Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 12

Lead in drug articles
The lead section in some of our drug articles IMHO are starting to look more like product package inserts than encyclopedic articles. Take for example this version of amitriptyline where the drug class and mechanism of action are buried in the second paragraph at the end of a long list of side effects and contraindications. The drug class puts the drug in context, and per WP:LEADSENTENCE, this should be placed in the first sentence. It is also important to distinguish between drugs that are used to treat the same condition but have different mechanisms of action. It may be awkward to place the MoA in the first sentence, but in my opinion should at least be placed in the first paragraph (as is done here). Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully in agreement with Boghog; I'd go even further and try to get the mechanism of action into the first sentence, where that is clear-cut. There are multiple audiences, so having a purely clinically-focussed introduction isn't appropriate. By the way, I note that amitriptyline has been edited, so the lede has now improved. Klbrain (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is tension between making the lead readable at an elementary school level accurately identifying the article subject. Doc, it seems to me tends, errs toward leaving only the medical information. Presumably he thinks the chemical and pharmacological information is too complicated. I personally prefer the more comprehensive lead but I understand the intent. Sizeofint (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On a side-note, why this preference for "by mouth" in rather than "orally"? "Oral", it seems to me, is understandable at a sixth grade reading level and I don't think any competent translator would have trouble with that word. It reads like we're targeting 1st graders with that phrasing. Sizeofint (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's mostly Doc James that does this, but my guess is that it's because doctors typically use the abbreviation "PO" for per os, which roughly translates to "by mouth", when writing prescriptions for drugs that are to be orally administered.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is important to call medications, medications before jumping into exactly what class and subclass they may belong too. The second paragraph is hardly buried.
 * We place the mechanism of action of medications a few sections down in the body of the text and thus their is no reason why we should not place it in the second paragraph of the lead. The mechanism is often fairly complicated to describe and thus IMO fits better their. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph after a long list of side effects is certainly buried. First define what the drug is, briefly describe its mechanism, and then list the side effects. The mechanism provides context and for that reason it is important that it be placed in the first paragraph. Boghog (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We briefly describe what it is "a medication" and than state what it is used for. Mechanism can come after that IMO. This is the layout we see in WP:PHARMMOS.
 * WP:LEADSENTENCE says "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That why I wrote that it may be awkward to place it in the first sentence, but it certainly should be placed in the first paragraph before side effects. Boghog (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The first sentence should always state what it is rather than try to cram too much information into the first sentence. The text should be readable for the average reader. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with and . The first sentence should say it is a medication and what it is used for. The subclass of medication and how it works belongs lower in the lead.
 * I also believe that we must use a language that may be understood by any person, of any intellectual level, especially at the lead. It has to be as simple as possible, but it is something that we do not always consider. A writing for 1st graders is understandable by sixth grade reading level people, but the opposite does not always have to happen. In the first case, we cover a wider range of (lay) readers, wich is the goal of Wikipedia.
 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  18:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can only concur, and while pharmacodynamics may be relevant to people like us—they aren't very important to most of our readers. It seems suitable that more detailed information comes in the second on third paragraphs, and that the first tells us that it is a medicine, and what it is used for. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are underestimating the breadth of interest of our readers. I agree that the lead sentence should be kept drop dead simple. But we also need to provide a slightly more detailed definition early in the lead to capture the attention of more technically inclined readers. Basic information like drug class and MoA are part of the definition of a drug and consequently should be placed in the first paragraph of the lead. And why should this basic information be buried in the second paragraph after a long list of side effects? No one that is looking for this information would expect it to be there. Boghog (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As an intermediate, partial and forceful conclusion we can agree that side effects and contraindications (mentioned in the OP) rarely have a job in the lead. OK? -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, they very much do belong. I am not underestimating our readership, rather following what we know the general public finds most important. Once again, this doesn't mean it is unimportant, just that drug class & pharmacodynamics should come in the second or third paragraph, after more general information such as use and side-effects. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 23:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * generally agree w/ CF ...drug class & pharmacodynamics should come in the second or third paragraph,...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, the first paragraph should establish the context in which the topic is being considered. Drug class provides context and hence is important to include in the first paragraph.  Mechanism can usually be defined very succinctly in a wikilinked phrase and also provides context. Hence it also belongs in the first paragraph.  Finally I question why side effects and contraindication are included anywhere in the lead as these violate WP:NOTMANUAL.  If included, these should be listed after, not before drug class and mechanism. Boghog (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Boghog i agree that the first sentence should mention drug class, as I noted below. More than anything the lead summarizes the body; adverse effects and contraindication are in the body so of course they can be summarized in the lead.   If you are really making the NOTMANUAL argument about the lead, you would have to apply that to the body as well. The NOTMANUAL argument  is just ... silly.Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A long list of side effects without context in the lead reads like a manual. A list of side effects accompanied by discussion in a separate section reads like an encyclopedia. The lead should provide a summary of the entire article, hence including a abbreviated list of the most significant side effects in the lead may be appropriate. By my count, amitriptyline mentions 10 side effects in the lead which IMHO is excessive.  Boghog (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's fine with me to mention major adverse effects in the lead, but a tl;dr listing becomes inappropriate, although the details can of course be covered in the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Above, Carl Frederic writes ... that drug class & pharmacodynamics should come in the second or third paragraph, after more general information such as use and side-effects. To me this reads: 'side-effects go in the first paragraph'., is this what you intended to say? And while you are here, can you describe if you see any restrictions to be applied on mentioning side-effects & contraindications in the lead (irrespective of paragraph number)? E.g., like only write harmful sideeffects or late-found effects? -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeating what I stated at talk:testosterone, the lead sentence of a drug article should state the name of the drug, its classification, and the conditions for which it is indicated. All of this is important information, particularly to patients, pharmacists, and doctors who will want to know what condition(s) a drug is indicated for and the drug class to which it belongs, since drug classes as opposed to specific drugs are usually listed in the interactions and contraindications sections of a medication's prescribing information and medication guide. For example, something along the lines of the following would be a suitable lead sentence:
 * "[Drug name] is a [biochemical/pharmacological classification] that is used as a medication for the treatment of [medical condition(s)]".

