Talk:Radiopharmaceutical

Non-radioactive isotopes in medicine
This article lists quite a few radioactive isotopes used in medicine. Is there a similar Wikipedia for non-radioactive isotopes which are used in medical practice? I know of one, carbon-13. Are there others? Should the "see also" section mention this? 76.254.27.56 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Another example is the use of deuterium in deuterated drugs. Good suggestion.
 * Stub now at medical isotope. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved with support (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk ) 23:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Medicinal radiocompounds → Radiopharmaceutical – More common name. Andrewa (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support, As the primary demandant the requested move, I found radiopharmaceutical as the official name which is used commonly. As well as google search results, in scientific publications "Radiopharmaceutical" is often employed.--Sahehco (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just as a caution, the official name counts very little, and for good reasons... do you know the official name of aspirin? Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, "medicinal radiocompound" is a very good definition but not a good name for a known article. I think it is not comparable with aspirin. When I refer to scientific publications, I don't mean necessarily academic papers, but also the common form of the word which scientists use. For example, see this website--Sahehco (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as formal nominator, evidence in below. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

This was raised by User:Sahehco on my user talk page but I think it's best to go to RM.

Google web search gave me almost half a million ghits for the new name and only three for the existing one,  which is what I was expecting having worked in the industry (or even more of a difference than my guess if anything), so I went no further. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

March 2017 Proposed merge
I would fully support the proposed merging (or does it just need deleting?) the List of radiopharmaceuticals article with this one, it seems less comprehensive and less informative. Beevil (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The "list of..." article's entries are uncited and most are not bluelinks, so it is not within the WP:CSC guideline. They are all just more-specific examples or formulations of the isotopes listed here in the main article, so those that are bluelinks could be added as examples to the relevant isotope entries. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As an alternative, the main article is quite long but is mostly the isotope tables. That could be spun off as a separate List of radiopharmaceutical isotopes (with the List of radiopharmaceuticals merged into it). Then the parent Radiopharmaceutical article could retain and eventually expand on the prose ideas of formulation, half-life choice, and general applications. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here from the note at WT:PHARM. I agree that some merging is needed, but I think there is another way to go about it. We also have Radiopharmacology, which is really the most logical parent page for the prose content. What little prose is here at Radiopharmaceutical should be merged into that. Then a separate list page (and perhaps category) could be used for all the specific compounds. For that I would merge the tables of this page into List of radiopharmaceuticals. The list should be named that way, because these are molecules that contain isotopes, not the isotopes themselves. That list-merge would really be a (rather complicated) matter of inserting the entries that are currently on the List of page into the tables that would come from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Using Radiopharmacology as the unified parent for the prose sounds good to me. For the agents themselves, I think organizing by isotope is most logical, so it would be a list of isotopes, with sublist of pharmaceuticals of each, rather than a list of pharmaceuticals directly. Not sure how accurate for organization vs concise by topic is best for the article title. DMacks (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be listing the pharmaceuticals organized by isotope, in which case it's still a listing of the pharmaceuticals rather than of only the isotopes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that both of the lists under discussion also overlap lists at ATC code V09 and ATC code V10. Given that there seems to be triplication here, and that the ATC lists at least have the advantage of some formal classification system, I suggest that the proposal merge not go ahead. Perhaps the current unreferenced List of radiopharmaceuticals article could be deleted and replaced with a page showing section transclusions of the V09 and V10 pages. This would reduce the need to maintain 3 separate lists (as least down to 2). Klbrain (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've put a draft of an alternative (transcluded) page at List of radiopharmaceuticals/2018draft. Klbrain (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given no objections, I've moved ahead with the alternative proposal. Klbrain (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)