Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Epinephrine


 * Thank you all for agreeing to pursue mediation. A delay of two/three weeks is customary for formal mediation, so whilst we wait for a mediator to become available, your patience is appreciated. Queries can be sent straight to me or to the MedCom mailing list. Regards, AGK   10:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: As of today, still trying to hunt down a mediator. AGK   13:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Begin mediation
Welcome to the mediation. The Mediation Committee has a heavy workload right now, hence the delay. I've read the article talk page and I think I get the gist of the dispute. Here are some questions regarding factors I think will be important: Please sign, indicating your agreement to the above. Sunray (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) One thing that strikes me is the length of the posts on the article talk page. Would participants commit to being as economical as possible in their statements?
 * 2) Discussion has been relatively civil thus far and I encourage you to continue with that. Would you be able to stick to content rather than the contributor?
 * 3) WP policies are a key to a good outcome in a mediation. Would you be willing to be guided by WP Policy?
 * 4) Mediation usually depends on consensus. That is more difficult with only two parties. It is essential for participants to look for areas of common interest, to collaborate and, ultimately, to compromise.  Would you be able to make a sincere attempt to do this?
 * 5) The role of the mediator is to facilitate the discussion. Would you be willing to dialogue with the mediator rather than discuss with each other unless/until you are able to collaborate?

Ronk01  talk,  15:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

--WikiDonn (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Responses to questions
Comments and reactions to the above would be welcome.

Before we actually try to truly mediate this, I would ask you to consider a proposal that WikiDonn and I have agreed to, in which a macro would be used to display whichever name the reader types in. This is a reasonable proposal, as there is no clear advantage to either term for the majority of Wikipedia's audience. Ronk01 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to my proposal on the village pump: WP:Village pump (proposals). However, I don't think we need to stop discussing this because the likelihood of that going over is slim, as shown by the attitudes of the responses (and I can't help but wonder that if it was such a simple solution, then why has it not been implemented already). I'm not sure if it is the job of the mediator to push for a change to all of Wikipedia that parties in mediation of one specific article have agreed to, but I really hope you will try. --WikiDonn (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting proposal, and I like that you both agreed to it. However, as you point out, it may not fly. I believe that an alternate approach (could be a parallel approach), would be to take a look at policy to see whether one name better meets WP Naming conventions. It is up to you though, to decide whether you want to proceed with the mediation now, put it on hold, or drop it. Sunray (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the parallel approach is what I suggested. Considering we have been waiting a month for mediation, I don't want to put it on hold because of my proposal, and I don't want to drop it without really starting. We should be able to do both at the same time. I would have absolutely no problem discussing which name is more supported by naming policy. That is exactly what I want to do here. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, if Ronk01 agrees, let's proceed. Sunray (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The dual title thing also goes against policy. Although it is a fair compromise and yet is kind of silly, even if we agreed on it, the formatting fanatics would just revert it right back. I think that the reason is that it affects the URL because a slash in the title makes it appear in the URL which is confusing for the MediaWiki software or something. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sunray (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, shall we begin? Any comments about my questions? If you agree, please say so. Then I encourage you to make opening statements. Sunray (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes the posts are long, but confining each post to only 1 point would drag out the discussion to be ridiculously long unless we moved past each issue quickly, so I don't know. I guess if it is absolutely necessary for mediation.
 * 2) Yes. Even though a couple of insults have come my way (despite me having more support) I have and will continue to stick to the content.
 * 3) If anything, I think policy has been completely ignored in this discussion, and I don't think we will get anywhere until we do start consulting policy.
 * 4) I think that since Ronk01 posted a link to the mediation on the talk page, if anyone else was interested in joining, I think they would have done it by now. I also have no objections to JE19426 joining, but I think you should add a opening statement section for them, because I'm not sure what their views are. --WikiDonn (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Regarding the first question, I agree that sometimes participants will need to make longer posts to elucidate more complex issues. However, if we agree to be as clear and economical of words as possible, it will be easier for others to follow. Regarding additional participants, I will await RonkO1's views. Sunray (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your questions,


 * 1) I agree with Wikidonn here, the length is often needed to convey a point.
 * 2) As a MEDCAB mediator., I often see personal disputes covered by a thin veil of "content" I find this behabior egregious, and avoid it whenever possible.
 * 3) I am a strong supporter of IAR, but I do recognize the need for policy, however, polocy must be followed sensibly, not mindlessly, that is why we have IAR in the first place.
 * 4) I believe that both parties here want a solution to the problem, I for one have other things I would like to do, and would like this to be as concise as ethically possbile.

In regards to additional participants, I have no objection to additional voices here. Ronk01 form an IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.193.141 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of you have said that it will be difficult for you to limit your posts at times. Fair enough, as long as you try to be as concise as possible. We will examine the policy issue more closely in the next section. Sunray (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that some analysis of contributors may be necessary - not to determine motivation or about behaviour, more to do with how contributors themselves use the term, but I think that is not what you mean by above request. I agree to the above points and in general to uphold policy, especially NPA and civility. I will do my best to be concise, I think my first post served as a long enough introduction. Weakopedia (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional participants
I thought I would join in (I am 86.156.228.191 and 86.170.246.77 from the Talk:Epinephrine) anyway in my opinion, the macro idea is a great one, another idea would be naming the page something like Adrenaline/Epinephrine however I think I read somewhere that having article titles with forward slashes are awkward.
 * Sorry forgot to sign JE19426 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi JE19426, thanks for your comment. I wish to point out that this is a mediation, rather than an open discussion. If you wish to become a participant, let us know. If the other participants have no objection, I would be o.k. with you joining. Sunray (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've considered JE19426's request to join the mediation and have a concern about that. Right now we have two participants, each taking a side of the issue. I think that addition of just one more participant would affect the balance and potentially make resolution more difficult. The Mediation Committee Policy mandates having one spokesperson for each side of the issue. I've asked JE19426 if he would be willing to allow one or other of the participants represent him. Sunray (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * JE19426 has indicated here that he would be willing to have WikiDonn represent his views. So let's leave things as they are with two participants unless we have other requests. At some point we may wish to move the discussion to the talk page in any case. Sunray (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statements
Once you have pondered the above questions, would you each please make a brief opening statement of no more than 200 words describing your view of the dispute and opportunities for resolution?

Opening statement by Ronk01
In my opinion, Wikipedia editors are not slaves to policy, and when a policy does not benifit an article, we simply ignore it. Here, we have an issue of two names which are in theory, equally scientific. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) has decided that epinephrine is the most appropriate name, making it the International Nonproprietary Name (INN). In addition, the American Medical association, Japanese Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the United States Pharmacopiea, the Canadian Pharmacopiea, the Japanese Pharmacopiea and the Medical Associations of several European states consider epinephrine to be more appropriate. The EU is considering changing their European Pharmacopiea to favor epinephrine, the British have been talking about changing the British Approved Name (BAN) to epinephrine. Clearly the United States is not the only nation using epinephrine, in fact, the majority of people using Wikipedia will recognize epinephrine thanks to serial medical dramas, not only those medical professionals who consider adrenaline to be a layman's term. So clearly, there is a signifigant advantage to the use of epinephrine, the majority of English-speaking medical professionals prefer it, and the rest of the population will recognize it. In fact, Adrenaline is very close to a brand name here in the US, Adrenalin (no "e"), which is why the INN decided to use epinephrine. Epinephrine does not damage the usability of the article, and any other argument is purely ethnocentric. There is no legatimate cause of action to change the title, the people over at the INN have already argued this to death, so could we please just leave good enough alone? Ronk01 from an IP (Public computer)


 * Thanks. I think I am clear on your perspective. You raise issues that get to the heart of the matter: How, or whether, to apply WP policies. [Comments moved to Topic 1].