This template sentence is succinct, it indicates that the compound is a medication and the condition(s) for which it is used, and it provides the drug's classification for context.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this approach already seems to be fairly common in drug articles. E.g., all but 1 of the 7 statin medications that are listed in the lead (3rd paragraph) of the statin article (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pitavastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and simvastatin - the exception is simvastatin) follows the "name–classification–indications" format that I've proposed for the lead sentence of a drug article. The first 6 articles state the drug name, then indicate that it is a statin, and then state the conditions that it is used to treat.  Most articles on NSAIDs appear to use this format as well.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (Learning from this, to improve . So far, and as a side conclusion, I understand that the classification is a top-issue worthy for opening sentences or paragraphs, as it points to the working mechanism. (Boghog, Seppi333). And so I will propose later on that should have a class parameter. ATC classification does not cover all). -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * generally the lead follows the order of content, and since MoA is part of pharmacology that naturally comes deeper in the lead than the first sentence. That said, I generally structure the first sentence stuctured like this, and I often find it in articles I come across:  Generic-drug-name (brand-name) is a molecule-type that is a drug-class/MoA used to treat name-of-disease/condition.    Examples:
 * Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) is a small molecule drug that is a covalent inhibitor of the enzyme Bruton's tyrosine kinase and is used to treat mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia, a form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
 * Nivolumab (nye vol' ue mab), marketed as Opdivo, is a human IgG4 anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody used to treat cancer

