflecting the US-predominant internet) and we would have no use of any generic names, let alone INN terms.
Anyway could WP:PHARM members comment at Talk:Epinephrine David Ruben Talk 12:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Contained in the drug box it states bioavailability. Surely it would be more accurate to rename it to oral bioavailability, as that is what it is usually implying. I understand that this is mainly because the bioavailability of a drug given by I.V. is 100%, but what if the drug is given transdermally, rectally, by the eye etc. Alternate routes of administration are chosen largely because they offer different levels of bioavailability. Surely it would worth putting it in a drug box and if a drug isn't delivered by some of the routes the user could delete the different types of bioavilability as needed? Medos Talk 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at haloperidol and talk:haloperidol? There is an editor (using a variety of IP addresses) that has been consistently adding what appears to be non-NPOV material to the article and its talk page. He's been reverted by a number of people, and I have removed some content from the talk page that I thought was not consistent with Wikipedia's talk page policies - WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. He has been pushing hard and his attitude borders on incivility. I'm certainly open to being wrong, but it really seems inappropriate to me. So I would like others to give a second or third opinion. I don't want to get into a revert war or violate WP:3RR, so if others agree, can you please help out? Thanks. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to ask you to take a look on the opioid article. There seems to be a problem (for me, at last) in whether semisynthetic derivatives (like hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxycodone, diamorphine, etorphine, buprenorphine etc.) can be classified as opiates, which are, in my opinion, only native opium alkaloids (morphine, codeine, thebaine, oripavine); I learned in my lectures, that opiates are only those opioids which can be isolated directly from opium, while other opioids are...semisynthetic or synthetic opioids, can't be called opiates. I know it's perhaps just a pitty wordplay, but I think, and would appreciate, if a consensus about these naming, or a kind of "convention" within WP could be achieved. Thank you in advance.-- Spiperon ( talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that there is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Drug_names_in_non-main_articles in regards to drug names that may be of interest to the wikiproject. WLU ( talk) 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
On warfarin, an editor is demanding a citation for interactions between alcohol and warfarin. Every "yellow booklet" mentions that excessive alcohol intake interferes with the INR, yet this editor has insisted (referring to uncited evidence) that problems only occur if someone with a previously high alcohol intake suddenly cuts down. I have asked the editor to provide sources himself rather than ramming {{ fact}} on the page, but I was wondering if anyone else had some good sources for this. JFW | T@lk 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to revitalize the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month program, Melatonin will be the current collaboration until the end of February (another week or so). The article is looking good so far, but there's still a few areas that need to be tightened up (a {{ cleanup}} tag in the antioxidant section and a {{ POV-Section}} tag in the safety of supplementation section. I think with a bit more editing, the article can be at least brought up to Good article standards, possible featured.
I'll select a new collaboration in March ( nominate here; so far, Theobromine is in the lead). Dr. Cash ( talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What do project members feel about current version of Levocetirizine with its "Names per country" section taking up almost as much space as the details on the drug itself ?
On basis of WP:NOT (this is not a directory listings) and WP:MEDMOS#Drugs noting for the leader that only "The initial brand name and manufacturer follows..." with nowhere in the suggested-article sections-list making room to try and systematically list out every brand in every country - which is the role of an international pharmacopoeia, and of course WP:NOT#DIRECTORY... I propose to delete the "Names per country" section entirely. Before being WP:BOLD I note this would step on the toes of several editors who have worked to add such information, so any prior views from the project (not that we are a Cabal). David Ruben Talk 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there would be a consensus to change "The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses." to ""The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses. Unless notable and widely used other brand names should not be mentioned." In many drug articles the lists of brand names are huge and ugly, and sometimes are even larger than the rest of the article. Paul Gene (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That'll lead to possibly ugly fights over what a notable or widely used brand name is, but it at least provides more guidance than the extant version. I'd say there's merit to that. WLU (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW: there should be a comma after "widely used".) Seem like instruction creep. Sometimes there's more than one "initial brand" (among English-speaking countries) but additional brands of generic versions are, in general, not notable. On the few occasions when the current restriction is unsatisfactory, WP:IAR applies. Colin°Talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Makes sense, since people do not generally read instructions. But what is the purpose of this particular discussion, then? And referring to the instructions creep is the instructions creep in itself. instruction creep is not even a guideline but an obscure assay. Paul Gene (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Paul, I wasn't citing WP:CREEP as a formal guideline, but I do think it is a good one. I agree with the principle of your suggested addition, but want to consider carefully whether it is strictly necessary. The more you write, the more people will disagree with and the less they will actually read or take notice of. If you still think the addition is a good one, then I've not got any formal reason to object. Colin°Talk 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Paul Gene ( talk) 10:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The variants on Levocetirizine arise as the manufacturer attempts to achieve a similar pronunciation but following language-specific spelling rules. English Wikipedia does not generally concern itself with non-English words so why should foreign-language brand names appear at all? The list/section is no longer required if restricted to English-language countries and non-generic brands. Stick Xyzal in the lead per MEDMOS and forget the others. Colin° Talk 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just added merge tags to multiple products used for aphthous ulcers which have Benzocaine as their sole active ingredient. Unless good reasons can be agreed for any single product being notable in its own right, then under WP:MEDMOS#Drugs I think they should redirect to the main benzocaine article. Discussion at Talk:Benzocaine#Mergers. David Ruben Talk 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this product really a pharmaceutical? Does it belong in this project at all?