 * You have not yet responded to my questions. Furthermore, you may be calling my third point into question. I therefore suggest that we begin our discussion on that point. I will open a new section for that below. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One more thing: What is your view about including other participants? User:JE19426, who participated on the talk page as IP 86.156.228.191 and IP 86.170.246.77, has requested to join. My only concern is whether that would imbalance the discussion. In many mediations, individuals act as proxies for each point of view.  We do have one representative from each side of the issue at present. What are your views on this? Sunray (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by WikiDonn
Adrenaline is the most widely used name around the world. Wikipedia, according to policy, prefers common names to scientific names. Even still though, adrenaline is well accepted in the scientific community around the world. Adrenaline is the most commonly used name by regular people in every country. The only country where epinephrine is used more in the scientific community is America. Even in America, most of the scientific community still accepts adrenaline. The only thing standing in the way of the article being called adrenaline is the INN. Wikipedia is not obligated to use the names given by an external organization, and there is no part of any policy that says that. No reason has been given why we should use the INN name, most arguments to use epinephrine have been countered, and most reasons to use adrenaline has been ignored. In short, adrenaline is the most widely used name around the world. Why should we use the name that is only primarily used by some people in some medical organizations in one country? --WikiDonn (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've now got a clear idea of your views. Would you be able to also give a response to my four questions, above? Sunray (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Weakopedia
[Moved from Sunray's talk page]

I think the obvious questions is, why is this a recurring issue? Ronk and WD are fairly new participants, but the issue has been revisited many times over the past seven years, involving many editors. The answer, of course, is that this is representative of a larger disagreement throughout society and the world. Since the end of the nineteenth century the word Adrenaline has been in common use among all levels of society in the English speaking world, and even today the word Adrenaline is preferred by most Ensglish speaking people. In the past the proportion of people who had even heard of Epinephrine was even smaller than today, but this imbalance is slowly being redressed due to the abundance of American medical dramas on television and due to World Health Organization efforts to standardize names. However, in common use amongst a majority of English speaking people is still the word Adrenaline.

Despite the WHO ruling some countries still use Adrenaline officially, sometimes compromising to write Adrenaline (Epinephrine). In fact there have been many cases of emergency medicine operators mistakenly picking Ephedrine in place of Epinephrine in a crisis and this has only bolstered opposition to the naming convention. Adrenaline is considered a special case where individual countries may have slightly different policies.

Despite anything, the regular population still uses Adrenaline to mean the stuff that comes out of your adrenal gland and rushes round your body, even in America. American scientists (and Japanese and some Canadians) may use Epinephrine but the vast majority of regular folk use Adrenaline. It will always be, therefore, that there are editors wishing to revisit this matter, as within society as a whole there will always be people confused when they look up "Adrenaline rush" and find an article on Epinephrine. And when they find out that the only reason it is called Epinephrine and not the Adrenaline they have always known is that someone patented the word Adrenalin in America 110 years ago, they are likely to edit the page in line with the ideas of common name, this being an encyclopedia after all and not a medical text. This is an encyclopedia and is meant to be a general reference work. The article on Epinephrine mentions little of the history or the naming of the substance, and little to do with the use of the term "Adrenaline" in society. That isn't a general reference work, it is a page from a medical book. The article is not representative of societys use of the word, and that is why there is a conflict, and will likely be a conflict again and again with different participants.

Perhaps a compromise could be to have a medical article on Epinephrine and a general reference article on Adrenaline, but if not then the current article needs to be expanded. That expansion would reveal more to the reader about why it is named what it is, and who uses the name. I would argue that this would only make it more clear to editors why the article should be called Adrenaline in a general reference work, despite what the WHO would like to see. If individual countries are allowed to challenge the WHO ruling on Adrenaline, should Wikipedia feel bound by the ruling? I would say not. Wikipedia is not responsible for forcing an uncommon name on the readership simply to comply with WHO rulings. Whenever common use of the word for the stuff that comes out of your adrenal gland changes in favour of Epinephrine then there will be fewer disagreements over the article title. Until then the encyclopedic thing to do is call the article what the majority of the readers will call it, Adrenaline, and expand the article text to show why that is the case. Much has been made of representation in reliable sources, yet the commentators have always restricted their search to scientific works - this is a general reference encyclopedia, we don't only report what goes on in the medical world, and we use a variety of reliable sources. Any goodfaith search shows that Adrenaline is the preferred term among English speaking people.

I think that so long as the majority use Adrenaline there will always be editors who dislike being told by the WHO or anyone else that they can't say "adrenaline junkie" or "adrenaline rush" or "adrenaline-anything else", who will argue that common use clearly favours Adrenaline and that those arguing for Epinephrine are forcing a minority view which, although "official" in some parts of the world and common among scientists from certain parts of the world is not representative of common use, and who will therefore seek to change the article title. Since we are writing for the majority and not the minority (who in this case mostly have access to better quality reference works than Wikipedia anyway) the simplest solution is just to go with the majority. Weakopedia (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see where you are coming from. I was particularly interested in your comments about expanding, or splitting, the article. That may be necessary, whatever the outcome is here. For now, though, I think we need to be clear on how the policy applies. Sunray (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic 1 - How to apply WP policy
In his opening remarks, Ronk01 said that in his opinion: "... Wikipedia editors are not slaves to policy, and when a policy does not benifit an article, we simply ignore it." It sounds to me as though this invokes, or reserves the right to invoke, WP:IAR, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is an important policy.

Ronk01 also refers to the World Health Organization, the International Nonproprietary Name and various bodies with views on medical names. These will, of course be important in determining the article name. WP:TITLE, the policy for article naming, states: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." He has listed some key sources.

Let me begin this discussion by stating my perspective. I've edited and mediated according to WP policies for many years now. While they are not perfect, they are the foundation for what Wikipedia is today. In mediation, I find that they provide an objective lens through which to consider the views of various participants. I would like to have an agreement with participants in this mediation about how we apply policies related to article naming. What shall our approach be? What do we agree on with respect to WP policy? When and how do we invoke WP:IAR? Sunray (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding policy, I state again, policy here on Wikipedia is mostly useful (otherwise, why would it exist) But it can not be taken as the final word in a debate,(ArbCom gets that)especially since so much policy is contradictory. In my view, policy is designed to benifit the majority of readers of the enclyclopedia, and the majority of articles, but here I feel, we have an exception. Ronk01 from an IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.193.141 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I suggest that we begin by seeing how WP policy applies in this case. WikiDonn would you be able to outline what you think the important policy considerations are? Sunray (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WP:IAR is an important rule, but it is not a trump card. This argument is hypocritical coming from someone who used WP:MEDMOS, which isn't even a policy, to support the argument that we must use the INN name. We are not slaves to the INN either. At least we can change policy. We cannot just use the INN name for the sake of itself. I have asked several times what the benefit of using the INN name over the common name is, and have not gotten a reasonable answer. I have explained regardless of any policy, why adrenaline is the better name, and even provided hypothetical conditions under which epinephrine would be more appropriate. Shouldn't the exception leave the rule intact? Under what conditions would adrenaline be more appropriate? Policy should not be enforced for the sake of itself, but it also shouldn't be ignored without a good reason. I have explained several times why in this specific case following the policy makes more sense and there is a consensus on the talk page to use WP:AT. If it states that: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers", doesn't WP:COMMONNAMES best support this? If policies "benifit the majority of readers of the enclyclopedia, and the majority of articles", then what is the exception to a change that benefits the majority of readers? --WikiDonn (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of COMMONNAMES here is inappropriate, this is a medical article, medical articles must follow established naming conventions to be understandable, up-to date and most importantly, relavant to the majority of the current medical community. There are quite a few other lay/"scientific" terms out there, do you think we should go around changing them all in the name of a policy that was drafted to deal with animal and clebrity names? Wikidonn, do you know that the UK is the only English-speaking nation of statistical signifigance to use adrenaline exclusively in the medical context. (I think the WHO has actually reprimanded the BMA for this) The Aussies use both, the Canadians and the US are epinephrine. And remember, here at the English Wikipedia, we are only concerned about English-speaking countries. Ronk01 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * General comment: This is your first "engagement" in this mediation. Frankly, I hope you will be able to more closely adhere to the four factors I suggested we adopt at the beginning of this mediation.


 * WikiDonn: Consider this statement by you: "This argument is hypocritical coming from someone..." I regard such a statement as a personal attack. Another comment by you: "I have explained several times... " Not in this mediation, you haven't. Would you be willing to focus on the present (this mediation)? That implies going back to first principles and explaining your views with reference to policy. Statements such as "MEDMOS" isn't even a policy" do not seem helpful. IMO a more productive way of stating your case would be to state the article of policy instead.


 * Ronk01: You said: "... medical articles must follow established naming conventions." Would you be able to explain, with reference to WP policy, why medical articles must follow those standards? In responding, please bear in mind that this is not a medical publication. It is an encyclopedia written for the general reader.


