Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mediation re Template styling

There has been discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates as to the inclusion or not of ATC codes for each drug - consensus seems to have been not, but Ok on template's title line. Also opportunity taken to discuss overall format - with comma or · pip · separated seeming to have advantages. I'm happy to work through the templates applying a consistant look, but thought I should just make sure everyone here hasd been aware of that discussion, or given opportunity to make any further suggestions. David Ruben ^Talk 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A consensus emerged and no new postings in the last week, so I've implemented across the templates. Some had just a couple of classes per template but with many drugs listed (seemed best highlighting the class-names in their own columns), whilst other templates had multiple classes each with a few drugs (more free flowing style with several classes per line seemed best).

Finally all the drug navigation templates are under a general 'Category:Science navigational boxes', I think these should be moved to a subcategory of 'Drugs navigation boxes'. I know that not all are drugs (eg BirthControl template) but neither are all used for clinical therapy (eg many of psychoactive agents), so Pharmacology, Medicines & Therapeutics all would be problematic - and hey, this is the WikiProject Drugs so its navigation templates should be 'Drug navigation boxes' :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing drug articles

Hello!

I would appreciate some of the participant of this projects to take a look at this: it's a part of the newly proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) on drug articles.

thx, --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 08:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a nice start there, but I want to change to a shorter list of section names. See my talk page. Talk --Chrispounds 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Methamphetamine

This article is notably missing the duration of the drug's effects.72.81.21.248 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeking help regarding copyright of product label

One editor has claimed on Talk:Mifepristone that the Mifeprex product label found on the FDA site(PDF) is not copyrighted. I asked for further information and didn't get any, so I am coming here to see if anyone knows about the copyright status of these labels. It would make sense that if it was a government job, then the work would be in the public domain like most US government work. However, if Danco labs is the creator of the label, the copyright might be a stickier issue. Text from the label was "plagarized" into the article, and I changed the text to be cited quotations. Anyway, any information will help.--Andrew c 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Preferred stub category/template

Is there a "preferred" stub template to be used on drug articles? I am actually specifically referring to Template:Pharma-stub versus Template:Treatment-stub; there appears to be a mess of cross-usage of these two, which results in many drug stubs not falling into the Pharmacology stubs category. I'd personally rather use pharma-stub, but that's just me. Maybe both should be used? Anyway, if there's a consensus, I'd sure like to know :) Fvasconcellos 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Pharma-stub for drugs, but don't also use treatement-tub as all pharmcology is a treatement. is it not ? (treatment also includes sub-category of surgical and psychology interventions). David Ruben ^Talk 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think it should be only pharmastub. Why isn't there a drug-stub?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I'll start switching treatment-stub on drug stubs to pharma-stub... As usual, if anyone has any objection to this, please don't hesitate and bend my ear... Fvasconcellos 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No seriously, why isn't there a drug-stub? This project should propose one.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pharma-stub is now not exclusively for drug articles but also lists people, technical terms, although the medications dominate the category. I think drug-stub could be a real addition, although, as suggested to me by Fvasconcellos: "if created, it should probably be medication-stub; drug carries the negative meaning of recreational drug for most people.".--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

shortcut WP:DRUGS

Is it ok if I do this? If you like the shortcut, copy-paste it onto the project page.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup required

Maybe after that recent discussion about NavBoxes, it's time to clean up Category:Drug navigational boxes ? {{Imidazopyridine}} is a bit silly no? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Package insert

I think that we should include a link in a uniform place on each drug page to the package insert for any FDA approved drug. The insert contains lots of information that FDA thinks is necessary to know for the safe and effective use of a drug and would be valuable for our readers. Part of me thought that this might work well in the drug template. What do you think? Remember 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The FDA seem to use the term Label Information to describe an approved document that contains professional Prescribing Information and the Consumer Information (at the end). This document is often available from both the manufacturer and the FDA. For example: Keppra from UCB. I think the FDA source is a more consistent one to use but their document URLs are so specific that I suspect they are for a particular revision (which may become out-of-date). Better to link to the Drug Overview page from Drugs@FDA. For example: Keppra. This site contains many FDA approved drugs, but only label and consumer info for recent drugs. It is also difficult to get a single URL for older drugs such as Phenytoin.

For the European Union, the equivalent site is the European Medicines Agency (EMEA). They have a site that is needlessly complicated by the use of Java and I didn't have much success using Firefox. However, if you can find the drug, then their Product Overview page is very good. Here's one for Keppra. (The EN column denotes English Language documents). Again, this site is only much good for recent drugs.

In summary, I'd support a link to the Overview page on both FDA and EMEA sites where appropriate pages can be found. Perhaps these can be added as new parameters on Template Drugbox? Colin°^Talk 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The FDA link doesn't seem to work reliably and sometimes redirects to the search page. Unless this is fixable, then that is a pain. An alternative is the FDA Consumer Info page. This is available for a selection of drugs that have Patient Information Sheets, but does have a link to the full Label Information document. It is not as comprehensive as the Drugs@FDA page. Colin°^Talk 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it by doing a search one level up. Here is Keppra or Levetiracetam from the FDA.

Wow, I just checked out how your additions to the template works. That is great. I'll try to add this to other drug pages as I think this is great information for people to have access to easily. I also encourage others to help out.Remember 13:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am just referencing the Product insert that I use. See galantamine for example. It is nice to have the link to the reference, but as long as it is published with a date, that can be a reference. Most marketed products have websites. Others can be found at the FDA or on rxlist. We should have someone comment on the copyright. I think verbatims would be wrong (although the drug companies might like having their text in Wikipedia...). I am also working on a new template for drug section headings. See my talk page. --Chrispounds 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine

Any chance someone (expert-ish) could give Benzodiazepine a going over? It has just undergone some serious editing by an anon, much of which appears unsourced. Colin°^Talk 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Phenobarbital

I've expanded Phenobarbital, a key drug that was just a stub article, in the areas that I'm able to handle. I'd really appreciate an expert come in to take over the rest, following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Main sections of drug page and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)#Sections - medications. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I am no expert, I have added to the "Overdose" and "Pharmacology" sections, and done some minor copy editing. Hope my edits can be helpful.Fvasconcellos 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, your edits have been very helpful and appreciated. There are more sections to do. Can I urge others to contribute too. This is one of the most important drugs worldwide – it shames Wikipedia to see it incomplete. Colin°^Talk 08:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bisphosphonates

While adding a drugbox to the pamidronate article I realized that no bisphosphonate articles are currently named after INNs. I'd gladly move etidronate and pamidronate (the others require admin status as INNs are now redirects), just thought I'd ask first. Maybe someone could create a bisphosphonates navbox as well? Fvasconcellos 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A navbox would be good. I wrote much of the bisphosphonates article but think it should be expanded and pushed to WP:FA given that it hits high on Google. JFW | T@lk 15:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've since moved pamidronate and etidronate, created ibandronic acid (just a stub though), and added structures. Help of admin project contributors to move alendronate, risedronate and zoledronate would be much appreciated :) Fvasconcellos 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Shameless rip from Arcadian's Template:Antiarrhythmic agents:

Thoughts? I haven't created it yet; this is just a test, and I have very little knowledge of template syntax – this was really a copy-and-paste job. Input would be really appreciated. Fvasconcellos 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks ready to be let out into the wild. I've built Template:Bisphosphonates from your content, and added it to the existing pages, and to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs#M:_Musculo-skeletal_system. --Arcadian 02:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Drugs and brand names

Dear all,

There is a discussion about brand names on all drug articles, and the consequences of any decision are not clear. Reading many articles about drugs, it seems to me that there are different approaches about brands and names:

• Use only the INN name in the article, and cite only the first brand name for historical reasons;
• Use only INN name in the whole article and have a section for brands, countries and eventual generic drug availability;
• Cite brand names near the incipit of the article, after the INN name;
• Use only INN names removing brands;
• (others that I didn't find in articles).

There are reasons for all of them.

My personal point of view is that brand names are important, and should be cited in a section, indicating countries and names, but only for the pure substance, e.g. Coefferalgan® is a mix of Paracetamol and Codeine, so it should not be mentioned IMO. In the whole article, I'd use just the INN name, and probably the first historical brand name.

I personally find not very clear to have different standards on drugs and medication, and a standardization should be tried.