The article also reads like an advertisement and contains no references to 3rd party sources. I feel that it should be either (a) deleted or (b) rewritten to wiki content standards, avoiding opinion (e.g. it is said to be "palatable" - to whom?) -- TraceyR ( talk) 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the Pharmacology template and added the Wikiproject Food & Drink template. "Nutritional supplements" are not "Pharmaceuticals", and not even regulated as drugs, either. Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with {{ drugbox}}. In drugboxes in which the width of images is specified, the image is incorrectly displayed. I think this is a result of changes made elsewhere - discussion is at Wikipedia talk:ClickFix. Can anyone figure out how to fix it? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
See, for example, this history of Propofol. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have already investigated the "empty width parameter" issue with the {{ drugbox}} template and responded how to fix that at Template talk:Px. And no, this isn't the fault of {{ px}}, but David Ruben asked about it there. But I can't fix it for you since that template is locked.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
For some time, there has been debate over which term to use when naming sections of articles. Notably, there are minor edit conflicts occurring on the diphenhydramine and dimenhydrinate articles. I've added some comments to the talk page of the latter, but I realized that this is wider issue that needs to be addressed.
Personally, I don't see the two terms as interchangeable. One can abuse a drug without using it recreationally, and (conversely/controversially) one can also use a drug recreationally without abusing it (though not often is the latter possible). One can also simultaneously be abusing a drug and using it recreationally. There is an overlap between the two terms, but they're not synonymous.
The issue is essentially about POV. Typically, those in favor of using the term "abuse" see (illicit) drug use as a moral failure, whereas those who prefer "recreational use" either use illicit drugs themselves, or see drug use/dependence as an illness. I tend to prefer the latter term, since I see drug dependence as a biological/medical issue, rather than a moral issue.
There is also the related term "misuse", which is less severe than abuse. E.g., someone takes 2g of APAP rather than 500-1000mg - something they're doing out of ignorance (perhaps thinking that it will be more effective), rather than deliberate abuse or a desire for recreational effects. APAP of course has no recreational value. Which leads me to my next point...
Some drugs have no accepted medical use, and are used exclusively for recreational purposes (e.g. LSD). Does this mean that all use of such drugs qualifies as abuse? If this is the case, it means that "abuse" is a relative term which is based on whatever legal system one is living under. For example, in the UK heroin is used in hospitals, whereas in the US it is completely illegal. So, suppose an American is visiting the UK, gets injured, goes to a British hospital, and receives heroin as an analgesic. Does this mean that they are abusing heroin? According to the US government (or any other government), all illicit drug use is necessarily abuse. What it comes down to, in this particular case, is the use of semantically loaded language. How do you discourage drug use? Call it "drug abuse" instead. Leading to my next point...
When doctors want to know if their patient is using drugs, what does he/she ask? Surely not "Are you a drug abuser?". They ask "Do you use drugs recreationally?". Why do you suppose they do this (rhetorical question)? So they don't insult the patient, which might cause him/her to avoid visiting the doctor. The point here is that "drug abuse" is inherently insulting language for anyone that uses drugs to achieve euphoria (i.e., uses them recreationally). Let me end this string of comments with a few open-ended questions.
What is the relationship between drugs and dysphoria/euphoria? Why is reduction of dysphoria seen as good, whereas induction of euphoria is seen as bad (i.e. a side effect)? Are the two mutually exclusive?
Finally... What should the naming standard for drug articles be? Abuse? Misuse? Recreational use? All three? Separate sections for each? I'd appreciate any and all input in this matter.