 * At the beginning of this section I asked several questions about the application of policy. I fear I wasn't clear enough. Let me now rephrase the question: What are the important policy considerations (referring to both policies and guidelines) that bear on the naming of this article? You may wish to list these in bullet form. Please start with policy and then proceed to guidelines. Sunray (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As a paraphrase form COMMONNAMES: "Article titles should reflect common, accurate usage, instead of a more elaborate, formal, or scientific alternative" both terms are scientific, there is no third name. Further: "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." The majority of refrences are epinephrine. The, instead of supporting Adrenaline, commonnames supports epinephrine. But, of course, I stated above that I believe that commonnames does not apply to medical articles as medical article should reflect current accurate medical usage of a term (which is why the uterus article is not titled "womb"), MEDMOS is a legitimate guideline that indicates proper usage of terminology in medical articles, MEDMOS states that INN names must be used to conform, that's why we don't use acetaminophin for the article on paracetamol, even though here in the US and Canada (the majority of the native English speaking population of the world) we call it acetaminophin. Paracetamol is INN, acetaminophin is not, thus we use paracetamol (Both terms, by the way, are just a scientific, INN simply chose paracetamol due to its lack of a trademark history.) Thus, Adrenaline has no basis for use here on Wikipedia, except for those ethnocentric few who refuse to accept international standards. Ronk01 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A clear statement, thanks. This: "... except for those ethnocentric few who refuse to accept international standards" sounds to me like a personal attack. In any case, I will, again, remind participants to stick to content, not the contributor. Sunray (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll list some key text form WP:AT in bullet form and then comment on it. According to policy, article titles should be:


 * Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
 * Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
 * Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
 * Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
 * Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.

Adrenaline fits all of these best, and I would be happy to clarify why.


 * Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.

This points toward common names being the default, and using the technical names as the exception.


 * Name of things should use the most common form:
 * Caffeine (not 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)

Caffeine is a drug, and since a drug is on the list, I think it is safe to reason that WP:COMMONNAME was meant to apply to drugs.


 * Explicit Conventions
 * Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains
 * Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine)
 * This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names
 * When it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention

Once again, this points toward article titles using the common name unless there are clear benefits. Using the reason that epinephrine "is the scientific name" or "is the name supported by most established naming conventions" as a "benefit" to using the specialized name defeats the spirit of this policy. Furthermore, technically epinephrine is not neutral because, as Ronk01 pointed out, it is disputed between the organizations which name should be used. Therefore, the common name should be used on Wikipedia, as the organizations have not been able to decide themselves, but common usage has decided on adrenaline because is the common name in every single country. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, Andrenaline is used professionally on one non English speaking nation. Second, epinephrine is recognizable to the vast majority of Americans and Canadians(my ten year old nephew's friend knows what it is), and even some Brits. Epinephrine is esay to find, the majority of incoming links are for epinephrine, not adrenaline. Both terms are equally precise, no debate there. Either name would require a disimbauguation, so they are equally concise, and epinephrine is much more consistant the adrenaline in the medical articles. The reliable sources support epinephrine (do a quick Google Scholar in English). Finally, your statement regarding usage of common commercial terms in prefference to non comercial ones is simply wrong, Wikipedia does not advertise, or support any product, naming a page after a product is supporting and advertising that product unless the page is about a product that has no equivalent non-proprietary name (INN!). Regarding your statement regarding caffine, yes caffiene is a drug, and it's drugh name is Caffiene but caffiene is also a chemical compound with an IUPAC name, COMMONNAMES was simply warning editors to avoid usage of chemical nomenclature in defference to a common, but still scientific name. That's why the epinephrne page is not titled "R)-4-(1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl)benzene-1,2-diol." And finally, Wikidonn, you would be in violation of Wikipedia policy if you say Adrenaline is more common, since more sources back epinephrine, thus your statement could be considered POV or worse, original research. Ronk01 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for excellent summaries. WikiDonn, you say that WP:COMMONNAME is to be applied. I agree. However, we have two common names. Ronk01 points out that Epinephrine is more commonly used within the medical profession. It seems to me we thus have the following problem: Adrenaline is apparently more widely found in common usage, Epinephrine in medical circles.


 * WP:TITLE states: "In determining what [most common] name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." The policy recommends the a number of methods for deciding which of alternated names is more common:
 * search engine testing
 * major international organizations
 * major English-language media outlets
 * quality encyclopedias
 * geographic name servers
 * major scientific bodies
 * scientific journals.


 * We also need to consider how WP:MEDMOS is employed with respect to the policy. Sunray (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

MEDMOS is a much more specific guideline, so in my opinion, it would be more appropriate to follow MEDMOS (in fact the medicine articles are the only ones with a manual of style that states that COMMONNAMES does not have the final say on article titles. I personally, believe that the more specififc guidelines are more useful in cases like this than less specific, all-encompassing policies. As I have stated before, this has already occured over at Paracetamol, so we have precedent here. Ronk01 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So we are at the point of concordance between policy and guideline. I would like to hear WikiDonn's views on MEDMOS. We can stay at the level of policy if preferred. Have either of you run search engine tests? I believe you would need to use advanced search options. I ran a few searches and found it illuminating. Sunray (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have as a matter of fact, epinephrine yeilds around 35,800,000 results, adrenaline, only 18,300,000. If we go to Google Scholar, epinephrine's prevalance in the scholarly world is evident, 317,000 for epinephrine, 241,000 for adrenaline. There is no question tha tepinephrine is the proper title. Ronk01  talk,  18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am curious about search parameters. Usually one excludes Wikipedia (-Wikipedia). Did you also rule out instances where both names are mentioned ("Epinephrine -Adrenaline"; and vice versa)? Probably several searches would be needed to get one or two that are meaningful. Would you be willing to describe some search parameters? Sunray (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you seem to have a few misconceptions Ronk01. WP:AT doesn't state that we must use the name most commonly used in reliable sources, it states that we must use the most common name that is used in reliable sources. Adrenaline and epinephrine are both used in reliable sources, but adrenaline is more commonly used in general. In no way is epinephrine the common name. Therefore it does not benefit the article in any way to use epinephrine. Second of all, a google test yields 13,700,000 results for adrenaline, and 2,600,000 for epinephrine, which means there is a big difference in general usage. There is no question that adrenaline is the common name. A google scholar test yields 241,000 results for adrenaline, and 317,000 for epinephrine which shows a much smaller difference in the medical usage. So the usage in the medical field is somewhat larger for epinephrine, but in general, the usage is far more in favor adrenaline. Second of all, both adrenaline and epinephrine are used professionally. They are both used professionally in every country. Does any organization not accept adrenaline? Was any reason given for why the organizations chose epinephrine? Those are things you have not considered and we do not have to use the names given by these organizations without thinking about it. Any doctor or such will recognize adrenaline and realize what it is. The same is not true for everybody else and epinephrine. Since organizations use both terms, some prefer one, and some prefer the other, it is a POV to say epinephrine is more scientific. However, since adrenaline is mainly used by everybody in general, so it is more neutral to go with adrenaline. Epinephrine is not recognizable to most people. Given the google test, I would say the amount of people that recognize adrenaline only is about 13.7:2.6 which is more than 5:1 (in other words, only 1 in 5 people who know about the chemical will recognize the name epinephrine). Regarding the thing about trademarked terms, that was not my comment, and it actually is a part of the policy. But I was surprised when I saw it and I would agree that I have never seen it before, so it might be new. How is WP:AT less specific? Since this is a Wikipedia article, WP:AT applies as well. It is strongly in favor of adrenaline, but MEDMOS is only loosely in favor of epinephrine because adrenaline is not a proprietary name. Even if it was, it would still be better to use adrenaline because it is far more well recognized (and apparently that is now supported by policy). Guidelines do not exist to outright contradict policies, and since they are guidelines, they don't have to be interpreted as strictly as policies. Guidelines should not be used if they contradict a policy unless there is a consensus for it, and only if there is a good reason to do it other than the fact that the guidelines says so. And finally, nothing is more original research than asking your ten year old nephew's friend if they know what epinephrine is. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your first statement is patent nonsense, second, epinephrine is much more commen in academia. Third, you are using Google UK, I uysed an amalgation of both. Here in the US,, we cannot use adrenaline on any official forms, documents, or reports, the same is true in Canada, so your statement regarding usage in all countries is simply wrong. Just about every organization in the US and Cada does not accept Adrenaline (including The Joint Commission on Hospital Accredtation) While a dcotor would recognize adrenaline, it is considered a layman's term, and professionals using it professionally are loked down upon. AT is less specific because it is meant to encompass all Wikipedia articles, MEDMOS is meant only for medical ones. MEDMOS is unequivacobly in favor of epinephrine, since, and this is tha last time I am going to say this, Epinephrine is INN! POlicies are not meant to be interpreted strictly, thopse who do are called wikilayers. That was nto states to be original research, it was an example, and since it is not going to be used in an article, it doesn't matter! If this really must come down to it, we could consider this a dialectual debate, in which the name that was useed when the article was created is the one that the article keeps. Ronk01  talk,  00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Refocussing
Please take your time. We won't solve this until we find things to agree on. Sunray (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mediator's comments
 * 1) Again, please try to be as concise as possible. WikiDonn, perhaps if you have several points to make you could use bullets. But remember, throwing out myriad points is going to hinder resolution. I need you to focus on elements of policy.
 * 2) Would you both be able to support each of your main points with evidence (internal diffs or links; external sources)?
 * 3) If you have run searches, would you be able to provide the search parameters?
 * 4) If you don't agree with something would you be able to just state "I don't agree" and your reason? There is no need to refer to something the other participant has said as "patent nonsense."


