Talk:Tretinoin

Merge proposal - Nov. 2006
It seems to me we don't need three articles on the same chemical under different names: Tretinoin, All-trans retinoic acid, and Retinoic acid. I'm not sure which name is best, though my instincts say "tretinoin" or "retinoic acid." --HKMarks(T/C) 04:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since retinoic acid (RA) comes in various isomers (all-trans, 9-cis, 11-cis, 13-cis) one article under "retinoic acid" would be best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.63.78 (talk • contribs)


 * Tretinoin is the appropriate term, as per WP:MEDMOS, the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) is the appropriate term to use in naming drug articles. Tretinoin is the acid form of Vitamin A and Isotretinoin is an isomer of tretinoin (British National Formulary March 2003).David Ruben Talk 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging done: I took the old All-trans retinoic acid and the clinical usage parts of the previous retinoic acid and merged them to Tretinoin (see edit here). Retinoic acid also discussed its role in embryological development, and this I have moved to expand retinol's coverage of Vitamin A's normal endogenous roles & functions (see this edit}. With Retinoic acid thus covering an endogenous substance having various roles and also a specific drug, I have left Retinoic acid as a disambiguation page. David Ruben Talk 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy Vio
I removed a copyright violation: "Although the exact mode of action of tretinoin is unknown, current evidence suggests that topical tretinoin decreases cohesiveness of follicular epithelial cells with decreased blackhead formation. Additionally, tretinoin stimulates mitotic activity and increased turnover of follicular epithelial cells causing extrusion of the blackheads (comedones)."

It's exact with two words changed to the information sheet distributed by Clay-Parks-Labs that came with my prescription. It is useful information, but should be rewritten.

Alex brewer {talk}  20:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that 68.101.130.214 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan 2010
Citations 3, and 4 are nonsense. 3 is a nonexistent site, and 4 isn't supporting the claims. please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.113.173 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good catch! Dawnseeker2000   19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology and pronunciation
Is the recently added Tretinoin section really necessary? As far as I am concerned, the new is highly redundant. What do the other editors think? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This makes little sense. What can possibly be considered highly redundant about it? And I don't know if an effort to label it "necessary" or "unnecessary" is a prelude to trying to delete it, but whether you find the info interesting is not a criterion for whether it is valid, referenced info and thus whether it isn't allowed to remain part of the article. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Quercus solaris. Usually, the etymology section is the next one right after lede. And if you take a look at Tretinoin, you'll see that there are now eight different ways (?) of pronunciation written down. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jayaguru-Shishya. I understand that you're operating in good faith, and it's nothing personal, but this is frustratingly misguided, and I can't accept the deletion of the well-referenced section on the basis of your-vote-versus-my-vote alone. I couldn't even accept it if one or two other people came by here and did a drive-by "yeah, glanced at it, looks too complicated, must be useless" passing of judgment. Because it's actually quite comprehensible for anyone that gives it due attention. So I will turn to whatever channels are needed (AfD-type stuff that I normally would never bother spending time on) before I just roll over and accept deletion of the section. You opened this talk thread asking for the opinions of other editors; the referenced content must stand for a week or two while other people have some time to weigh in. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've used bullets to help break up this reply into bite-size chunks, to minimize the burden of reading it. But everything here needs to be explained (and the arguments countered), so I'm not going to short-change the discussion. Here goes with full analysis.
 * You aren't understanding what you're reading in the section, despite the fact that the information is stated as clearly as it can be, but you're confident that you are—a combination yielding heartache that makes instant deletion all the less acceptable.
 * Your accurate observation that there are eight transcriptions does not have the point or significance that you think it has—frustratingly so. You say it with an "Aha! Q.E.D." flair as if it had ipso facto significance—as if the section were telling the reader that there are eight different ways to pronounce one word, a mere laundry list, with no critique of the choices. If that were the case, I would agree with your interpretation of the corollary—that the section had no point. But that wild guess about the meaning has nothing whatever to do with the real meaning. There's just no way to explain it any simpler/shorter than it already is, which is why this is so frustrating. Now here I am at the talk page doing the opposite, writing a long, step-by-step explanation, in the hopes of conveying it one way or the other, to prove and show (as if with photos and diagrams) what the meaning is. It's not that I mind helping, it's just that it's frustrating that you deleted with such poor basis while confidently believing the basis was fine.