Fuzzform ( talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think an admin needs to look at this talk page. It seems to have died down now but there has been some serious POV pushing going on. Massive junks of chlordiazepoxide and clonazepam were being deleted with little valid justification. Anyway just to let you know. Medos ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on Nootropics (aka "smart drugs", "smart nutrients", "cognitive enhancers", or "brain enhancers") needs some very serious attention. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 11:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute brewing on this featured article that could do with some editors with the kind of knowledge you guys have! -- Slp1 ( talk) 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As you know, over at WP:CHEMS we have been trying to get the core data from Chemboxes and Drugboxes organised and validated. You can see the list that includes the articles with drugboxes (and chemboxes) here. CAS agreed last month to collaborate with us, and in the coming weeks they will be validating our complete set of CAS numbers for us (they currently have a test dataset of 150 articles). We are currently discussing how we will organise the data, and ensure that the validated data doesn't get corrupted. If you're interested in being part of that discussion (probably on IRC), please let me know, because it will obviously affect CAS numbers in drugboxes too. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Many medicine articles have problems with the talk pages being used for soap boxing. Most of the anti-depressants, (either individually, eg venlafaxine) or as a family (eg ssri) will have talk pages that are made difficult to use for improving the article. Does this project have a nice, friendly, template that says "this is to discuss way to improve the article, not to discuss the subject of the article, and off topic discussions will be removed"? It might be nice to have a standard template. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Could I request some expert opinion on this reopened AfD? A substub on this drug combination was created and listed at AfD. I have moved the article to Paracetamol/metoclopramide hydrochloride per the naming convention in your style sheet, expanded it and added a reference in an attempt to save it, but it is currently heading for deletion. It seems to me that there is no reason why a combination drug should not have an entry, and also that the combination differs from the separate actions of the drugs because metoclopramide is suggested to affect paracetamol's absorption. However, I know nothing of this therapeutic area and so might be missing something. Thanks for your expert opinions, Espresso Addict ( talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I switched flunixin meglumine to the combination drugbox since there are two components. But now I'm rethinking it because meglumine is not an active ingredient (I think). So I'd like to ask here it is fine the way it is now, or if the article should be moved to the title flunixin and changed to a normal drugbox. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why the drugboxes in Quinupristin/dalfopristin and Imipenem/cilastatin will only display one of the images? Did I do something wrong? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles that you may be interested in, Janet Wolfe, and Wolfe Laboratories have been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe Laboratories. Thank you. Paulbrock ( talk) 01:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to announce the formation of WikiProject Drug Policy. This WikiProject will seek to organize the existing article set better and coordinate efforts to bring drug policy-related articles to featured status. All are welcome to join. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents ( talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hemostatic agent was originally created to focus on topical antihemorrhagic products like QuikClot. It is now starting to focus on other antihemorrhagics as well. Since there is no article on antihemorrhagics, I am currently proposing that this article focus on the ATC code B02 drugs in addition to the topical products. Any input you have would be welcomed at Talk:Hemostatic agent#Focus of article. -- Scott Alter 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Aspirin is a current Good article nominee. I have reviewed it against the criteria, and made several comments regarding the article. It is currently on hold, so if editors could go over there and address the concerns, it could be hopefully promoted. Dr. Cash ( talk) 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
On the Main Page today. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is up for deletion and needs not only the WikiProject Chemicals but also the help from WikiProject Pharmacology!!-- Stone ( talk) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Aspirin has been listed for GAC, but the request is on hold because of some disagreements. With a little push this vital article could well achieve GA. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a page on small molecule to fix some articles which give the impression that every ligand is a protein and end up getting confused in the middle. three points:
Cheers -- Squidonius ( talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Resistance to an antibiotic changes rapidly, and differs from region to region (even among hospitals within a region). Because of this, different regions (and even individual hospitals) publish antibiotic guides for their particular population. Activity sections don't seem to do this problematic fact justice. Cipro, for example, hasn't been recommended as a treatment for N gonorrhea since 2007 in the US (even as early as 2005 for MSM), but we still state that Cipro is active against N gonorrhea. Depending on where you are, this is either generally true, occasionally true, or generally false. Should we go full-throttle and try to be the Sanford guide, keeping up to date with our bug-drug activity? Should we shy away from making species-specific pronouncements? Do something in between? Antelan talk 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