 * If possible, I need to take a five day break from this mediation, as I have a new patient who is going to require a rather complicated surgery, and I need time to plan. Thank you.m Ronk01   talk,  05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sunray (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I won't have access to a real computer for the next few days, probably a week or so. I won't be able to make any real, substantial edits from my iPhone, so I agree we should take a break. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We shall resume when you are back. As a first step, would you be able to take that wall of text you contributed, above, pick out your strongest points and supporting evidence, and display them in bullet form, below? I want to be sure I know what you want to emphasize, so I can be sure it is responded to before we move on. Sunray (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I'm back. A summary of my above wall of text would be:

--WikiDonn (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Epinephrine is not used a lot more than adrenaline in academia, only slightly more, and my google scholar results back that up.
 * The fact that adrenaline appears 5x more often overall shows that the name epinephrine is medical jargon.
 * Wikipedia policy calls for the most commonly used name that appears in reliable sources, not necessarily the name that appears most often in the sources. There is a difference.
 * Wikipedia calls for the common name over the name "most commonly used in academia" because using medical jargon harms the readability and recognizability of the article.
 * Wikipedia does not use medical jargon because it is not written purely for doctors, and it is not some medial archive that nobody is going to read.
 * Using the INN name for its own sake on Wikipedia goes against the nature of Wikipedia, and in this case using epinephrine just because it is the INN name only serves to perpetuate the use of INN names on Wikipedia.
 * Using the INN name over the common name on Wikipedia is the exception, not the rule, and no real benefit to the article has been given for why the INN name should be used.
 * You cannot just ignore policy because you don't like it, and especially not when there is a consensus to use it.
 * WP:AT is clearly in favor of adrenaline, and was created for situations like this.
 * Using INN names over common names in all cases would obviously require a change in policy, so doing that in cases like this where there is no benefit to or even harm done by using the INN name would obviously require a change in policy.
 * Thanks. Much clearer! I would like to discuss each of your points. For starters, lets take the first one. You say that adrenaline appears 5X more overall. I get more than that.
 * epinephrine -wikipedia -adrenaline - About 9,410,000 results
 * adrenaline -wikipedia -epinephrine - About 120,000,000
 * Most of the epinephrine results are academic or medical. Few of the adrenaline results are. Tatoo parlors and a game figure prominently in the first few pages of results.
 * Your next two points speak to policy. I think we should be precise when we discuss policy. Would you be able to quote the actual policy statement? Also, I want to be sure that we don't miss anything. So between the two of you, I hope to see every point of the policy that might apply. To resolve this we are going to have to fine points that you both agree on. Sunray (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that posting would not be made until we both both were avalible. Anyway, my argument is as follows


 * Adrenaline has only one English Speaking country (the UK)using it academically in a widespread form, using it here would drain the article of academic credibility in abiut five other nations. (Wikipedia has enough trouble with academic reliability already)
 * Epinephrine is the preffered name of nearly all English medical journals, organizations, governing bodies, and regulators (see my above arguments for details)
 * Epinephrine is the International Nonproprietary Name, a name that is determined after careful analysis of usage patterns, academic credibility, scientific relavance, and lack of commercial ties.
 * The name adrenaline has commercial ties
 * Google Scholar reveals that Epinephrine is preffered in academia
 * Wikidonn's google search was preformed on Google UK, which clearly has a UK bias (otherwise it would not be Google UK) my search was an average of Google UK and Google. (Epinephrine had support in htat average, almost 1.5:1)
 * WP:AT confilcts here, and thus cannot easily be applied (both names have support)
 * "You cannot just ignore policy because you don't like it, and especially not when there is a consensus to use it." yes I can, if I feel that the policy is interfering with the quality of the article, I simply Ignore All Rules
 * The INN name is used because it is the name that most people would find on a drug label (even the proprietarys have the INN under the prop. name) unless you live in the one English speaking country that uses adrenaline in a scientific manne, ignoring international protocol.
 * If you consider Epinephrine vs. Adrenaline dialectical, WP:Spelling differences says that we must use the title used first, Epinephrine
 * Commonnames is not applicable here, since Epinephrine is "common" as well, and is certiantly not jargon (think EpiPen)

Well, back to my actual job (hey, there's an amp of epinephrine next to my laptop, funny)