 * The word "redundant" means that a phrase contains superfluous repetition. But there is no such repetition in the section. There really isn't. If one reads it with due attention (not just a glance), one can prove that, even at a phrase-by-phrase level.
 * The section is not in the slightest trying to make Wikipedia a dictionary, so the citing of Wikipedia is not a dictionary is misguided here. Any Wikipedia article is "allowed" to state the etymology of the word and the pronunciation of it. (Thousands of them do.) And if they involve some variants, it is "allowed" to state them. (Thousands of them do.) All this section does is state the etymology of the sister pair (the base word and its iso- variant), *one time, clearly, and succinctly* for each member of the pair, and then it explains to the reader why several pronunciation variants exist (three pairs—the pair that stresses the "no" syllable, the pair that stresses the "tin" syllable, and the pair that stresses the "tret" syllable and treats the "-oin" ending as a diphthong). The point that the section is making, while thoroughly citing WP:RS references in doing so, is that there is no one single pronunciation of either sister and no one WP:RS to cite for it; there are several of each of those. And it explains why that's true, about as simply as any human being can. The reader has to be told this, or the article is false/mistaken by claiming only one of each (which is exactly what the isotretinoin article was doing before I fixed it by merging the discussion into this section, providing adequate coverage with WP:RS refs, and linking them both to that merged discussion rather than forking it redundantly).
 * Three pairs of related items, with a cogent explanation, are so much different (in terms of meaning, import, and comprehensibility) from a mere random unexplained laundry list of eight (mysteriously disparate) items that it was downright depressing that that's what you thought you were looking at. I'm sorry if you had that problem, and I'm taking great pains to help resolve it, but it's certainly not going to determine what well-referenced content Wikipedia isn't "allowed" to contain.
 * Please understand that I'm not writing this to be snarky or personal. I would be explaining this same info to anyone in the world who was challenging this.
 * As for your preference about whether the section falls after the lede or after the other sections—I honestly don't mind if either of those occurs. The reason I picked the latter is because sometimes other people have a problem with the former—they think it puts too much emphasis on the section, and they want to de-emphasize it by moving it down. I was helpfully making it as unobtrusive as it could be, anticipating that someone would have that problem. If you want to move it up, that's plenty fine by me. It's deleting it that I cannot accept.


 * Hi Quercus solaris. Don't worry, I am not taking it personally :-) Anyway, I agree completely that etymology sections are - not just allowed - but a warmly welcomed piece of Wikipedia articles. I must say, however, that the current etymology section seems highly unorthodox when compared the sections in other articles.
 * A short comment to your reply. You said:
 * "......it explains to the reader why several pronunciation variants exist (three pairs—the pair that stresses the "no" syllable, the pair that stresses the "tin" syllable, and the pair that stresses the "tret" syllable and treats the "-oin" ending as a diphthong) The point that the section is making, while thoroughly citing WP:RS references in doing so, is that there is no one single pronunciation of either sister and no one WP:RS to cite for it; there are several of each of those."


 * I don't think this is a question of reliable sources; moreover, I find this a question of relevancy (WP:RELEVANCE). As far as I am concerned, the information you added - with up to eight different ways of pronunciation - is highly trivial to the topic.