On varenicline, 72.82.227.16 ( talk · contribs) (probably Akele67 ( talk · contribs) logged out) wants to use iGuard as a source for its side effect profile. This seems to be user-generated data that is not "peer reviewed" (despite claims in an edit summary that it is). Does anyone have experience with this system, and how reliable would it be as a source? JFW | T@lk 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't like being lectured, Yohimbine ("come on folks"). Rather than downplaying registries, could you address our methodological concerns with regards to iGuard? Specifically, could you provide us with a good source that assuages our fears that the entire resource is simply user-generated content? JFW | T@lk 06:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This whole side-effect thing needs a careful think. Even in well-designed trials, most side-effects are non-specific and poorly understood. I think we need to focus on the common side-effects that are at least partially understood and might influence clinical decision-making (e.g. not giving cefalosporins to people who have previously had anaphylactic reactions to penicillin). Just long lists of "when I took this drug I felt lousy" are not likely to be encyclopedic, or factually correct for that matter. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Colin, I wasn't for a moment suggesting that we should cast this in stone. Rather, I thought it might be better to generally avoid listing enormous laundry lists of side-effects, and my tests serve only to whittle down those lists. Judgement is required, not rules. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot in the chemicals in bananas section appears to be incorrect. I'd appreciate some comments. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Great news! Sertraline has been featured on the main page as Today's Featured Article! It's also interesting to note that, with Sertraline being featured, at least half of the articles from this wikiproject that have been featured on the main page, have been featured in the last six months! That should say a lot regarding the recent progress of the Pharmacology project! Congrats to all! Dr. Cash ( talk) 13:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see this proposal for an initial two subtypes that I've proposed, with the likelihood of more to follow. I'd especially like to hear some input from this project as to what other such would be desirable... Alai ( talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I find one of these anywhere? It's a pain having to think of drugs, check if they've already got articles etc. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Warfarin is now the current Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week/Month/Fortnight! Let's try and improve the article up to GA or FA status. There are also two new nominations for the next collaboration: Barbiturate and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor. Go to WP:RxCOTW and support these nominations (or nominate a new article). Dr. Cash ( talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A "Reproductive medicine" task force has been proposed. It would be hosted by WikiProject Medicine, but would also have as parent projects WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and WikiProject Pharmacology. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. Lyrl Talk C 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The editor who created article 7-acetoxymitragynine has stated that said 'alkaloid' can be synthesized from 7-Hydroxymitragynine ?! I have limited knowledge in this field although ScienceDirect has nothing regarding this. Editor states it is a semi-synthetic alkaloid?! Thanks, Nk.sheridan Talk 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Two articles which someone last month proposed merging. I have no expertise. If I read that a substance has a hypnotic effect vs. sedative effect, I feel that these are not the same. Authoritative clarifying would be good, as these are important introductory articles, IMO. Thank you. -- Hordaland ( talk) 19:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that if there is no consensus to merge those two pages that there should then be a seperate page created for an article called "Sedative-hypnotics", which includes barbiturates, benzodiazepines and alcohol. Sedative-hypnotic drug classification was created by the W.H.O. to replace the previous confusing classifications of minor tranquillisers and sleeping pills, because doctors got mixed up thinking sleeping pills were completely different from minor tranquillisers. It is a drug classification for drugs which have both sedative (tranquillising) as well as hypnotic (sleep inducing) properties. Most drugs classed as sedative hypnotics work via a GABAergic mechanism of action.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 691 of the articles assigned to this project, or 19.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Barbiturate has been selected as the next Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month for July. Please help work towards helping the article meet the good or featured article criteria. Also, please go to WP:RxCOTM to nominate or vote for the August collaboration of the month! Dr. Cash ( talk) 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just spent a few hours trying to improve the barbiturate page. I can't get it up to a good article or featured article alone but at least it is now referenced, a bit more tidy and the flags/tags can be removed or are removed. If anyone wants to work on it a bit more then let me know.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the psychoactive drug article is rated top importance to this project, I want to call attention to a dispute that is ongoing there and solicit input from the community. The dispute centers around a chart (Venn diagram) created by User:Thoric, which is a graphical representation of the subjective and behavioral effects of various psychoactive substances. This classification is very interesting and seemingly quite popular amongst wikipedia users, but some editors object to it as original research while others object to the classification itself. If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do. Steve Carlson Talk 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, since some time we ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals) have been working on verifying data on chemical compounds (which are to a large exstend stored in {{ chembox new}} and {{ drugbox}} and some other infoboxes). Data includes e.g. CAS-numbers, etc., and some chemical data.
Lately I have been writing a 'bot' on IRC ( User:CheMoBot) which is capable of following changes to data in these infoboxes, and to report them on-IRC. I have now asked for permission for the bot to edit in project space, in order to set up a copy of the infobox data, which is then to be verified properly. This data is then used by the bot to compare changes in mainspace articles with (or even, repair or update etc.).