Ronk01  talk,  17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I am using google UK; I use regular google.com. I live in America, and from my personal experience, epinephrine is never used by anyone else other than doctors. Epinephrine is most certainly not commonly used outside a medical context, making it medical jargon. Adrenaline most certainly is used in a medical context, and unlike you, I have the data to back it up (the search results). UK is not the only country that uses adrenaline in a medical context, all of them do! Some just use epinephrine slightly more. From previous discussion, I recall it being the case that the US is the only country that prefers epinephrine in a medical context. My arguments have nothing to do with lexical differences because adrenaline is the common name in every country! Finally, doing something to pander to the scientific community at the expense of the general reader harms this article, because Wikipedia is written for the general reader. --WikiDonn (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yopu are using a different version of google, because every google search gives it to epinephrine. Secondly, Japan, Canada, Australia (I believe) use epinephrine exclusively in medicine, and since only english speaking countries count here, the UK is the only major nation left. And when I say that one term is used more, I mean exclusively I have never, in my ten years of practice, heard a medical professional use adrenaline, with the exception of a trip to the UK. Epinephrine is used widely in the nlay community (I hear it insetad of adrenaline all of teh time) textbooks (including middle and high school). The only place you are going to commonly hear adrenaline in the US is in a purely non-scientific forum, such as skaters, surfers, and participants in adventure sports, and they don't even know what it means, or what it does. (In fact, I had a patient who thought that adrenaline was a surfer term but he knew what epinephrine was) So clearly, if a reader wants to gain knowledge about epinephrine, they are going to use the term epinephrine. And if you actually look at your google search results (34,000,000 for epi, 18,000,000 for adrenaline, a difference of over 16,000,000 hits in favor of epinephrine!) you will see that the majorit are not medically related, or even related to the compound, most are about video games. Do you really want the Wikipedia page about a lifesaving drug appearing with "Adrenalinejunkie.com?" May I also remind yo that the about clarification of opinions was not meant for purposes of attacking those opinions, it was meant for the mediatior. Ronk01  talk,  00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "my" google search results, but I never gave those numbers. A current search on google gives 13,500,000 for adrenaline and 2,610,000 for epinephrine, which is overwhelmingly in favor of adrenaline. A google scholar search gives for 242,000 adrenaline, and 333,000 for epinephrine, which is only slightly in favor of epinephrine. Your point of medical professionals using solely epinephrine is purely from your personal experience and point of view of a US doctor, yet the data sides with me. Are you saying that the UK put out 242,000 articles on adrenaline, while the rest of the world combined only put out 333,000? I think not. Furthermore, it's not just the COMMONNAMES part of WP:AT that sides with adrenaline, it's the whole policy! If a surfer is looking for info on adrenaline, they are going to be searching for adrenaline! That's why the article titles should be recognizable to most readers, and epinephrine is not. Not everybody looking for medical info is one of your patients, and you need to remember who Wikipedia is written for. Finally, a search for adrenaline on the WHO's very own website gives a plethora of results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDonn (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidonn, you need to give us the exact address of the google you are using, because I am getting drastically different numers with www.google.com, also give us your search terms. Googel Scholar searches the entire content of the article, which means that a disimbaug get a hit too, this means that articles using epinephrine can get hits using adrenaline a keyword and vice versa. And my point about the exclusive use of epinephrine among medical professionals comes from JCAHO (The Joint Commission on accredaitation of healthcare organizations) policy, if a hospital or private practice dosen't follow those policies, they cannot operate. JCAHO explicitlystates that the USP names must be used in practice, no forms, and on patient charts. And since the USP (unlike the UK) follows INN, epinephrine is the only name legally used by US health professionals. The data sides with me here, Google sides with me, (except for your rather unusual Google), WP policy sides with both,or neither, professional use is with me here. By the way, the Google scholar discrepancy is easily explained with the fact that there are only two countries that really get hits on google scholar, the UK,and the US, so the small difference is explained by differing use of terms by locality (the definition of a dialectial conflict) Ronk01   talk,  05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, I would greatly appreciate not having to defend my position a sixth time here, so I would appreciate some sort of moratorium on further argument, and discussion of what is already here. Ronk01  talk,  05:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't mirror what hospitals are legally obligated to do, and using such a name only overcomplicated the names of articles. Wikipedia is not a medical journal. Once again, being the professionally used name is not a good enough reason to use it on Wikipedia, the important thing is that it is the name that most people use, which is adrenaline! You are the one with unusual google results, I am simply entering the words adrenaline and epinephrine into google. My google search for adrenaline is here, and the search for epinephrine is here. Typing in adrenaline -epinephrine gives 119,000,000 results, and typing in epinephrine -adrenaline gives 9,750,000 which is an even more staggering result in favor of adrenaline. It's a 12:1 ratio in favor of adrenaline. Like I said before, epinephrine is rarely used outside the medical context, but adrenaline is recognized by everyone. Most people know the name adrenaline. Most people do not know of epinephrine. Since titles are supposed to be the most easily recognizable without being overly scientific, policy sides with me. Finally, google scholar would not come down to UK vs US, because it has all the articles it can that are in English, regardless of what country it comes from, so that has nothing to do with it. It's a theory of which you once again have no data to back up. Excluding adrenaline from a epinephrine search and vice versa doesn't change the results much, so once again, if all the adrenaline articles came from only the UK, it puts out an awful lot more articles involving the hormone than any other one country. --WikiDonn (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidonn, I clicked on your links, and got the resukts that I got before, is there any chance that Google somehow tailors search results to locality? If so, google cannot be used here. I will say this again, when most people say adrenaline, they usually have no idea that they are talking about a hormone! They are almost always talking about an "adrenaline rush" When someone (even from the general public says epinephrine, they always mean the hormone. So the term adrenaline as used by the general public in most english speaking nations has no sicentific context. (By the way a google for adrenaline -rush shows that about two million of the 18 million hits I get for adrenaline are for adrenaline rush) Ronk01   talk,  02:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, please post the results of the googling that you did earlier. Ronk01  talk,  02:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted a couple of the searches I've done, above, but I think that the point you make is interesting. I was using Google Canada, so we will have to make sure that we are all referring to the same version(s) of Google. How about we create a section for searches, showing search parameters, version of Google and a link to the results? Sunray (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have provided mass examples of adrenaline being used in a scientific context, and Ronk01 has provided no examples of epinephrine being used outside of a medical context, leaving epinephrine still medical jargon. It is not even required that adrenaline be used in a scientific context for it to be the title, and we already know that it is the most commonly used name overall, so why are we even arguing over this? I am tired of Ronk01 falsifying data. I provided my links, where are Ronk01's? Sunray, can you please verify whose search numbers are correct. Also, Ronk01, you are not psychic, and you can't say people don't know it is a hormone, or what they are thinking when they think adrenaline. Also, 2/18 being for adrenaline rush (assuming your numbers are correct) means only a small fraction of the results are for adrenaline rush (1/9), and that still leaves a majority in adrenaline -rush's favor over epinephrine. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do not need to give uses outside the medical context, since those uses would likely not refer to the medical, chemical, or biological properties of the drug, but the article does. Epinephrine is a subject to a rather specialised interest (medicine) we already have an article for adrenaline rush (the colloquial usage). What I am trying to say is that epinephrine is not used outside of the medical context because there is no reason for it! Epinephrine is a drug name, adrenaline is considered tantamount to slang in the medical community. However, I can give examples of common usage if you would like. In regards to your final segment, I did a informal survey of my patients (not suggesting inclusion in the article, WP:NOR does not apply) and 24% recognized adrenaline only, 50% recognized both, and 26% knew epinephrine only (survey of 100 patients across demographics by uninvolved parties (my nurse and medical assistants)) I think that google tailors their results to regions or something, because we are getting different results each time we google, (perhaps we could get a few other wikipedians to do some googling to verify this?) Ronk01   talk,  23:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you can't give examples of use outside a medical context, that proves it is medical jargon, and Wikipedia avoids medical jargon because it once again overcomplicates articles, and makes it so only a select few will understand the words. Just because you do not like the data, doesn't mean you can ignore it, it means you're just wrong. Perhaps we could get a few other wikipedians to do some googling to verify this? Just look at the discussion talk page! It shows pretty much the same thing my numbers show! It shows a small amount in favor of epinephrine on google scholar, but an extreme amount in favor of adrenaline on google regular. Wikipedia also does not care what is "tantamount to slang in the medical community" because that is just your personal opinion, and even still, that has been refuted by the link to my search on the WHO website. Finally, the article on adrenaline is not of "rather specialized interest", because adrenaline is one of the most widely known hormones. Regardless of that, Wikipedia has lots of articles of "rather specialised interest" (other than medical articles) and the common names are used for them where possible so people who are not experts on the subject can recognize them! That's why we have the common names policy and why it applies to all articles! --WikiDonn (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidonn, you are making the same flawed arguments over and over again! Use outside medical context (ie lay medical reffrences (which generally favor epinephrine, see the AMA guide to home health) is simply not relevant! This is an article about a medical topic, this is certiantly not general intrest like Bill Clinton, so commonnames (which could be interpreted to favor epinephrine) needs to be applied with care. Remember also that wikipedia polocies are not hard-and-fast rules, they do not exist simply to be followed, we cannot apply themn simply for their own sake at teh expense of the credibility of the encyclopedia. My Google gives me 32 million to 18 million in favor of epinephrine vs.  quite a difference if you ask me! And I don't really care how we treat other articles, this is a medical article, one that needs nto be treated differently because of people's tendency (despite specific warnings) to use Wikipedia for medical advice, we have a responsibility to keep our articles in reflection to major medical trends, like evidence based medicine and INN. (I am actually planning on proposing a policy along these lines after this mediation) Wikidonn, if you cannot refute my arguments with something other than "COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES! I am simply not going to respond. (and in regards to the WHO site, many of those articles are outdated, or translations, or from the UK, the WHO posts them because they are relavant, but try searching epinephrine) Ronk01   talk,  04:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not producing anything new, IMO. I've made some suggestions but do not find that participants have tried to follow them. I'm going to be away until July 11. When I return, I will make some further suggestions. Sunray (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If Ronk01 is going to repeat the same defeated arguments over and over again, that is just filibustering the process. I have addressed and refuted every single issue he has brought up, and he is simply ignoring what on Wikipedia are actual major concerns. If he is going to continue falsifying search results, or disregarding them when they do not side with him, then I think that the mediation should be closed. His responses (especially regarding the WHO website search) are starting to resemble disruptive behavior from How to win an argument which states (sarcastically): "Demand citations for all claims. And if anyone ever provides one, you may dismiss it point-blank. If the cited work was a classic in its field, it must be out-dated and therefore inaccurate." I think this means that he is unwilling to concede on any issue. I have one final compromise suggestion, that epinephrine can be renamed to adrenaline, but norepinephrine can keep its name because it probably is of specialized interest. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I have never falsified facts, and I take the fact that you have suggested tyhat to be a personal attack, please assume good faith. Secondly, naming changes all of the time, currently, adrenaline is getting the boot in the scientific world (check the dates on all of those articles) because the INN chose to accept epinephrine. Demanding citation for all claims is a perfectly reasonable approach to such a controversial topic Wikidonn. I am willing to concede on any issue other than the page name, and quite frankly, I think that mediation is no longer a forum where this dispute can be resolved. Finally, You "final compromise" is hardly that, the name of that article has never been contested and both must follow the same naming system (INN) especially with drugd that are this closely related. Finally, norepinephrine is no more specialized than epinephrine, almost any time you see norepinephrine, in media, you see epinephrine right next to it. That is not a compromise,m and I refuse to accept this insult to my intelligence. Ronk01  talk,  01:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiDonn: The following statements are directed at your co-participant, rather than at content:
 * Mediator's comments
 * "... repeat the same defeated arguments..."
 * "... filibustering the process..."
 * "... he is... falsifying search results..."
 * "... his responses... resemble disruptive behavior..."

Ronk01: While you avoided responding in kind and did stick to content, you indicate that you do not believe that mediation is an acceptable forum to resolve this dispute. I would like you to think about that. In my opinion, mediation is the last stop on this line. It is not an arbitratable matter.