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with other editors that what should come first includes drug names, molecule type, drug class, and clinical indications. But I also think that a simple explanation of MoA is important for lead sections (it need not go into a lot of detail), and that it should always come before side-effects (except perhaps for drugs that have been taken off the market due to adverse effects). I'm fine with side-effects and contraindications being in leads, but MoA really should take priority. This goes in part to WP:NOTHOWTO. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Stuff like "is a covalent inhibitor of the enzyme Bruton's tyrosine kinase" belongs in the lead just not the first sentence IMO. The first sentence should contain words people understand. I do not have a clear idea what a "covalent inhibitor" is nor what the "Bruton's tyrosine kinase" dose Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If not in the first sentence, at least in the first paragraph before side effects. Boghog (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Even though I added it to the lead sentence of rapamycin, I don't really know what lymphangioleiomyomatosis is, and wouldn't be surprised if you don't either considering that it's a rare disease. Based upon the name alone, I know what the mechanistic target of rapamycin is though: it's rapamycin's drug target.  Since rapamycin's medical indication is practically unknown and difficult to even pronounce, while its drug target literally bears its name, I propose that we remove the medical indications from the lead sentence and add only its drug target because it makes the sentence simple.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * An amusing way to state it, but I think it brings up an important point. The obvious solution to the example raised above is to remove the disease from the lead because it is rare or to simplify its description. But would equally apply to a MoA. Simplification of the description of the MoA is often possible and hence to make a blanket statement that the MoA should never be placed in the first sentence because it is too complicated is absurd. Specifying the drug class even more so. This is a simple declarative statement. While readers may not be familiar with the particular drug class, it is clear that it is a name of a class and that class is normally wiki linked. Boghog (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seppi that comment is almost bad faith. The main reason why anyone gives a flying fuck about rapamycin outside of the tiny, tiny world of people who study biology is that it is a drug.  I am getting pretty sick of the shitty arguments being made here and the more you and Boghog keep making them the less likely you are to get consensus to make changes.  Knock it off. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog: Exactly which of my arguments are shitty? My NOTAMANUAL argument? It is dangerous to make assumptions about what other people are interested in. Maybe the world of people who study biology is tiny, but those that are interested in biology is not. Boghog (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My comment was satirical and was meant to draw attention to the fact that medical indications are not always "simple language". I am not actually proposing that we remove medical indications from the lead sentence.  My point was that that a "simple language" criterion can't be used to determine what goes into the first sentence. Stating that outright would not get my point across.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also getting irritated by the "medical shit trumps everything, so it should always go first and exclude all other aspects of the topic" view that is promoted by some medical editors.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * you are running smack into the wall of the fact that way more people care about health and medicine than biochemistry. of course articles about drugs will focus on what the drug is used for and its side effects - its key health effects. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * you are running smack into the wall of the fact that way more people care about health and medicine than biochemistry. - based upon what evidence? Even if that is actually the case, this is still an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia article needs to introduce the topic in context in the first lead sentence. Stating only the drug name and the medical indications in that sentence is a fucking terrible introduction for an encyclopedia article.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Jytdog supports including the drug class in the first sentence. The present argument is about where the MoA should be placed. Boghog (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * and the MOA. Drug class and MOA are sometimes the same thing.   and all briefly of course. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. Then we are more or less in agreement. Boghog (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boghog for getting that discussion back on track. And Jytdog, as a PhD who has worked in the pharmacological sciences, I tend to agree with Seppi that the medical aspects do not trump everything, and I find your tone here offensive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * These page view |Testosterone_(medication)|Testosterone|Testosterone_(drug)|Free_testosterone statistics demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case. Again, you are making dangerous assumptions. Even patients taking these drugs could be interested in obtaining more background information about the drug they are taking above and beyond what the product package insert provides. Boghog (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * bad example, testosterone is something people know is important in their normal biology and we give the exact thing your body makes as a drug when needed. another absurd argument.  really, knock it off.  Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument was made that more people are interested in the testosterone drug than the physiology of the hormone and hence the drug article should be the primary topic. This is very analogous to the present thread. Boghog (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * for this specific example, given the tsunami of disgusting advertising for "testosterone-boosters" on the internetz (very similar to the piles of garbage about HGH) i think there was a good argument to make the medication the main article for the specific example of testosterone, but i actually agree with the decision to put the endogenous hormone as primary because that is generally what we do. but the argument was very good to make an exception in that case.  its another reason why it was poor example. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That testosterone example applies to articles on any human biomolecule which is also a pharmaceutical, like dopamine, insulin, norepinephrine, epinephrine, oxytocin, cortisol, etc. Many of those have a separate drug page which was split from the main page, as was done at testosterone.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, major biomolecules that have usages as drugs are something different (for purposes of this discussion) than are drugs that are not endogenous substances. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In relation to this discussion, the lead of oxytocin needs revision. The 1st lead sentence (Oxytocin (Oxt) is a hormone, neuropeptide, and medication.) is adequate in terms of context, but it's not descriptive.  The rest of the 1st lead paragraph, the entire 2nd lead paragraph, and all but 1 short sentence of the 4th paragraph are on the medical uses.  This is a human biomolecule: those "other aspects" of this topic which have been neglected need to be covered in comparable detail.  This lead needs a major revision. Edit: the same is true for epinephrine: the lead of that article mostly covers medical uses and side effects, but also briefly mentions the biomolecular targets and physiological effects. It needs to be expanded to cover its endogenous biosynthesis, involvement in pathology, and its role in / interaction with the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and sympathetic nervous system (partly covered in epinephrine). I am perfectly okay with keeping all of the current medical information in the lead, but there is a very real bias towards covering information on the pharmaceutical aspects (indications, adverse effects, cost, etc.) of these compounds at the expense of a large amount of other information in the body of the article which dwarfs the size of the medical information. This bias NEEDS to be recognized and addressed.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * These are both in the pretty narrow class of endogenous molecules used as drugs. Maybe we should open a thread about splitting all of them.   The epinephrine article is kind of a mess, structurally - the problems are much bigger than the lead. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 21:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * so anybody can play the Wikipediocracy game and pick out bad examples - Seppi with the ridiculous disease name, Doc James with the "covalent inhibitor of the enzyme Bruton's tyrosine kinase" example.  And Wikipedia is full of bad content and bad leads.  Lets focus on what should be.
 * I think everybody agrees that the lead overall should be not too technical, especially not the first sentence, per WP:TECHNICAL. Everybody knows and agrees that leads summarize the article, giving WEIGHT per WEIGHT in the body. per WP:LEAD.   I think almost everyone agrees with something like "Generic-drug-name (brand-name) is a molecule-type that is a drug-class/MoA used to treat name-of-disease/condition. " for the first sentence too.
 * Does anybody disagree with that summary so far? Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I, for one, do agree with all of that. It sounds to me like the areas of disagreement are about the relative prominence of MoA versus adverse effects. For myself, I support including both in most leads, but again, without getting too WP:TECHNICAL. For drugs that have been withdrawn or recalled due to adverse effects, then those adverse effects should get prominent play in the lead – but for most other drugs, long lists of side-effects should not. And some explanation of the science and/or MoA should generally come in a lead paragraph but not the lead sentence, but overly obscure details should be omitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think your summary is correct and think the lead sentence template that you've suggested is ideal. You're still completely missing the intent of my previous satirical comment though.  I was making a point about "simple language" being a bad criterion to add as a guideline for the 1st lead sentence, since what Doc James proposed would adversely affect how medical information is stated in some leads.  That "bad example" was just one article among countless others which mention diseases that use latin nomenclature or are named after an individual and which are not "household names".  Any disease like that will likely not be "simple language" because it won't be recognizable to a reader, so adding that criterion as a guideline is a very bad idea.  Describing what such diseases are when introducing them in the lead, analogous to how you edited rapamycin to describe lymphangioleiomyomatosis, is an ideal solution to that problem though.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 21:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * again it is easy to find examples where people didn't edit optimally. i wrote "covalent inhibitor of the enzyme Bruton's tyrosine kinase" and it was rightfully called out as being too TECHNICAL and I need to go back and fix it.  it is easy to lob grenades instead of focusing on what optimal leads and first sentences should be.  nobody ever said that meeting the multiple goals present in the community is easy. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I generally like the model Jytdog describes as "Generic-drug-name (brand-name) is a molecule-type that is a drug-class/MoA used to treat name-of-disease/condition" – when the "molecule-type" and "drug-class/MoA" are things that normal, non-professional people will understand. Antibiotic?  Good.  Tricyclic antidepressant?  Maybe.  (Just plain "antidepressant" is more likely to be understood.)  Monoclonal antibody?  Probably not helpful.  Incretin mimetic?  Pointless to anyone outside the medical "1%".  You might as well say that it's a crustimoney proseedcake.
 * I think where some of us diverge is that if the molecule-type and/or drug-class/MoA are likely to be unfamiliar or meaningless to, say, the person who takes your money at the grocery store, then I'd omit them, whereas some other editors (e.g., people to whom those words mean something) would insist upon providing them in the very first sentence anyway.
 * NB that I'm equally happy with Seppi's shorter model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * here is a 2nd try at my bad first sentence that Doc James called out - the full thing: "Ibrutinib (Imbruvica) is a small molecule drug that binds permanently to a protein, Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), that is important in B cells; the drug is used to treat B cell cancers like mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia, a form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." Jytdog 05:37, 23 November 2016