As this project is the keeper of {{ drugbox}}, I would like to hear some input from this group as well. The bot request for approval is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CheMoBot. On IRC (if there are members here who are active on IRC) the bot resides in #wikichem (the chemistry wikipedia channel). Hope to hear more. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This comment was left at WT:CHEM, but may be more relevant here:
-- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made a few updates and enhancements to the pharmacy and pharmacology portal, rearranging a few things and highlighting some of the activities of this project. If anyone has any suggestions for the portal, please leave them here. Dr. Cash ( talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Slashdot has an interesting article right now on two new wikipedia-like sites that are offering up medically-related content. One is Google's Knol, which allows verified experts the opportunity to publish independent articles on a variety of topics. It's not exactly limited to medical topics, though they do have a reasonably good amount of them currently. It's not exactly as collaborative as Wikipedia, however, as one expert writes an article on their own, and this is published, but others can't edit it -- they have to write their own article. But a lot of the content looks reasonably good, with high quality text, and reliable. So I suppose that these articles could be used as sources or links from wikipedia articles.
The other site is Medipedia. Medipedia is an online medical encyclopedia sponsored by Harvard, Stanford, UCB, and Michigan, using the same wikimedia software that wikipedia uses, and edited by registered experts and not anonymously. The site is not really live yet, and states that it will launch by the end of the year. But they are looking for contributors; to contribute, you must have a M.D. or Ph.D. in a medically-related field. Dr. Cash ( talk) 02:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
After the aprotinin debâcle, it was to be predicted that someone would start a class action. MonheitLaw ( talk · contribs) added information on an ongoing class action suit. I have removed this for COI reasons, but I am wondering what kind of test of notability we could apply for drug litigation? Surely, not every drug article needs content on where the ongoing class actions are running! JFW | T@lk 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The above article was recently split out from Antibiotic by Epastore ( talk · contribs) (a good move if you ask me). Would anyone object to its being moved to List of antibiotics? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There some press coverage here and here (and probably elsewhere, too) on a new drug called Rember, for treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. It targets the Tau protein in neurons and initial trials indicate that it halts progression of the disease in some cases. More research is planned. The main chemical in Rember (apparently, not the only one) is Methylene blue, used as a blue dye in laboratory experiments, and available by prescription since the 1930s for chronic bladder infections. It appears, though, that a different form of the drug is used in the Alzheimer's study. Dr. Cash ( talk) 14:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Contaminated currency, an article about how US dollars, British pounds sterling and euros all contain heavy drug contamination. If you folk feel it belongs, let me know (or add us up). - Hexhand ( talk) 15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't deal with the pharmacology of a drug but then again it is about a drug. It doesn't come under substance use disorders. I am stumped as to whether it should be categorised in pharmacology project or not. What about this category? -- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Collaboration of the Month for August ought to be popular with editors . . . Viagra! :-) As much traffic as it gets, the article ought to be AT LEAST GA status; hopefully FA. Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been in the "History and development" section of the propranolol article since January. How did no one (myself included) pick up on this? Now would be a good time to check if key articles like this one are on our Watchlists. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm creating a few new pharmacology stubs ( Semagacestat, Lurasidone, more to come if I find the time). Should I add a WP Pharmacology template on the talk pages or just a stub template on the article pages? Cheers -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 11:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on the curation of the chemical structure collection on Wikipedia for a number of months now (likely most of you are aware of the effort but if not see here Wikipedia curation. I am now working through another 500 entries for the database and in the process of doing so am cross-validating the structures on Wikipedia with those that will find their way into the SDF file.