Request to you both: If you are both willing to continue we will need to make some changes to the process. I have gone back to my questions at the top of the page. I believe it was my error not to have secured agreement from you to commit to the process outlined. After all, each of the points is based on WP policies and long-established norms. IMO there is little hope of resolution of this matter if you do not make a commitment to try to follow the process outlined in my questions. I've added to them. I would like you to go back and indicate your willingness to follow that process. Once you have done so, I will outline some thoughts on how to discuss the policy aspects of this dispute. Sunray (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, I would regard the following statements made by Ronk01 directed at me rather than content:
 * Wikidonn, you are making the same flawed arguments over and over again!
 * Wikidonn, if you cannot refute my arguments with something other than "COMMONNAMES..."
 * You "final compromise" is hardly that...
 * That is not a compromise...I refuse to accept this insult to my intelligence.

On the things I said, they were based on the content of the arguments, and for the most part are backed up by policy (but I'd rather not start discussing the specifics of why right now). I was talking to you not him, and I was suggesting that given those things that were said, mediation isn't working. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No doubt you have both strayed into personal commentary. However, I would like you, WikiDonn, to accept what I am saying to you. I chose those comments by you because I would like you to take responsibility for them. IMO at least one of them ("falsifying search results") is clearly a personal attack.


 * I would like you both to focus on the task at hand and not stray off into argumentation. BTW, I'm not trying to absolve myself from my share of responsibility for what has happened thus far in the mediation. I think I could have been clearer and more "hands on".


 * Enough on all that, I hope. Now let's focus on the policy. Sunray (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Determining elements of policy and guidelines that apply
Let's take this by the numbers. With reference to the policy on article titles, what are the policy considerations that apply to this case? Please list them in bullet form below. Sunray (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

From article titles:


 * Article titles are determined by consensus

In other words, not arbitrary naming standards.


 * Article titles are...usually guided by the usage in reliable sources.

Meaning that names are not necessarily the ones used most in the sources when the source uses medical jargon. Since adrenaline is used in the sources almost as much as epinephrine, there is nothing unscientific about it, and since it is used far more often outside the scientific field, it is better to trade off for common usage outside of the sources.


 * The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.

I can't put it more perfectly than this. Adrenaline, being one of the most widely known hormones outside the scientific field, it is of great general interest.


 * Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic

Adrenaline is not vulgar, but epinephrine is pedantic.


 * Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.

This means that common names are always preferred over scientific names, even if they are technically correct, which in the case of epinephrine is untrue. The statement: "Common names are preferred over scientific names except when a scientific name exists" makes zero sense. This policy applies to all articles, and there is no good reason this article should be treated any differently.


 * The following are examples of common names that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of a more elaborate, formal, or scientific alternative,
 * Name of things should use the most common form:
 * Caffeine (not 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)

Just because the example given is in chemical nomenclature, doesn't mean common names aren't still preferred to scientific names. The fact that caffeine is mentioned and a drug means that this policy is still meant to apply to drugs.


 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change.

Even if adrenaline is becoming used less in the scientific world (which there is no proof of), that is irrelevant because common usage still prefers adrenaline. Epinephrine has been the INN name for awhile and common usage has not changed. That may even suggest that the INN will change to adrenaline because they have failed to influence common usage, and adrenaline is equally scientific. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and adrenaline is still used most often in common usage.


 * Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate Tidal wave.

Meaning that technical names should be used if they are more accurate, but in this case, it is not.


 * Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia.

This is the most important section when it comes to this issue. It states that specialized names should only be used when there is a specific reason on a case by case basis. Similarly to when WP:IAR is used, there must be a good reason for it. The statement that "Wikipedia must use INN names" is not a "clear benefit", it is an opinion. There is no specific reason in this specific case why the use of the specialized name over the common name benefits the article. Therefore since policy states that using a more scientific name for its own sake is not a benefit, the common name should be used. --WikiDonn (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidonn, please condense your wall of text into concise bullets, like this:


 * Epinephrine is the Internationally accepted name (MEDMOS, COMMONNAMES)
 * Readers are not going to think about a hormone outside of a scientific context
 * Adrenaline is considered vulgar in the United States (probably due to its association with "adrenaline junkies") (COMMONNAMES)
 * Epinephrine is hardly pedantic (COMMONNAMES)
 * Wikipedia editors and articles are not bound to strictly interpreted rules (IAR)
 * The medicine manual of style, a more specific guideline that applies to medical articles only, and has not had to be compromised to fit all articles, requires use of the International Nonproprietary Name for all drugs (There are no exceptions on Wikipedia, though more common names exist for many drugs), thus there is absolutely no precendnt for this argument, and little is done on Wikipedia without precedent (MEDMOS, WP:PRECEDNET)
 * COMMONNAMES makes exceptions for common names that are commercial, like Adrenalin, which is one letter away from adrenaline! (MEDMOS, COMMONNAMES)
 * Most Americans (the majority of Wikipedia users), recognize epinephrine, thus the name is not confusing to them. Other users can identify the page with a sufficent explanation in the lead (which already exists)
 * The majority of reliable sources used and avalibe favor epinephrine (Google Adrenaline, the majority of your hits will be non-scientific) (COMMONNAMES)
 * COMMONAMES forbids the use of chemical nomenclature in article titles, not all scientific names, especially those used commonly by the general public. Epinephrine is not nomenclature. (COMMONNAMES)
 * The majority of Anglophone international organizations favor epinephrine (The BAN, BPh, and BMA are notable exceptions) (MEDMOS)
 * The use of Adrenaline in a medical context is illegal in almost all Anglophone nations. (COMMONNAMES, MEDMOS)
 * Epinephrine is not medical jargon, unless you mean to say that over 34 million Google hits were generated solely by the medical community. (COMMONNAMES)
 * Article titles are determined by consensus, as there is no consensus here, there is therefore no support for a change (COMMONNAMES)
 * Epinephrine is indeed of general intrest, but it is scientific intrest, not common intrest, like the article on chickens
 * Nowhere in IAR does it state that there must be a good reason other than the individual editor's opinion of how other policies are impeding their work to improve Wikipedia. Yes, there are essays on the use of IAR, but those are essays, essays have no official bearing on editor actions, essays are not permissiable evidence in Arbitrations, guidelines and policies are. (IAR)

Above I have summarized my policiy and guideline based arguments for review, I will be away from this mediation for a couple of days. Ronk01  talk,  17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC) You begin your summary by identifying consensus and use of reliable sources as important. Of reliable sources, you then state: "Meaning that names are not necessarily the ones used most in the sources when the source uses medical jargon." I didn't see this in the policy. What I did see was several references to the use of reliable sources, where possible. You quote the following line of policy: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." The word "interests" seems to me to need clarification and agreement between us.
 * WikiDonn

You refer extensively to WP:MEDMOS. Since that is a guideline, I would suggest we hold off on discussion of it's importance for now. You also refer to the "Common name" section of the policy. Let's focus on that and park the MEDMOS material for now (see "Discussion" section below).
 * Ronk01

Discussion
You have surfaced several important aspects of policy. Now I would like to drill down until we get to bedrock. Taking it from the top and bearing in mind our goal of concision, please consider the following:
 * 1) How does consensus apply in this case? There is an existing consensus (the current article title). There is also a challenge to that consensus (by WikiDonn and others). How does the consensus framework affect this case?
 * 2) The references to reliable sources and the invocation of WP:V in the introductory paragraph of the policy seem to highlight the importance of using sources. How do we interpret this?
 * 3) The reference to the "interests of readers" raises the question: How are those interests determined?
 * 4) The first paragraph of the section on "Common names" refers to the importance of reliable sources in determining the most common name. Search engine tests are also referenced in this section. We have not yet been able to clarify the best use of search engines. How could we use search engine tests to determine how sources refer to the respective names?

Comments? Sunray (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01's Response
1. Unfortnately, in this case there are two editors with vastly different opinions on how this article must be named. This is not a simple content dispute in which a peice of contested material can be only partially included, or rewritten to acheive consenus; here there is no room for compromise, one editor must concede, either on their own free will, or by force of policy. The current consensus has stood for nearly a decade, and has only been contested for a few years, there is little reason to believe that the reader of this article is anything less than satisfied, otherwise many more IP comments would be seen on the talk pages.

2. Sources tell us how the world at large views the subject, giving us a conceptual understanding of best practices in regards to the article, as the majority of reptable sources favor the status quo, it would seem logical that it remain just that. Continuing on this train of thought, it would again seem logical that policy indicates that we use the name used by the majority of reliable sources, which, as Google Scholar proves, favors Epinephrine.