 * "On Wikipedia, relevance is a consideration whether a fact or detail in an article is useful to the reader or is out of scope of the article. If a fact is not relevant to the topic of the article, it should not be mentioned in that article. This does not mean it can not be mentioned in some other article. Mentioning things that are irrelevant to an article's topic can unnecessarily bloat an article, making it difficult for a reader to remain focused, and can also give the things mentioned undue weight. (WP:RELEVANCE)"


 * Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For clarification: I do support including an etymology section to the article, but not in the way as it's been included for now., you are well-experienced with the etymology stuff. Would you care to comment on the style and content of the section? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, as already explained, the idea that the section contains "up to eight different ways of pronunciation" is a complete failure of reading comprehension, or else a lack of reading at all (glancing without reading). I am guessing the latter? The section contains three ways of pronunciation: (1) the pair that stresses the "no" syllable, (2) the pair that stresses the "tin" syllable, and (3) the pair that stresses the "tret" syllable. Either the section was not read (only glanced at) or the reading failed to understand the meaning. Neither of those is an acceptable basis on which to judge the content. I just went back and shortened it so that it contains the same information but illustrates only the base member of the pair. This has cut back the number of transcriptions given to the bare minimum. Maybe this will convince the reader to actually read it before judging it. Regarding relevance and usefulness, the argument is oddly flawed. Most people consider it useful and relevant to know how a word is pronounced. For these words, you don't know the answer to that question until you read the content of this section. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dudes. I just came across this article as it stands today (so many months later).  I did a double-take on the oddness of the etymology section (which was linked from the lead in a way I have never encountered before in my eight years of reading and editing Wikipedia).  So I looked into things closer and eventually what I found was the above talk page conversation.  I then did some research: I tried following the link to the American Heritage Dictionary citation which unfortunately was only linked to the overall online text and not to the section on this acid, but eventually I got there...  Sort of.  The links given in the AHD page for the word's etymology go to what look like error pages for missing words (I kid you not, see for yourself).  And then, the roots as given in the current Wikipedia article appear to be completely wrong: according to dictionary.com and despite what the AHD says (and for which its etymology link doesn't point to any explanation) "tretinoin" isn't derived from "trans-" but from "tri-" ("three"), and the link to the Wiktionary word "retino" connects to the concept of a "retina" when in fact what the ancient Greek word rhētī́nē means is "resin" (unless I am getting something very wrong; wouldn't be the first time, though I have done my best to be extra careful here in light of the above conversation).  A previous editor (don't know who, didn't look, doesn't really matter) appears to have greatly simplified the extensive series of aforementioned possible pronunciations down to just two, though those two are quite disparate. SO...  Given all of that and under the philosophy of being bold, I have conducted a revision that I think addresses these various problems and that brings the article in line with other articles that have IPA/ Respell templates.  Here are my bulleted things:
 * First, I have placed the etymology section back in the lead and reduced it to a single sentence: in line with WP:NOTADICTIONARY, it is usually best if we don't overload our readers with unnecessary focus on the word itself (which is what dictionaries do!) but rather keep our focus on the subject matter (which is what encyclopedias do!). To the extent that there are indeed eight different extant pronunciations of this word with a story behind them worthy of being on Wikipedia and which is discussed and explained in multiple reliable sources, what we really should do is we should create a new Wikipedia article titled something like Etymology of tretinoin where this can be discussed properly and at suitable length.  I do not think it is wise to try to cram what should be a whole independent article on the matter into this article because it is only tangentially relevant to the article's subject (which, in the end, is an acid, and is not an etymology or pronunciation guide though both those things are certainly important).  I think this is what Jayaguru-Shishya was trying to get at.
 * Dictionary.com offers only a single pronunciation for the word; the IPA given in the current Wikipedia article and referenced to Oxford Dictionary suggesting that the word is sometimes pronounced "tre-TIN-oyn" is a misreading of the Oxford Dictionary characters ōin (which are pronounced "OH-in") as oin without the macron over the "o" (one syllable diphthong "OYN" like "coin"). What Oxford actually says is "OH-in".  Dictionary.com also says "OH-in".  Neither offers alternate transcriptions.  I feel confident enough from this that maybe there is some kind of consensus on "trə-TIN-oh-in", and I am not seeing any good reasons (yet) to include a list of alternate pronunciations HERE, esp. given that one of those that the article had was evidently the result of a flat-out mistake on the part of one of our editors (don't know who, didn't check, again doesn't matter, it was a mistake that was very easy to make).  The article now has a single IPA and a single, correct etymology in the lead.  Like most other Wikipedia articles that bother to cover these things.
 * It occurs to me that we could do an RfC for this stuff (ugh!), or we could do nothing and let the business bob along and see what happens, but I think the former is unnecessary and the latter sets several bad precedents, so I have now done some things to keep it both accurate and detailed enough for the casual reader (we all know it: 94.3% (fake stat) of people who read a given Wikipedia article only read the lead section and don't make it any further). However, if any of the editors in this discussion or any that stumble upon it in the future feel otherwise, I would welcome having my work corrected.  Just please don't add back any mistaken etymologies or misreadings of unfamiliar vowels and diphthongs found on the Internet!  I think we can universally agree that THAT would be a bad thing and NOT in the interests of the project (towards which I too am acting in good faith here, and everywhere, even if I sometimes get it wrong).  Thoughts??  KDS4444 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi ,
 * Thanks for your good-faith efforts. I broke my reply into bullets to make the most of readability for an unfortunately multifaceted/wish-it-were-shorter discussion. I know one would think by reading my long comments on this page that I am insane, but I rarely ever feel the need to have such long WP discussions as this one. It just ends up being needed for a few topics because it's hard to make everyone happy and cover all the angles.
 * I stand by all of my previous versions as being painstakingly blow-by-blow analyzable/traceable as faithfully reflecting the 3 WP:RS reliable sources I was consulting. Thus error-free in the sense of no errors introduced by me. But as for the sources ...
 * Comparing now across 7 reliable sources, I find that whereas AHD5 (in saying "T(RANS-) + RETINO(IC ACID) + -IN.") acts certain that the "t" came from "trans" (which makes sense because tretinoin is the all-trans isomer of retinoic acid), Merriam-Webster Unaridged says "perhaps from trans- + retinoic acid + -in" (emphasis is mine), and OxfordDictionaries Brit & World module says "1970s: from t- of unknown origin + retinoic acid + -in1" (emphasis is mine). I cannot find any WP:RSs that support the tri-/three theory, but I am not averse to keeping both the trans theory (with 3 cites) and the tri/three theory (with a cn tag).
 * I am not averse to keeping other Wikipedians happy regarding the placement of the info. I just want the info to be accurate and complete. There was a discussion a while back involving me, User:Doc James, and several others about where to put etymologies and pronunciations in medicine-related articles, including disease articles and pharmaceutical drug articles. (Links: Discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/Archive_9; Discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation; MOS guideline Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation.) The upshot of those discussions is that we all agreed that etymologies and pronunciations need to move out of the lede (i.e., declutter), moving either (1) to the infobox parameter when practical (as with pron alone for most drugs), (2) to a class of footnotes, or (3) to a lower section when needed (it is needed in some articles because there are 1 or 2 paragraphs worth of info). Numbers 1 and 2 are the approach I now follow by default, across dozens or hundreds of articles. A particular version of number 3 is what you saw here, because this one is an outlier, both because it was from early 2015 before that later discussion, and because isotretinoin needs to link to tretinoin etym & pron rather than fork them (most articles don't need to link to this info).
 * It is well established that Wikipedia articles can give pronunciations and etymologies (in other words, WP:NOTDICT does not preclude that), and I am totally concordant with User:Jayaguru-Shishya's comment earlier ("I agree completely that etymology sections are - not just allowed - but a warmly welcomed piece of Wikipedia articles"). But as one does it, one has to cover the accepted alternate ones. For example, there are many pharmaceutical drugs where if one looks up their pronunciations across 3 or 5 major WP:RS dictionaries (medical, pharma, general), one gets 2 or 3 variants. I don't want Wikipedia to favor one and hide the other, so that's why I try to cover them all.
 * Regarding a separate article for etymology (which I would say would need to be titled "Etymology of tretinoin and isotretinoin"), it was a good-faith suggestion but I doubt it will fly with most other Wikipedians because the entire subject is only a paragraph or two, that is, only a stub's worth of article. The complete discussion of several paragraphs can exist, and it ought to, but in keeping with the spirit of WP:Summary style, to my mind it has to be a section of footnote within this article rather than a separate article, which other Wikipedians will just delete or merge back into this one.
 * Update: I forgot to address the concern about AHD5's internal links not working in their etymologic note. The anchor text of their etymologic note does indeed say what they want to say. The fact that their internal links aren't working on 2 of the syllables is unfortunate but does not negate the meaning that their anchor text conveys.
 * I will did edit some more to incorporate all of the factors discussed. Thanks again for your good-faith discussion. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved etymology back to the body of the text. This is were we typically place it for medical articles.
 * I am not a big fan of having it in a footnote after the first word especially when we are talking a few paragraphs of content.
 * I also am not sure this is ideal for people who are using screen readers / are blind. User:RexxS do you know the answer to this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Most screen readers that I am familiar with have the ability to call up a list of the headings in an article, in the same way that a sighted reader can easily scan the table of contents. Having a section header "Etymology" is a real convenience for any screen reader user who wants to know the etymology of the article title (and "Etymology and pronunciation" would be even better, but I won't insist on it). It will always be better for a screen reader to have sections that they can jump directly to, rather than having to listen through an article in the hope of finding a single piece of information that they are looking for. Does that answer the question, ? --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so that would mean a section in the body of the article would be more helpful than a note after the first word correct? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's correct, especially if the section heading is clear. It helps even more when the user is re-visiting the article as they will quickly find the section that they want. In a large article, it's also helpful for a sighted reader as long as the heading shows up in the table of contents. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's correct, especially if the section heading is clear. It helps even more when the user is re-visiting the article as they will quickly find the section that they want. In a large article, it's also helpful for a sighted reader as long as the heading shows up in the table of contents. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, everyone, for the discussion. I would like to comply with the suggestions above from Doc James and RexxS. I intend to start I have started using a section instead of a footnote. I plan to start converting the ones I have already done (no promises on how fast) I have already updated every instance that I know of or could find with the search terms I could think of . I used to pin my hopes on having a tiny jump link from the opening sentence to the section, but I think I have arrived at accepting to give it up, as pushed for by others, because (1) any reader who wants the info can find it easily enough from the TOC, (2) when some people click "edit" and try to insert it into the opening sentence (because they saw it was "missing" there and they didn't look to realize that it is already in the article but not jump-linked), I can just undo and point out the existing coverage in the edit summary, and (3) by a few years from now, many readers will get used to knowing that the TOC, not the opening sentence, is where to go look for that info if they want it. Hopefully other Wikipedians are OK with the section plan and will not try to undo it. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * However, I cannot sign up to obliteration (complete removal) of valid content such as in this edit diff and this edit diff. I am fine with moving the content down, and OK with not even having the tiny jump link, but this edit diff reintroduced erroneous content after it had been duly fixed. Mastitis is inflammation of any mammary organ, not just of breast. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The content was not completely removed in this edit but simply moved lower in the lead.
 * People use the term "breast" and "mammary organ" interchangeably. It is like lungs and pulmonary. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In humans yes. But among mammals, breast or udder. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay certainly. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Molecule Image
It is clear that the image shown is not "all-trans". An accurate image, from Nature, a very reputable scholarly source, can be found here: http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v87/n8/images/icb200948f1.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.225.221 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Pregnancy category
The body identifies the pregnancy category as "C" whereas the Clinical Data section lists it as "D"

Eurylus (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the pregnancy issue with this drug should be more emphasized.
For a very strong source for it see Developmental Biology, Gilbert and Barresi 2016, page 26. Reference should be added and INFORMATION SHOULD BE BETTER AVAILABLE FOR A READING MOM. I think Wikipedia acts as a sort of advising aid and should warn for common dangerous mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.28.153 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * see WP:MEDMOS. It's an encyclopædia article, not a clinical manual.  Your port of call for 'advising aids' should be your family doctor.  Fortnum (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Duh...
The most common application of this drug is to reverse photoaging. The lead should (and now does) say so. Let's keep it that way, yes? A loose necktie (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it wise to use tretinoin topical after having used isotrentinoin oral and experiencing among other reactions, psychosis in a 15-year-old male?
My son was prescribed generic Accutane tretinoin, and had quick onset adverse reactions, including but not limited to psychosis,  intrusive violent  thoughts that did not go away until the medication ran its course out of his body. Even though there have been no cases that I have yet to read about with topical tretinoin do you think it wise for said 15 year-old male to  use topical tretinoin? JayRoup (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)