There has been a discussion about integrating to ChemSpider via outlinks (similar to PubChem, Drugbank and eMolecules) and it has garnered support from WP:CHEMS Outlink Discussion. ChemSpider is different from other outlinks since it offers access to detailed reaction analysis, to analytical data and forms an integrated hub to over 150 data sources. In the process of reviewing the data it is easy for me to add a ChemSpider link. This is already going on for ChemBoxes and I could do the same for DrugBoxes while curating. I would prefer to do this with the support of WP:PHARM if possible.-- ChemSpiderMan ( talk) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was also interested in adding some Chemspider IDs. There are several predicted properties that are pharmacologically relevant, such as number of rule-of-five violations, polar surface area, logP/logD, etc. I think adding this to the infobox would give users access to more information. Any thoughts? Casforty ( talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Granted, but that will be be a problem with any predicted property of a molecule, we won't know how accurate the prediction is unless we do the actual experiment. So if one posts a predicted property (be it logP, IR spectra, etc.), I think the main problem would be that some people who are not familar with prediction would assume that the answer is 'right' without knowing the caveats of property prediction. Should this preclude us from making predicted properties available? For the most part I think people would take any of the predicted properties with a grain of salt, and not interpret them as absolute fact. 198.180.131.16 ( talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Noted, I will refrain from adding any more until a consensus is reached Casforty ( talk) 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should be side tracked by the predicted properties issue. I think the effect of linking to ChemSpider would be to marry a well curated database (ChemSpider) with monographs (WP). To elaborate, the database contain various intrinsic properties (MW, isotopic composition, structure, stereo), experimentally-determined properties (bp/mp/appearance), experimentally-determined spectra (1H/13C NMR, IR, etc., e.g. [1]), apart from predicted data. Monographs: our articles discussing the synth, applications, chemistry, etc. of various compounds, drug-, drug-like, or otherwise. Seems like everything to gain and not much to lose, except for another entry in the drugbox and perhaps concerns of table creep. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Done Thanks everyone - that seems clarification that people would find this helpful and, in particular, thanks for addressing ChemSpiderMan own reservation. I've added to {{
drugbox}}, eg see
Verapamil.
David Ruben
Talk 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Apricitabine is up for deletion. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll re-poke this discussion (there are older threads around, and similar threads above). The BRFA (bot request) found the solution using revids of pages for the 'storage' of verified data in infoboxes the best method for User:CheMoBot. For that we now have 2 index pages, one for the {{ chembox new}}, and one for {{ drugbox}}:
Both contain a few sample entries, but now the big task is coming: verifying the pages and getting them into the indices. What needs to be done for that:
The bot now only compares the data/change of data with the box in the older revid of the page, and logs these changes. It is not a huge problem if there are some wrong values in there, but the majority should be right. If a page gives too many problems, ignore it and move on. The bot 'ignores' pages which have not a verified revid in the index, as well as fields which don't have a value in the infobox in the 'verified' revid.
The indexes can be edited by anyone, and if a newer version of a page contains more verified data, then the index should be updated (it also means we need to keep an eye on it, as 'vandalism' on these pages will also have effects on the working of the bot ..
I really would like to get some help here, getting verified revids of the pages would improve the reliability of the encyclopedia, and when there is enough verified data (and we are confident that there are not too many mistakes), we may even consider using the bot to protect the verified data! Poke me (here, on my talkpage, or on IRC) when you have questions. Thanks! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
User:John Moss recently tagged Eucalyptus oil with both WPMED and WPPHARM banners, on the grounds that the extract is mentioned somewhere or another in BP and is present (as an inactive ingredient) in cough drops. European Pharmacopeia identifies it as an ingredient in a homeopathic preparation. [2] I've removed the WPMED banner (and added the AltMed banner), but wanted to let you make your own choices. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)
This leading Serbian pharmaceutical company article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemofarm Group. Other input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This leading Serbian pharmaceutical company article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galenika (company). Other input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm helping User:Crohnie, who has already uploaded some great clinical photos, to upload some pictures of drugs. We're working on some photos of fentanyl patches and lollipops, for which no photos seem to exist yet on Wikipedia/Commons.
Once this is done, the question will arise: will it be useful to take images of other, perhaps more every-day drugs, e.g. Pentasa (or anything else that just looks like a little white pill)? Note that it is quite troublesome for this user to create these images, and I appreciate the work that's being put into it. So is it really worth all the trouble for some of the more simple pills?
I'm curious to here the position of some of the editors here. More importantly: are images of drugs something that some of you are putting energy in yourselves? Do you have a dedicate pharmacist here who would be willing to create a drug image catalogue?
Let me know what you think about this effort.
cheers from the doctor's mess, -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
←Perhaps it's best to do this as a case-by-case basis, then? If a particularly interesting medication could use a picture, then we can try and provide one. I don't see much advantage in every medication having it's picture here. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Just the pills for the minute to replace a low quality picture on the Mirtazapine page. I'll get a packaging and possibly packet shot too when I get my next batch. Can also do the same for 20mg Fluoxetine if required. Lanfear's Bane | t 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I request that these monoclonal antibody pages which should be created (which there either in INN lists or USAN decisions, if sufficient Google hits).