3. The interests of the reader are not determined by how the community views the subject, often the community views Wikipedia in a manner substantially different than the reader. This forces us to consider the circumstances under which this article might be used by the general public, including research, schoolwork, and patient education. Each of these favors status quo. Determining the interests of the reader, with exclusion of Wikipeidans is nearly impossible in this situation, readers cannot perticipate in straw polls, or read talk page messages, thus we have no direct communication with them, so we must follow reliable sourcing.

4. Reliable sources in science are best found amongst the plethora of professional papers that are written yearly. Google scholar indicates a prefference for the status quo, nearly two-to-one. This is not disputed. Search engine tests have proven unreliable, and thus should be excluded.

Cordially,

Ronk01  talk,  04:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia's response

 * 1. The first dispute on the talkpage is from 2003. From then to now the majority of particpants have favoured changing the article to Adrenaline. There was a RFC a few years ago which showed a majority of contributors favouring Adrenaline. In more recent discussions, last year and this, there has still been a majority of participants preferring Adrenaline. In the most recent discussions there still seems to be a majority of contributors favouring Adrenaline. Attempts in the past to change the article have been reverted, even when there was a clear majority in favour. The reason given is that the 'WHO policy' trumps everything, and consensus has, at times, been ignored. This is not a question of two entrenched editors, as that would be a misrepresentation of the amount of people who has contributed to the debate. The article has been renamed in the past, and if consensus had been properly applied the article title would currently be Adrenaline.


 * 2. The only way to arrive at a situation where you have more references to Epinephrine than Adrenaline is if you do a Google Scholar search, and even then it is not so clearcut. Rather than counting hits, we can look at what reliable sources have to say about it - as this shows only Japanese, Canadian and American scholars prefer Epinephrine. But that is just amongst 'scholars', a small subset of encyclopedia readers. Reliable nonscientific sources overwhelmingly use Adrenaline. The same article says Not only is adrenaline the preferred technical term in most countries in the world, it is also the non-technical term for what people think of as the substance that surges through your body when you are on a high ... even in America. No one anywhere ever talks about a surge of epinephrine.


 * 3. Wikipedia is what it is, the policies and guidelines are there to shape the encyclopedia and they tell us how to present information. The interests of the reader are catered for by policies on verifiability and consistency, if they are followed correctly. In this case 'interests' and 'expectations' are being used to mean the same thing, but I think we can work this out without resorting to philosophical divination.


 * 4. The first thing is not to limit your searches to a limited subset of reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a medical manual - Google Scholar hits reference a small amount of scientific work, which is a very small subset of what humanity gets up to. No matter how many Google Scholars use Epinephrine, the rest of the world (including many if not most americans) use Adrenaline to mean the stuff that comes out of your adrenal gland. Adrenaline is a concept understood by most English speaking people - Epinephrine is not. People who know Epinephrine also know Adrenaline, but many people who use Adrenaline have never heard of Epinephrine. This is reflected in any type of search you care to do, unless you limit the search by confining it to Google Scholar.


 * The common use is Adrenaline. The people arguing for Epinephrine have in a large part been involved in the medical business in some way, and are also American - not a big deal, but it makes it more clear why they might be so adamant about keeping the title epinephrine as it's what they are used to, but they are the only ones. This article, and this concept, is bigger than any medical naming convention. Normal non-medical people, even Americans, have historically used Adrenaline not just in medical reference books but fiction, poetry, film... most everything. Despite the WHO naming conventions, the world hasn't changed in it's use of Adrenaline. In fact, the only difference now rather than in history is that American medical dramas often use Epinephrine, but that just muddies the waters - many people consider Adrenaline the stuff in your body and Epinephrine the stuff in the vial. Even the WHO are inconsistent in their use of the term . If the WHO don't even follow their convention why should we? And ultimately that has been the only argument that has been presented, that a policy on using WHO names trumps consensus.
 * This discussion is not one of two editors, it is a seven year long discussion with many participants, the majority of whom have been in favour of Adrenaline. There is every reason to suppose that in the future any name change will be reverted, even if the majority wish it. Is this consistent with Wikipedia policy?
 * Minus these two editors the situation will not change - the majority will still use Adrenaline. How is this dispute resolution to limit future disruption to the article when so many people use Adrenaline over Epinephrine? Weakopedia (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this opening statement (which I shall move to the "Opening statement" section). You point out that the discussion is not limited to one or two editors. I agree. However, there is certainly a dispute. Very often in disputes, one editor will represent each side of the argument. It makes it much easier to mediate. That is what I assumed we were doing here. Once there is resolution between the participants in the mediation, the the question becomes, how do we present it to the wider community? Often the discussion is continued on the talk page and other editors join in to determine whether the conclusions of the mediation have more general validity. It seems to me that we should discuss this later in the mediation. Does this make sense?


 * If you agree to continue, please sign in on the project page. Sunray (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion
we already have an article on the vulgar use of the name adrenaline (Adrenaline Rush) and certainly you can see that the actual scientific article is just that, scientific, which means that we need to pay attention to scientific naming protocol (which is why paracetamol is not named Acetaminophen, which is the common name, but the WHO recognizes paracetamol). It is nice to see that the new participant does his research; however, he should know that the only English-speaking nation that uses Adrenaline scientifically is the UK, everyone else follows international protocol. Those nations that do not follow INN are penalized for it. Finally, I cite policy which clearly states that "article titles must reflect usage in reliable sources" epinephrine is in the majority of reliable (read scientific) sources. Ronk01  talk,  12:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to stay with the policy questions until we have agreement on each. Weakopedia mentions that an RfC has been conducted on the name change. I will review that. I am unclear why the name change would be reverted--assuming it was a properly conducted RfC. We will examine the issue of whether the INN convention (WP:MEDMOS) trumps everything. I want to consider how the guideline fits with the policy. But I have suggested we review the policy first.


 * On that note, WP:TITLE states that article names should be based on reliable sources. I don't think that we can escape that. So I would like to look at sources. We should consider not only academic sources, but also how the quality media refer to the adrenaline/epinephrine, and how other sources (such as other encyclopedias) treat it. Perhaps that is enough for right now. Comments? Sunray (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember, we have to consider the origin of each source, whether from the UK, or the rest of the English speaking world. Ronk01  talk,  19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a fine plan, and I shall start looing for what reliable sources have to say about the matter. And I might take a look at the Paracetamol article to see what all the fuss was about over there - here in Europe we have always called it Paracetamol. Weakopedia (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that reminder, Ronk01. And thanks to you both for the collaborative tone. Sunray (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Weakopedia, in Europe it is Paracetamol (by the way, that's what I call it) but in Australia (Fairly sure), Canada and the US it is acetaminophen, these make up the majority of the English speaking population. Ronk01  talk,  21:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, the project right now is to look at sources. Academic sources, quality media, other encyclopedias. Weakopedia has said he will find some. Ronk01, will you also be looking for sources? Sunray (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially, I think we need to agree on a short paragraph that summarizes what reliable sources say about epinephrine/adrenaline. Where I think that this could lead would be to produce a summary of the policy considerations in naming (sources being one part of that) which we could take back to the article talk page to consult with the wider community of editors. Sunray (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01's Sources

 * The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy
 * JAMA Publishes primarily epinephrine
 * NEJM Publishes primarily epinephrine

