Talk:Norepinephrine

Informal RFC: How to split?
The section above appears to be reaching a consensus to split the article in two, one relating to the drug, the other to the hormone/neurotransmitter. However there isn't yet a consensus on how to arrange the split. There are basically three possibilities: (1) No default -- norepinephrine becomes a disambig page, referring to the other two; (2) default=drug --- norepinephrine is about the drug, norepinephrine (hormone and neurotransmitter) is linked from the top of it; (3) default=neurotransmitter -- norepinephrine is about the neurotransmitter and hormone, norepinephrine (drug) is linked from the top of it. Which do you favor? Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I favor default=neurotransmitter for two reasons: first, I think it will be the most common meaning readers are looking for; second, at a practical level, the norepinephrine article is currently the target of several hundred wikilinks, and by my count approximately ten relate to it as a drug.  It would be much easier to disambiguate those than the others, and much easier to set up future wikilinks correctly. Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also favor default=neurotransmitter, the neurotransmitter came long before the drug. Norepinephrine is a drug because it is a hormone/neurotransmitter, not the other way around. Neurotransmitter is the more fundamental concept, the drug is an application of that concept. Boghog (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is which topic are people more likely looking for rather than which came first historically. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I favor default=no default. As explained above we could run an experiment to see which is the most common topic the generally population is looking for. I have a feeling that it is the medication. But happy to compromise and just go with no default. Am also happy to run an experiment and let our readers decide by basing it on pageviews to each article after three months. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the suggested experiment is the best idea, but if for whatever reason the page views for both pages are a tie, or very near to it, we should default to the neurotransmitter, as it is a more fundamental topic. After all you tend to teach physiology before you teach pathophysiology and pharmacology. Brenton  (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 16:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Default=neurotransmitter; if this page became a dab, every single backlink to this page would need to be cleared or adjusted.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is bad how? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're serious, but it's bad because there are hundreds of them -- just click on "what links here". Unless it can be automated, that means several hours of mind-numbing work. Looie496 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They need to be gone through to make sure they are going to the right place anyway. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already done that. In the great majority of cases it is obvious from the title of an article that it's referring to the neurotransmitter/hormone aspect.  In all the cases where I thought there might be any doubt, I looked at the article, and altered the link if it was indeed referring to the drug aspect.  But that's a tiny minority of cases. Looie496 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While you have missed some such as Sepsis&oldid=679065756. Will look at the issue further in a couple weeks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Default=neurotransmitter. I'm actually not convinced that we need to split the page at all, which is why I hesitated to comment until now. But seeing that there is an emerging consensus to split, neurotransmitter should take priority over drug, as the more fundamental topic that is always taught first, per other editors above. I have low enthusiasm for the "no default" option, because the resulting DAB would apparently find itself as the only page on Wikipedia to be in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic. (Really? I'm kind of surprised, actually.) The "experiment" seems unnecessary to me, and there would be a question about how long to let it run (what if there's a burst of interest in the basic science in those first three months?). And, what seems to me to be the most important consideration is that, in any case, there will be a hatnote at the top of both pages – and that means that not being the default is pretty trivial for our readers. Those readers coming here for medical information will still find it useful to be aware of the underlying science, and the additional information that they seek will be a mere click away, right from the very top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just split off the drug-related material into norepinephrine (drug). This is not an obstacle to the "no default" option if we ultimately choose to go in that direction.  As I noted above the main obstacle to that option is that it would require several hundred wikilinks to be changed.  My action would be an obstacle for the "default=drug" option, but that's not really on the cards anyway at this point.  If the name I gave the new article is suboptimal, it can easily be changed. Looie496 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now fixed all of the wikilinks that should point to norepinephrine (drug), as far as I can tell. If we decide to go with "default=neurotransmitter" no further changes are needed to wikilinks or article structure, but (to repeat) nothing that I have done up to this point is an obstacle if we ultimately decide to go with "no default". Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment
I noticed ref 1 doesn't have the info it's being used to cite (unless it's in one of the links?). Could a more precise ref be added? Also, isn't the "upon the kidneys" translation for adrenaline and epinepherine (i.e. epi- = upon, neph- = kidney)? What does the nor- add? delldot  &nabla;.  03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't add ref 1; I'll look for a better source. The rationale for "nor" is explained in the Structure section -- I don't think it is interesting enough to belong in the lead. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seppi333 has fixed this by adding another ref, I believe. Looie496 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh, I still don't see it, I just see a page of links with no mention of norepinephrine. Can someone link to the specific page with this info? Or provide a quote? delldot   &nabla;.  04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the 2nd instance to it. It's still citing the sentences about the terms norepi/noradr in latin/greek.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 06:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure which instance you were referring to. I've supplied a different ref for the etymological information, in which it can more easily be found in the article (the History section). Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it ok that this is defining adrenalin, not noradrenaline? Seems odd that that's in the lead with the etymology of the wrong substance.  Are you sure the 'nor' is not worth mentioning in the lead? I'm not trying to be a plague here, if you're both confident I can drop the matter.  delldot   &nabla;.  06:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There's an entry for Nor- if someone wants to incorporate it. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Many apologies
I have had many family issues and I profusely apologize in the delay of this review. I will jump in again. I'll be finishing the review up with my other account. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC) otherwise known as
 * I've been mostly out of action for the last couple of weeks, so I'm actually happy that not much has happened here during that time. I do look forward to getting this in motion, though.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do feel badly because the other reviews that I have done have been completed in a week or less. I'm back to work. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