After you create these monoclonal antibody pages, put the name on the check list after they're verified. Thanks, -- 210.50.14.165 ( talk) 10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check if the given CAS number is OK? According to this, the CAS number is the one of heparin sodium salt. -- Leyo 17:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Can some one please add a drugbox to Parafon Forte. ALSO, IT NEEDS MAJOR CLEANUP!!! Cssiitcic ( talk) 20:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, do we have any endocrinologists around here that could have a look at this page? Someone has added a long and detailed section describing the nasty side effects of androgen antagonists, which is factually accurate but serves to make the page rather unbalanced as there is little corresponding description of the positive effects or reasons why bicalutamide would be prescribed (e.g. treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia or prostate cancer). This is not really my area of expertise but perhaps someone round here could try make this article a bit more balanced? Meodipt ( talk) 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
We need to look at finasteride at the same time. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
First, let me thank you all for the work you have been doing on the pharmacology articles on wikipedia. Routinely I am reading well written and documented pharm articles, and I very impressed with them.
Recently, I started the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force, and have been working to create a better organization to the articles. After extended discussions on the Wikiproject Medicine page, a proposed categorization scheme was developed for all dermatologic articles, which included a "Cutaneous pharmacology" division.
However, after considering this "Cutaneous pharmacology" category, I am (1) realizing that the title is likely too narrow (for example, would it be appropriate to include sunscreen under this category? Is that "pharmacology"?), and (2) uncertain what the subcategories of this category should be.
Right now, there are four existing categories that I think should be merged under "Cutaneous pharmacology" (or whatever the category should be called), and they are: Category:Dermatological preparations, Category:Keratolytics, Category:Skin care, and Category:Sunscreening agents; however, I am just not sure how best to name this category and how to subdivide it.
Therefore, I am writing to ask if any of you would be willing to help create a categorization scheme for dermatology related drugs/preperations/etc? I am not asking you to actually do the tedious work of implementing and categorizing all the articles (unless you want to), I merely need help creating a good categorization scheme that somehow entails all these vastly different items (i.e. anitmicrobials to steroids (Oral vs systemic) to PUVA (Psoralen + UVA treatment) to sunscreen, etc).
Will someone be willing to help create this categorization scheme? Also, if there are any pharmacologists interested in derm, we would love for you to join our task force as well.
Regardless, thanks for your consideration! kilbad ( talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Over-the-counter drug needs a makeover. See WPMED. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Guaifenesin has been much improved, but pharmacological details are lacking. Please help to improve this article. Thanks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As promised. Not inserted into article. Mirtazapine still to come. Lanfear's Bane | t 12:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
User:CheMoBot has been approved this morning, and from now on it is saving logs 'below' Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Log (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Log/2008-11-11). I am a bit tweaking with it now. The logs are a bit long at the moment, but it is easy to hide parts by adapting the Logline template ( User:CheMoBot/Logline), I think everything with a 'level' of 0 can be hidden in the logs.
I will be busy tweaking this all in the next days, please let me know if there are things which should be different. @Admin-template-programmers, it would be nice if I could get some help with User:CheMoBot/Logline, fancy that up a bit. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears we have a university project underway—see Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: Drug discovery and development, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist:drug discovery and development, and Cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors: drug discovery and development. Anyone care to welcome these new users? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 14:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one - Cannabinoid Receptor 1 Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development - these are really quite good review articles, I guess we will now have to make similar reviews for all the major drug classes of note... Meodipt ( talk) 00:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am “responsible” for this “University Project“. I teach a course in Medicinal Chemistry and it is now the third year that I have given the students a project to write a Wikipedia Page on Medicinal Chemistry topic (Now we have narrowed it down to Wikipedia Page about the discovery and development of a certain class of drugs). The idea is to give the students some experience in publishing their work where it will be evaluated by a whole community rather than just one teacher. The students must be responsible, and set their own standard high, as their work will remain in the public domain. Another reason for this project is that most of my students are now training to be health care professionals. They must now adjust to a world where health care professionals do not monopolize knowledge anymore as patients and customers have quick and easy access to high quality information through the internet sources such as Wikipedia. Another aim of this project is therefore to let them learn about this new medium. The projects are considerable challenge for the students. They must select a suitable Medicinal Chemistry topic, locate all the most relevant references and write about the topic in English, which is a foreign language to them. This year’s projects were: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: Drug discovery and development, Cannabinoid Receptor 1 Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development, Neurokinin 1 Receptor Antagonists: Drug Discovery and Development, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist:drug discovery and development, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: Drug discovery and development, Cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors: drug discovery and development, Triptans: Drug Discovery and Development. I am very grateful for all suggestions regarding merger and changes in title. If anyone has the time it would be interesting to have your evaluation according to the criteria set fir Wikipedia: i.e. if individual pages are well written and factually accurate and verifiable. If they addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail and if they are sufficiently and correctly illustrated. I am also certainly willing to share my experience with anyone interested in starting a similar “University Project“.