What is your opinion about this topic? Sensei 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would support using only INN name in the whole article and have a section for brands, countries and eventual generic drug availability in each article. We can also have specific information on specific brands if there is any noticable difference between the brand and the generic. While I know there would be no real difference in the active pharmaceutical ingredient, they could differ in devilery devices and excipients that people may want to know about. Remember 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What is not helpful in articles is to have huge lists of brand names, either as a comma separated list or (even worse) as a bullet-point list extending down the page. I dislike these as much in the opening introduction section as at the end of an article in their own section. However:

1. The first use of a drug in the world is notable and should therefore be included. Hence Sildenafil clearly needs mention "Viagra" in its opening.
2. The first brand used in specific countries probably also warrents mention somewhere in the article, but how many countries need be included given wikipedia is gobally inclusive rather than selective ?
   If only the UK and US first brand names are mentioned, then 2 items do not warrent their own section and mention in the introduction seems concise encyclopaedic styling. However in English Wikipedia there are considerable number of readers also from Canada and Australia. Are we to have 4 brands in the intro ? Clearly as one expands to include New Zealand, South Africa, Carribean, Ireland, India then this gets problematic.
3. Finally should English Wikipedia include brands from non-English speaking countries (e.g. Russia, Turkey, China, Japan) ?
4. Subsequent brands in individual countries are more problematic and brand names from generic manufacturers should I think never be included.

Remember wikipedia is not a directory listing and as per policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Options 3 & 4 above I think should not be included in Wikipedia, unless:

• re 3: A brand has very significant market share of prescribing within a country eg in UK for Diltiazem for Adizem, Dilzem & Tildiem, but not the other 6 brands. This leads on to:
• re 3: The very limited number of drugs where generic substitution is generally advised against, e.g. Diltiazem modified release, Lithium and Phenytoin products.
• re 3 & 4: Some world wide notability; e.g. a drug scandal in a country that made international news and is specifically commented upon in the article.

I'm happy to see a somewhat flexible style; these are encyclopaedic articles, not a fixed-format legal drug monograph that requires rigid sections to be included in all entries. Hence, I would propose:

• 1st worldwide brand mentioned in brackets in or at end of 1st sentance in the introduction.
  Suggested markup being: '''Drug name''' ([[International Nonproprietary Name|INN]]) ([[United States Approved Name|USAN]] and former [[British Approved Name|BAN]] '''alternative''') is ...
  e.g. Paracetamol (INN) (USAN Acetomporphin) is ...
• if there are under 5 other brand names mentioned, then these are included in the last sentance of the introduction.
  Suggested phrasing being... Some specific brands being A(AU), B(CA), C(UK) and D(US).
• if more than 4 brands mentioned then placed in a their own "Brand names" section at the end of the article as a comma-separated list (phrasing as previous point). David Ruben ^Talk 12:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome standardization, though applying it across all drug pages might pose a problem. My two cents:

• Lead with the INN. Start by referring to generic names: first the INN, indicating it is the INN (or rINN) and linking to International Nonproprietary Name, then any alternate generic names (USAN, BAN) – I like Davidruben's markup for this;
• Cite brand names near the incipit in stubs, using an et al. approach: up to four brand names, if there are more no need to refer to them – see metformin;
• Create a separate section in larger articles, while still citing (a few, not all) brand names in the lead – see paracetamol or lansoprazole;
• Cite associations in a separate section – see metformin and benazepril.

I also propose creating redirects for all brand names [I foresee resistance, though :)] – most people refer to meds by their brand names, and are likely to search for them using a brand name; and using the INN throughout the article. Fvasconcellos 13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My preference is the 1st option, but also covering the USAN/BAN where relevant. One problem with drug articles is that there are so many hundreds of them, and so few people able to police them thoroughly, that it is hard to prevent someone thinking it is ok to add "just one more" to a list. So I don't think having an arbitrary cut-off of 5 will work. It is very hard for us to agree on the level of notability for the other brands, and most of us won't have a clue about countries other than our own. I don't think many lay editors will understand the disctinction between a "generic" brand and the original one. An example:

Phenobarbital (INN) or phenobarbitone (former BAN) is a barbiturate, first marketed as Luminal® by Farbwerke Fr. Bayer and Co.

The use of "first marketed" makes it clear to the reader and future editors that we are singling out only the notable brand. I also think we should mention the drug company, using the name they were called at the time (if known). I'd like the drug-article guidelines to discourage listing more than one brand as a general rule. As with all guidelines, if editors can justify it, then they can break the rules - e.g. Panadol certainly seems to merit inclusion in the paracetamol article, even though Tylenol seems to have been first to market.

BTW why on earth does Tylenol have its own article – its existance and content breaks lots of guidelines, as well as being just plain wrong in places. The list of brands in paracetamol is bizarre: Italy certainly should go (they have their own Wikipedia) and the Indian brand is wikilinked inappropriately. Colin°^Talk 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend making the USAN, BAN, and notable brand names into optional fields near the top of the drugbox. --Arcadian 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1. re Bayer's commnent - re "So I don't think having an arbitrary cut-off of 5 will work" - I was not suggesting any fixed limit to total number brand names that can be mentioned in an article, just the point at which different approaches/styles of inclusion might be used for better readability :-)
2. re Arcardian's suggestion - Would this then mean that no mention is made in the introduction of USAN & BAN names. This would be a quite precise solution, and I can forsee those with strong attachment to their own names (former names in case of BANs) being upset at religation from article prose to mere entry in a template (Paracetamol/acetaminophen for starters). If consensus for this emerges, then I can happily implement the coding on Template:Drugbox. However are there any other common English-speaking country names we need to include (i.e. is there any equivalent Australian or New Zealand Approved Name that differs from the INNs) ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would second Arcadian's comments--USAN, BAN and Notable brand names in the box would be nice. I would also work on deleting branded product pages. Adderall is one that makes my skin crawl. --Chrispounds 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ATC G03

I've tagged ATC G03 for proposed deletion. Since we already have ATC code G03, can anyone think of any reason why it should be kept? Fvasconcellos 19:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've turned it a redirect -- I doubt anyone would object. --Arcadian 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub types

The project page declares intent to expand all stubs within the project's scope, but doesn't actually say what those actually are: I'm assuming everything in Category:Pharmacology stubs (at least)? Note also that this stub type is currently oversized, so if anyone has any input on how to split it up... Alai 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS needs YOU!

The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Registered trademark on medication names

Someone asked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome if I needed all of the registered trademark signs (®) on med names at Tourette syndrome. Can anyone shed any light on the trademark issues? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

MoS:TM states, under "General rules":

Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).

(emphasis mine). I'd either keep them or indicate the names in parentheses are trade names, e.g.

The classes of medication with the most proven efficacy in treating tics—typical and atypical neuroleptics including risperidone (trade name Risperdal), ziprasidone (Geodon), haloperidol (Haldol), pimozide (Orap) and fluphenazine (Prolixin)—can have long-term and short-term adverse effects.

I prefer using trademark symbols, but they do seem to be getting in the way of readability. (copying to your talk page) Hope this helps, Fvasconcellos 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to use the trademark symbols, in order to make it clear that the names are trademarks and may not be referred to in the same way in other countries. I'm not certain how international law treats registered drug names. In any case, I try to stick to generic names most of the time. I hope I'm doing the right thing. --Kyoko 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kyoko - I decided to follow Fvasconcellos' suggestion. Sandy (Talk) 22:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I really hate the trademark symbols, which make the articles look too much like sales pitches. I think it's best to avoid them whenever possible, e.g. by using trade names in parentheses like in the Risperdal/Geodon/etc. example above. 67.117.130.181 14:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much the "standard" which is being followed (indicating the name is a brand name and not using the ® symbol). I hadn't thought of their making the articles look "commercial", but that's a valid point. Fvasconcellos 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dronedarone

Things may get interesting in cardiology when dronedarone will eventually hit the shelves. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lapatinib

This article could use with some expansion. If a German-speaking contributor could have a look at the German version, that would be great – it seems to be more complete (could be my mistake though, I speak no German whatsoever). Fvasconcellos 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

For those interested, there has been a suggestion to merge Miotic with Miosis. -AED 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Teicoplanin

I've just added a small section/diagram to the teicoplanin article concerning its structure. At the moment it doesn't quite "sound right" to me, and I would appreciate some external copy editing/criticism. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PAC-1

Have a look, please. PAC-1 is new and falls more into the drug business I think.--Stone 17:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's somewhat POVish right now, and there are some style concerns, but I believe it's notable enough to keep, and could be pretty promising. Fvasconcellos 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology

Hello! Not all that aware of WikiProject Drugs, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology. While pharmacology and drugs are two different things (drugs are specific objects, and pharmacology is the study of organisms reacting with objects), the two projects have the same essential goals. As someone said, there is going to be serious overlap. I was thinking that this project could merge with the pharmacology project to form "WikiProject Pharmacology and Drugs," since they both have similar goals yet the topic of drugs is more specific than pharmacology. Or this project could be considered a subproject of the pharmacology one... let's all decide. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 17:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hello again. I'm not very familiar with the workings of WikiProjects, but I think a merge of both would be a very good idea. The Pharmacology project could use Drugs' members and structure, and Drugs could benefit from expanded scope (perhaps encompassing toxicology, relevant subtopics of molecular biology etc.) and Assessment and Peer review, both of which are currently absent and both of which I believe are very important to the management of a Project. As Messedrocker said, let's all decide! Fvasconcellos 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• I do believe a merge could be beneficial, seeing as with the two projects being separate there would be much confusion in differing the two. Anyone else have any thoughts?--Neur0tikX ^.talk 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• I would support such a merger. --Arcadian 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - re. Fvasconcellos. That makes perfect sense - Alison^✍ 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Since pharmacology is literally the science of drugs, I don't see how one name is substantially more encompassing than the other (taking "WikiProject Drugs" as being interested in everything concerning drugs). Indeed you could consider Pharmacology to be more restrictive if it excludes history, drug businesses, social implications and cultural references. So I support the merge but think that keeping WikiProject Drugs is the best choice of name due to shortness, that it has been around a while, and that it already has numerous references within Wikipedia. Colin°^Talk 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Definite support, it's best that these forces be bundled.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should keep the name "WikiProject Drugs" if it covers all aspects of pharmacology, which include toxicology and things that aren't necessarily drugs. I've been considering "WikiProject Drugs and Pharmacology" as an option, though "WikiProject Pharmacology" would be all-encompassing and shorter. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 12:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, Colin, but if it came down to choosing one name I would support WikiProject Pharmacology. If we start "taking responsibility" for articles such as GABA receptor and CYP3A4 (just examples off the top of my head)—topics which are fundamental to pharmacology but not "drugs" per se—WikiProject Drugs would no longer be the most appropriate name IMHO. Fvasconcellos 13:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem with that, Fvasconcellos. There are arguments for/against both names and a choice often involves a compromise. The "WikiProject Drugs and Pharmacology" name is my least favourite due to duplication/redundancy. BTW: I'd prefer this reformatted back to a discussion, not a vote. Colin°^Talk 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reformatted. Fvasconcellos 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge conditions

Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to the proposed merge, I propose that these are the conditions to the merge:

• WikiProject Drugs and WikiProject Pharmacology merge and take the name of the latter.
• Members of WikiProject Drugs become members of WikiProject Pharmacology.
• Using my AWB bot, the WikiProject Drugs template will be replaced with the WikiProject Pharmacology template.
• Luckily, there are no conflicts in hierarchy. We can simply merge the existing hierarchy of WikiProject Drugs with the assessment system of WikiProject Pharmacology.
• While the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs page would be redirected to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology page, the subpages of WikiProject Drugs can simply be pagemoved to their respective titles under WikiProject Pharmacology.

Please evaluate and see if they are appropriate. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I have no objection to the above conditions. Fvasconcellos 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support the move. DRUGS is a name more easily associated with illicit/recreative substances. JFW | T@lk 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Messedrocker, i'm totally for it ... but ... i would not recommend any changes untill 2/3 of participants from the current "Participants" list have a "YES" say, these are the people who work on the "drug" articles and you gonna need their approval, some of them aren't even on the list - like myself. Let's give them a couple of days - 3. If things don't change i'll leave each one of them a note on their pages. -- Boris 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
4. I'm totally for it, FWIW - Alison^✍ 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Boris, I'm sorry for not notifying you—I started leaving notes on Talk pages and stopped when I realized some participants might consider it spamming. Do you think it would be a good idea to notify everyone individually? Fvasconcellos 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with individually notifying project members about significant project changes (much like a real-world organisation would be obliged to do). The 2/3 of members requirement is too high since lots of members are only occasionally active. However, there's no rush and this is still holiday season. Leaving it a few more days won't do any harm. Colin°^Talk 09:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. No deadline, right? Fvasconcellos 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I will perform the merge per the merge conditions within less than 48 hours if no one objects. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the Merge process .. one projects can take care about the three related subjects : Pharmacology , Pharmacy , Drugs . --Chaos 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Merge Issue

about the merge suggession between Pharmacology Project and Drugs project .. I fully support that and I suggest that the name becomes Project Pharmacy and Pharmacology ... so it will takes cares about three related topics .

we can create three taskforces :

• Pharmaceutics taskforce
• Pharmacology taskforce
• Drugs and Medications taskforce .

--Chaos 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we end up choosing the name "Pharmacy and Pharmacology", that raises a new issue. Are you sure that name isn't redundant? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Keep it simple. I doesn't matter if the project extends into disciplines beyond the strict definition of the word. Pharmacology will do. And before we create lots of taskforces, we'd better find some volunteers because this isn't the most active of Wikiprojects. Colin°^Talk 14:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree—let's keep it simple, both the project name and structure. Most of our members are active primarily in other projects such as WP:CLINMED and WP:CHEMISTRY; taskforces may be both necessary and useful in highly active and organized projects such as WP:MILHIST, but here, for the moment, I think they'd just make things more complicated. Fvasconcellos 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Idea is that I want one project handels all the Topics relating Drugs : Mechanism of Action (Pharmacology) and Industrial processes and technologies , Some pharmaceuticals topics cannot be categorized under pharmacology but still related , I was thinking about creating Pharmacy project but why we need sparated projects that deals with parallel topics while we can make one unified frame for all Wikipedians interested about Drugs and related stuffs ... Any way I find no Problem about the name .. we can keep the name "Pharmacology" and we keep taking care about Pharmaceutical topics ... What do you think about that ? No worries from making the subject complicated .. it is only that we make out scope of Interest wider , and we can restrain our interest firstly only on Pharmacology topics , then if we find active members that are interested about pharmaceutics we can continue our jop .. it is Wiki and things can move on gradually to give amazing results --Chaos 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Industrial processes and technologies" part can easily be covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering. I don't see any worries with making the articles complicated as they should provide information about the synthesis of the drugs as well. -- Boris 13:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Convert MDMA "synChemBox" into a normal drugbox

Could someone please look into this. The article Methylenedioxymethamphetamine uses a less standard box, it's more manual, and quite cumbersome. I'm not too familiar with boxes in general, but it needs to get changed to the easier standard. Hah, this would take me hours... perhaps someone more gifted could make the change. Thanks!

PS: I'm not sure the drugbox for lsd is larger than the width it is supposed to be, 300px. --x1987x^(talk) 04:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to try and clarify - is the request to convert the box into Template:Drugbox ? David Ruben ^Talk 05:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. The article needs some serious cleanup, though. Fvasconcellos 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - much easier on the eyes! Needs a cleanup crew :/ --x1987x^(talk) 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dirlotapide

Question: should articles on medications intended solely for animal usage get Drugboxes as well? Dirlotapide is making some waves in the lay press, and I was about to add a Drugbox to it when I wondered. Any opinions? Fvasconcellos 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Downregulation

There seems to be some weirdness associated with the above term. I'm not sure though if I'm knowledgeable enough to untangle it. Right now, it redirects to Regulation of gene expression which is fine and good when we're talking about genes. However, hormone up and down-regulation only gets a one-line mention. When I think of downregulation, I think of the hormone or neurotransmitter regulation loop (see Receptor (biochemistry)#Receptor Regulation). A lot of the GnRH (ant-)agonist articles are linking to Downregulation where they probably shouldn't.

Thoughts? - Alison^✍ 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Alison, IMHO both links (up- and down-regulatino) should not be redirects; I'm thinking a disambiguation page might be in order. I'm wary of making any changes myself though, perhaps the folks over at WP:MCB can provide some insight and further opinions. BTW the Regulation of gene expression article concerns me as well, it seems to be in need of some cleanup. Fvasconcellos 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Claud Regnard

This guy is very suspicious. His "main text" edition on some "opioids"-related articles are very odd to me, and he keeps adding links to palliative care, he either doesn't know what he's doing or he's just "f"-ing around. I reverted two of his edits in Heroin. Maybe we should ask him to explain how to dissolve 1kg(=1000mg) of heroin in 1ml of water??? I would like that someone who is familiar with the opioids material checks his work. -- Boris 01:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just misguided. BTW isn't 1000 mg=1 gram? :o) Fvasconcellos 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. :). Lol. Yet, even that seems kinda high considering heroin's structure, but i might be wrong here as well. If i knew the opioids better i would definitely check his work. -- Boris 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not that familiar with opioids :D so I'll leave that to another editor... Some of his/her edits to palliative care are IMHO coming close to agenda pushing though, definitely something to keep our eyes on. I will, however, keep my good faith and my distance until he/she crosses the line. Fvasconcellos 14:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with Paracetamol

Hi! Some assistance is needed on the talk page for the Paracetamol article. Yesterday an anon modified the article to say that paracetamol did not have a narrow therapeutic index, and when I reverted that edit, he E-mailed me (!) to argue the point. (Note that I'm no authority on this subject; I reverted the edit because [1] it was an edit to a longstanding FA, and [2] it was unsourced.) At that point I posted a note on the talk page about the issue; he has now responded. Someone who can answer authoritatively is needed at the talk page. Thanks! --Tkynerd 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin names of pharmaceuticals

I think all drugs and pharmaceuticals should also have standard Latin INN name in their infobox in addition to the English one. Granted, Latin names aren't used in the English-speaking zone, but the English wikipedia is (I think) kind of special: it isn't just for English-speaking countries; it is, essentially, international. And Latin names are as close to international as one can get. In many (if not most) non-English-speaking countries Latin INN names are given on drug information leaflets and all pharmacy students are thaught Latin anyway. --Divide 18:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Most Latin names are just the generic name with -um at the end. In clinical practice I have only seen this approach in dermatologicals. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're right about the -um thing. (Still, I bet there are some that are a bit more different than the English name). But about using Latin names... well, at least in Poland, drug producers are legally required to give Latin INN name on packaging and leaflet. I'm not sure about other countries, but I think I've seen it somewhere else as well. Could anyone confirm / deny usage of Latin names in their country? Maybe if we could get fuller image of using those names at least across Europe we could make a more convincing argument, to support or to oppose. --Divide 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the WHO web site, INNs are published in Latin, English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. According to this other WHO document (found by Google, so may not be the most up-to-date), the Latin name would appear to be based on some very simple rules, as Jfdwolff suggests. An "ate" becomes "as" but otherwise "um" is a pretty universal appendage (any trailing vowel (usually "e") is dropped first). Adding the Latin name to all the drug boxes would be a thankless and unenlightening task. Note: the drug box can be somewhat automatically filled in using diberri's template filling website and a DrugBank ID. The Drugbank only seems to have Latin INN information for a minority of drugs. Colin°^Talk 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I mostly agree. The rules become more complicated when it comes to salts, as the suffixes follow normal Latin rules, so that "dextromethorphan hydrobromide" becomes "dextromethorphani hydrobromidum", "calcium carbonate" becomes "calcii carbonas", "tocopherole acetate" becomes "tocopheroli acetas" etc. (these are two examples drawn from my medicine drawer, I'm not sure about the English names, but I hope they're right). But, on the other hand, such complex names are not often used on Wikipedia, are they? And still, the rules indeed seem simple, simpler than I thought they would be.

The question is: is adding Latin names to infoboxes beneficial? Given the rules are so simple, on one hand maybe it doesn't make any sense indeed to put Latin names there; on the other hand, given the rules are so simple: a bot could put them (as long as there are no—or hardly any—exceptions).--Divide 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In Brazil, medications are assigned "Brazilian Nonproprietary Names" (Denominações Comuns Brasileiras or DCBs) by the National Health Surveillance Agency (our FDA/MHRA counterpart). The assignment of DCBs is regulated by this 2002 resolution (and later amendments) which states DCBs are always derived from the English INN or, if unavailable, an equivalent reference and provides translations of English stems for creation of Portuguese names. Fvasconcellos 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychedelics vs. dissociatives

There is currently a discussion regarding the definition of "psychedelic drug" as it is used in Wikipedia right now, to define a specific group of drugs. The counter-argument is that psychedelics can be used to describe a larger set of drugs, including dissociatives. I invite all interested parties to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants#Categorization dispute. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I've created a userbox for WikiProject Drugs. It can be found here: User:Fuzzform/Userboxes/WikiProject Drugs, or you can just insert {{User:Fuzzform/Userboxes/WikiProject Drugs}} in your list of userboxes. It's probably in the wrong place, as this is the first time I've made a userbox, so feel free to move it (as long as you say so on this page). Fuzzform 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for such a userspace-based userbox - it is still permissable (as far as I am aware) for projects to have a userbox, and for this project there already exists Template:User Drugs and to use this in one's talk page just add the code: {{User_Drugs}} which gives:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Pharmacology.

David Ruben ^Talk 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Doing the merge

Per the above conversation, who at this point has any objection to me merging the two projects under the name "WikiProject Pharmacology" and then merge everything under that name appropriately? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not me :) Fvasconcellos 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it! - Alison^✍ 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If no one opposes by midnight Monday (UTC), then I will go ahead and do the merge myself. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)