splitting biosyntheses
various compounds have their biosynthesis section oversized. they can be split into their pages and referenced. example: norepinephrine is synthesized from dopamine, which is synthesized from tyrosine. only the dopamine to norepinephrine part can be left in the page, contrary to the current overdetail starting from tyrosineMinimobiler (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is your opinion. The article was also passed as a good article - you need to propose the change in material not just go ahead and mention this afterwards.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

the talk page post was made before the edit, check time. now, the articles are bloated. call others of wiki project medicine.Minimobiler (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * regardless - the entry on the talk page needs to be a proposal left for comments from others.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

bring the others.Minimobiler (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC) FWIW, norepinephrine can also be synthesized in humans from para-octopamine by CYP2D6, but that's not a significant biosynthetic pathway.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the biosynthesis section you mention is only a small part of this article - about 4-5 paragraphs. It seems needless to split each paragraph to a new page. An interested reader can click on the wikilinks to view each page (eg dopamine, tyrosine) to view more information about how they are synthesised. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the biosynthesis of an arbitrary neurotransmitter from an associated basic dietary constituent (e.g., amino acids) is a fairly important subtopic that should be covered in any neurotransmitter article. Norepinephrine is derived from dopamine which can be derived from other dietary components or obtained in the diet; however, dopamine can't cross the blood-brain barrier, so dietary dopamine can't function as a neurotransmitter or be metabolized into norepinephrine in the CNS; consequently, almost all of the norepinephrine that is produced in the brain is derived from dietary constituents that are metabolized into dopamine and then norepinephrine.
 * I don't have much of an opinion about whether the section should be shortened. I would however prefer for it to be located further down in the page -- it is probably too complex for most readers and is likely to make some stop reading when they encounter it. Looie496 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is useful to see how the biosynthesis of norepinephrine relates to the biosynthesis of other neurotransmitters in the same biosynthetic pathway. At the same time, I think the size of the figure could be considerably reduced without loss of readability. Boghog (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If someone wants to know "how does the body make norepinephrine?", the logical place to start is from the amino acid source. The diagram should be re-drawn as an SVG, though. I'll put that on my to-do list. --Slashme (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As it stands the idea of shortening the article is inappropriate. The subject simply happens to be complex and we could be doing nobody any favours if we tried to simplify it by evisceration. The run-of-the-mill reader is not likely to read much of this article anyway, so a bit of extra complexity is not really prohibitive. It would be perfectly possible to improve matters by expanding the content and restructuring the topic into separate articles coherently linked, but you won't manage that by by snipping out arbitrary chunks of material; it would require a serious design effort. JonRichfield (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The "biosynthesis" section is proportionate to the rest of the article. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose My opinion: The biosynthesis section is important to the article, is only 4 paragraphs, several hundred words. and not worth splitting into separate articles. Comment write the RFC with a specific question of the text to be changed, before and after. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Heart rate.
Nor adrenaline actually decreases heart rate. reference from Principles of general pharmacology by KD Tripathi. Zaidanzargar (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * References to this on the page would need to be adjusted and refs supplied.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)