-- MarMas ( talk) 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this project have any guidelines as to how to appropriately categorize drugs or drug-containing categories? It seems like all drug-containing categories are thrown in Category:Drugs by type. What exactly does "type" mean? Is it the system the drugs act on (as in Category:Gastrointestinal system drugs), the medical condition they are used to treat (as in Category:Anti-diabetic drugs), the effects of the drug (as in Category:Sedatives), or is it the chemical properties of the drug (as in Category:Bisphosphonates)? Rather than having the ambiguous Category:Drugs by type, how about having separate "Drugs by" categories for each of these four types? This should make the drug categories easier to navigate. Also, should drug articles be placed in categories for each of these 4 ways of classifying drugs (or at least in sub-categories of each)? -- Scott Alter 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) OK, kilbad has proposed an overhaul of our current categorization scheme, and I think it's a great idea. I suggest we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/WP:DRUGS Classification (since the current classification tree was created before WP:DRUGS was merged into WikiProject Pharmacology) and start discussing our new scheme at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization. If no one objects, I'll move the page in two days. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 17:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
ATC can be mind-numbingly complicated as it combines (as the name suggests) the target body system, therapeutic indication and chemical content of each drug. Not only are combination therapies occasionally problematic, but even single ingredient drugs can have more than one ATC code. For example, aspirin is classified as A01AD05 ( WHO) (stomatological preparations), B01AC06 ( WHO) (antithrombotic agents), and N02BA01 ( WHO) (analgesics). If consensus agrees to use ATC, I hope we would use at least the first (anatomical) and second (therapeutic) levels Regards— G716 < T· C> 18:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Pharmacology members may already have heard about the study, but here it is anyway: Kevin Clauson and his collegues compared Wikipedia drug information against Medscape Drug Reference:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)It has also caught the attention of mainstream media:
— fnielsen ( talk) 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Drug_Information_in_Wikipedia -- Cherubino ( talk) 20:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Some major problems with the Ambien CR page. I favour merging it with the main ambien/ zolpidem page. As much of it seems to be copied and pasted as well as a number of other serious issues I feel it is best to raise awareness here so that we can get a speedy decision of whether to merge it with zolpidem or delete it outright. I favour keeping basic info from the article but merging it into a section on ambien CR in the main zolpidem article and deleting the page and changing it to a redirect to the zolpidem page. Please see the following links. Ambien CR and Talk:Ambien CR#Merger proposal and Talk:Zolpidem#Merger proposal. Thanks.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Good job.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting article which talks very favourably about wikipedia [4].-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started including group names and navigation templates in the lead sections of the ATC level 2 pages (see e. g. ATC code A01). Any objections or alternative suggestions?
Also, the ATC code pages should have a uniform layout. The third-level groups are sometimes headers (as in ATC code A01), sometimes not (as in ATC code A02). The first layout is clearer, in my opinion; but it produces rather long TOCs. The first layout also seems to be the more common, so it would be less work changing in this direction. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. We have had a article requested with the above title at WP:AFC. I have little idea whether it should be created or not and am looking for advice. There's not much to it yet; it seems to be a loosely rewritten version of http://compbio.epm.br/kunitz/. If anyone would care to take a look and venture an opinion, it can be found at Articles for creation/Submissions/KUNITZ STI protease inhibitors. Thanks, Martin 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
P-kun80 appears to be systematically changing the IUPAC names of large numbers of drugs, with no reference given for the change (eg saquinavir diff: [5]). The edit summaries state "corrected IUPAC name" or "corrected IUPAC name (according to stereochemistry of the given image)". Could someone with chemical knowledge please take a look and see whether these make sense? I'm worried that the IUPAC name ought to be identical to whatever's given on the package insert. Thanks for your help, Espresso Addict ( talk) 08:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings to all, Reading the Microdosing page, I would be really interested to hear if anyone has any experience of using this technique and what you thought of it. Any views would be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisastockdale ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposing to do it here Need to get second/third opinion. Now we have hundreds of requests of non notable proposed drug names and chemicals or misspelled diseases. And each day dozens article removed from Wikipedia because of non notability. Look at articles for deletion. So what I thinking is to remove non notable chemicals from requested articles list to save time and efforts(and requests for AfD take ppl time to discuss/vote etc., not mentioning actual creation of the arrticle itself).
Please comment on talk page of requested list. Thank you. TestPilot talk to me! 12:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)