Proposed Compromise
One interesting thing that I have noticed is that in common (ie. non-medical)usage, "Epinephrine" applies to usage as a drug, while "Adrenaline" is used when referring to the hormone, a split, rather like Nitroglycerin/Glyceryl trinitrate might be a workable compromise, with the Epinephrine article discussing the medical aspects, and adrenaline discussing the anatomical ones. That means that INN would still be followed for the drug usage, and the more general interest and anatomical aspects could fall under adrenaline, which satisfies the COMMONNAMES argument. Comments? Ronk01  talk,  05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find this proposal interesting. I look forward to Weakopedia's reaction. Sunray (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am hoping that this compromise could be our ticket out of this dispute, hopefully, Weakopedia will agree. Ronk01   talk,  06:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It has merit - I too have noticed in the sources that some people actually do use both words, perhaps thinking Adrenaline is natural and Epinephrine synthetic. From looking for sources I see that there is plenty to write about the history of the subject and it's naming, and also the use of the word Adrenaline in society. I notice that we have Adrenaline rush, which isn't a great article - right now that article should be merged back into Epinephrine. However, following Ronks suggestion, if it were slightly renamed and expanded it might serve the purpose.
 * One point - over at the article on Adrenaline rush there is but one talkpage comment, which asks "Will be handy if somebody adds information about how long is the inrush process. This means, in how many minutes the adrenaline levels return to normal levels after the stress incident?". So the question becomes, if we would have articles on both Adrenaline and Epinephrine how much technical stuff to include in the article on Adrenaline, and vice versa - how much of the history of the name should be in the article about Epinephrine?
 * Do you think there will be community support for this approach? I think that some of the participants in the debate so far (that is, the last seven years) would clearly favour this approach, but there are a few who might not. If we were to consider this approach it might be good to have a draft version of an article titled Adrenaline to make it clear what we are trying to achieve. Weakopedia (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You guys are brilliant, IMO. What an elegant, and functional, solution to the problem. Kudos to Ronk01. I confess now that I have wavered back and forth for the exact reasons that have been identified by participants. While MEDMOS is clear, the search engine tests tell a different story. So we would have been picking our way much too carefully between different elements of policy.
 * One way to get acceptance for this idea would be to develop a concise summary of what is proposed that I could present on the article talk page. There might be some further discussion, but as an outcome of the mediation, it carries weight. The trick to getting the proposal accepted is a good explanation. Would the two of you be up for preparing a proposal? Sunray (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I can work on that after my rounds Ronk01   talk,  23:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I have been working on finding the sources that would make an article on Adrenaline a worthwhile article and I hope to post something here today. Weakopedia (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can have a proposal drafted by the end of today. Ronk01  talk,  16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This idea sounds perfect. I actually was going to suggest this, but I thought it would be considered content forking, so I didn't bother. I recall reading something like this to involving MSG. One article is about the chemical compound and its properties, and the other is about its use in food. I also noticed the thing about adrenaline being used to refer to the hormone, and epinephrine being used to refer to the drug, so that solution makes sense since I also noticed this article has very little about how it is actually used normally in the body as a hormone. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to have you back Wikidonn, you might get in contact with Weakopadia, as he is currently working on a draft "Adrenaline" article, and I have begun working on a proposal to the3 community to be put on the talk page. Ronk01  talk,  17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In turning the corner, we seem not to have maintained our forward momentum. I would suggest we make an effort to bring this to closure soon. I say "we" because I am here to do whatever is needed to make this happen. Weakopedia has agreed to find sources for an article on Adrenaline; Ronk01 has said he will draft a proposal for the article talk page. I assume that we would bring both of those pieces back here first. WikiDonn, are you back? Would you be willing to assist with the proposal or other tasks? I assume that we will all review and tweak the proposal. Is there anything else needed? Sunray (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's good to see WD back, and happy with the process we have been following. I had a small accident that necessitated a hospital visit, so I haven't had much of a chance to be here last couple days - I did get a chance to look into the history of the word Adrenaline, which is quite interesting, especially how the name adrenaline stuck back in the early 20th century.
 * Unfortunately I am limited to half an hour at a time on the computer thanks to this neck-brace, and I can only use one hand to type (the other is in a sling) - I see that Ronk has drafted a proposal already, alas my efforts are slower just now. However I am still active, just less so. I will furnish some refs either this evening or tomorrow morning, my next scheduled visits to the computer - anything WD can add would be most helpful.
 * I will take a moment to thank everyone for their collaborative approach to the situation, it's good to see. Weakopedia (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, what happened? I do hope you heal soon. I'll only be working fiour days/ week for a while now, so I can get a bit more done. (Having residents do all of your work is nice). Ronk01  talk,  16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for talk page
During the course of the current mediation for this article title, located here, we (Ronk01, WikiDonn, Weakopedia) have noticed that, on average, the name Epinephrine is used primarily for the synthetic drug, whereas Adrenaline is used to refer to the hormone. A similar situation is seen at Nitroglycerine, where nitroglycerine refers to the chemical explosive, and Glyceryl trinitrate is used in a medical context. In that case, two different articles were written, one for the chemical itself, and one, titled Glyceryl trinitrate for the drug usage. What we are proposing here is something very similar, by splitting the article (with proper redirects and cross-links) into Epinephrine (drug) and Adrenaline (hormone) we are able to follow WP:MEDMOS, which requires the use of INN names, and WP:COMMONNAME, which requires that general interest topics (like hormones) use the name most commonly used by the general public. Additionally, a split would encourage further development of materials within each article. For example, the current page focuses heavily on drug usage, with comparatively little material regarding the hormone’s actions, and physiological function. Thus, by splitting the article, we are able to end the dispute, and improve the quality of both pages.

This is a draft proposal for presentation on the talk page, please add/subtract and tweak as you see fit.

Ronk01  talk,  17:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that a fine proposal, informative and neutrally worded.
 * I think that whatever the community decides, the article Adrenaline rush will be superfluous - perhaps if we have the go-ahead for two articles we should rename that article as Adrenaline (hormone) and expand as necessary?
 * Should the bulk of the history of the discovery of adrenaline lie within the Adrenaline (hormone) article? The stuff about Dr Takamine experimenting on himself by putting drops of cow adrenaline in his own eye are quite interesting, and independantly recounted, but which article to put it in? Weakopedia (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that adrenaline rush would be superfluous (in fact we could move the article to Adrenaline (hormone) and add to it to produce the hormone article). The information about discovery should be in hte hormone article, with a basic outline in the drug article. The Takamine experiment is a classic, it is nice to see that you know about it, are you a medical professional as well? Ronk01  talk,  00:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like we are moving towards closing the mediation. We have consensus to go with the statement prepared by Ronk01. Is there anything else we need to do here? Once we are complete, I will write a closing statement for the mediation. Do you want me to present the results and the proposal on the article talk page, or would one, or two of you like to do it? Sunray (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my only concern would be that both articles are sufficiently developed. Ronk01  talk,  16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What might this group do to promote sufficiently developed articles? I wasn't sure what your "yes" implied. Did you mean you want me to present it? Sunray (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is more so that I want to ensure that the fledgling Adrenaline (hormone) article is developed properly, otherwise, my answer is an unequivocal "Yes" Ronk01   talk,  14:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So perhaps you three could guide the development of the two articles (once there is consensus on that direction). I could stick around to facilitate consensus on the article talk page and deal with any disputes. Would that make sense? Sunray (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would, thank you. Ronk01  talk,  16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It feels a bit as though it is just you and me left talking at the punch bowl. Maybe the others will drop back and comment. Sunray (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies, as can be seen from my contribution record I have been unable to visit Wikipedia or the internet in general for some time now due to being back at hospital (traffic accident some days ago, nothing too serious). I hoped WD would have the time to help out, but I may not be back at the computer for a few days more. From the lack of activity at the Epinephrine page I would suggest that we will receive little opposition to the move. I will check back here as soon as I am able to return to Wikipedia, so again my apologies and also my thanks for everyones co-operation. I think that with 'both sides' advocating the same approach we will have a lasting solution. Weakopedia (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the status report on your availability. There is no great rush. So, assuming Ronk01 agrees, if you and WikiDonn will be back within the next week or so, I'm fine with delaying this action a bit. Sunray (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to make it appear I was back, I just happened to be a computer, and even on vacation I use Wikipedia to look stuff up. I was looking at the article heptadecagon, and it said I had new messages. I noticed Ronk01's comment about the compromise, on my talk page, so I just dropped by to say how I felt about it. Now that I am back, Ronk01's draft looks surprisingly good. By "surprisingly", I mean it sums up how I feel quite well, even though I had little input lately. Now, my main concern is that this might be rejected by the community as WP:Content forking. Ronk01, do you think your statement will be enough to convince the community?

Also, could I get a link to the draft article, and does it have to have (hormone) attached to it? I think it should just say something at the top like: "This article relates to adrenaline as a hormone, for the article on the drug see epinephrine" and vice versa, like the MSG pages I was talking about. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good to see you back, WikiDonn. Ronk01 has posted the proposal to the Epinephrine talk page. So far just one editor (Nate) has commented. I think that it will be important to listen to any concerns raised and attempt to resolve them to everyone's satisfaction. Ronk01 has done this with Nate's concern. Your comment on content forking is apt and I think we need to be ready to respond to this. My view is that there are potentially two valid articles here: one on the drug and one on the hormone. The two articles should be justifiable, given the amount of information on each and the apparent confusion amongst members of the general public. AFAIK the new article has not yet been written. It might be worthwhile to collaborate on that and create a subpage to do so. Sunray (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing mediation
If none of you object, I think we can close this mediation as successful. My complements to the three of you. It is heartening to work with editors who have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and who are prepared to consider alternatives to ensure that the best possible article(s) will result. If I don't hear a proposal to the contrary, I will close this on August 9, 2010. I will, however, maintain a watching brief on the article talk page and look forward to seeing the development of a new article. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work everybody. Glad to see the dispute was successfully resolved. AGK   14:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * }