Talk:Coenzyme M

Merger proposal
It looks like Coenzyme M and Mesna are very similar. In the former, the cation is not specified and in the latter it is lost upon dissolution. The coenzyme is as pervasive ss methanogenesis, i.e. lots of locales including human gut. Seems like a shame if readers are not able to see both discussed in the same article. But others might see things differently, i.e. that we are dealing with chloride vs sodium chloride. We will at least link the two articles, but the question is should we merge them.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I would request a single article with sections separated; as always.And yeah, those're separate things but it'ld be convenient to search.Agreed with User:Smokefoot FindMeLost (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There two downsides to merging these articles. First that the chembox and drugbox for these two articles contain partially overlapping information.  Including both in the merged article would overwhelm the text and combining them without modifying the underlying infobox templates would be difficult.  The second is the order of sections as specified in WP:CHEMMOS and WP:PHARMOS conflict.  Hence IMHO, it would be better to keep the two articles separate. Boghog (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep separate, as per Boghog, but link, as per Smokefoot. Can we detag at some point? FeatherPluma (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mesna is a WHO Essential medicine so IMO we should keep them separate to reduce conflict between the chemical and the medical uses. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)