Combination drug names - the X/Y format creates subpages.
I had asked about this at WT:MED here a while back and nobody cared; trying again now with a different question and i think this is where i should have asked the first time.

I just noticed that if we use "X/Y" style to name combination drug articles, like Artemether/lumefantrine -- what that does, is create a page that is not in mainspace, but is a subpage. I noticed that on the talk page: look at top left corner of Talk:Artemether/lumefantrine or any of those pages.

is this what we want? Seems like it will mess something up, like I don't know, archiving or something. Maybe is no big deal. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. Drugs.com and MedLine plus use "and" instead of "/" which is allowed by WP:AND.  Including "and' in a title sometimes indicates a neutrality or original research problem, but this is clearly not an issue with marketed combination drugs. Boghog (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What about using a forward slash "\"? Does that cause the same issue? Sizeofint (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In mainspace WP software allows "/" within the page title (example: AC/DC). That is not a subpage. In other spaces (talkspace, templates, ...) the slash creates a subpage indeed.
 * And in talk-space Talk:Artemether/lumefantrine is a true subpage of Talk:Artemether. As it happens, that parent talkpage simply belongs to article Artemether.
 * However. What is the problem? You always end up on the right page! -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:BEANS: what happens if a drug is named "Aspirin/"? -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion about this, but note that these articles are in mainspace, as the subpage feature is disabled for mainspace (WP:Subpage). It's just the talk pages that are subpages. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * yay i have been hoping some folks who understand all this back end stuff would pipe up. Is the subpage for Talk a problem technically in any way? Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; at least I can't think of any problems this could cause. (Unless of course the INN for the second substance is "archive 1", which would cause a conflict .) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy with "and" if we want to got that way. What would we do for three medication combinations? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The "and" was only a suggestion if there was a problem. But apparently there is no problem. "/" is more succinct, so why not stick with the status quo? Boghog (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Just posted here to make sure that there is no problem. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So nobody thinks archiving bots will be screwed up for archiving or any other issues with the talk page being a sub?  If not we can let this go.... unless somebody thinks of anything else. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If archeive bot is having problems we can likely ask to have it fixed to acommodate this case. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it work to put a "nowiki" tag around the / in the title? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you can't have markup in titles. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Over at Talk:AC/DC, easily handles Archive 1 to Talk:AC/DC/Archive 7. Also the search-archive function works as expected . -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat strange article expansions
Endometrin, Duvelisib, Gadoteric acid, Trofinetide, Valbenazine,Apimostinel, Abituzumab, Metamucil and probably others — different authors, all new, practically identical editing style with prominence on "Commercial Aspects" and "Intellectual Property". I see no copyright violations. Are these additions advertising? Or do they just need a good copyedit? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether this is a case of undisclosed paid editing (perhaps with socking) or a student class project. But it does seem a bit odd. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Finding issues:

Endometrin was originally copied from the package insert. Have redirect and merged to the generic.

Metamucil merged to generic.

Cleaned up a bunch of the rest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've looked at the edits and editors some more, and I'm sure that this is not a coincidence. But whether it's deceptive COI editing, or a bunch of students hurrying to meet the class deadline, I cannot tell. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just posted about this at WP:COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Kelltastic. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have updated the lists in Recent changes in Pharmacology, to track Project activity. DePiep (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

List of clinical trials
So do we want to be including lists of clinical trials of new substances such as the phase 2 trials I removed here? Or is that overly specific for the mandate of a general encyclopedia? Should we simply say less until more is known? Do we consider every individual trial listed at clinicaltrials.gov notable? My position currently is no. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We certainly should not include a lot of detail for individual phase 2 clinical trials. However I see no harm in simply mentioning that the drug is currently or has undergone clinical testing for a particular condition without mention anything about efficacy or safety and using clinicaltrials.gov to document the fact there is/was a clinical trial. Boghog (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * could mention undergone clinical testing for a particular condition, but nothing further...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Among the different phases of clinical development, phase II is the "killing field" for NDAs, with the lowest likelihood of approval, 31% (page 10; "Bio"). Accordingly, phase II activity is low-quality encyclopedia information in the pyramid of WP:MEDASSESS and WP:UNDUE. Given there were some 7500 development programs by 1100 companies over the last decade (Bio), the clinicaltrials.gov listings do not satisfy WP:NRV. Covering early-phase trials also touches on WP:PROMO. --Zefr (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey - Proposals related to "Recent Changes"
Hello again WP Pharmacology members! I also noticed that you make extensive use of RecentChangesLinked to produce change patrols in a "Recent changes" template. Here's a couple Wishlist Survey proposals related to making these patrols more productive:


 * 1) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 2) RecentChangesLinked should search associated pages

Please consider and vote on these by December 12. Thank you again for your time! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft at AFC
Is the sourcing of Draft:Fulvestrant-3 boronic acid sufficient to prove notability? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have more editors than just me respond, but my inclination would be "no". There are two reasons for that. First, as already noted, there is only a single source, which puts it on weak footing with respect to WP:GNG. Second, I looked at the source, and the drug is only getting preliminary testing in lab animals. Thus, it is not yet approved for or in use by humans as a medication. Given that it hasn't attracted that much notice for its preclinical properties, I don't think that it is notable yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I already commented at the draft, I agree that it is probably too soon since there have not been any independent sources that discuss this drug candidate. Boghog (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The source, Liu et al, describes the synthesis of fulvestrant-3 boronic acid, as well as bioassaying for antiestrogen activity, ER downregulation, and in vivo pharmacokinetics. Brilanestrant, another SERD, does have a page, but it has already entered clinical trials. Given how novel this discovery is, I concur with those above in answering "no." Biochemistry&#38;Love (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Need proper sources per WP:MEDRS. Is it a drug yet? Or just hoping to be? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All preclinical at the moment. At this point, WP:GNG is more relevant than WP:MEDRS. Boghog (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * fails any way you measure it. TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Paracetamol toxicity
Paracetamol toxicity, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MDMA/Archive 7
Please contribute to this discussion on what the drug classification of MDMA should be in the infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine about two articles which may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. ChemNerd (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Mix up
Please see Talk:Synthol something gone wrong in mix up of two different substances. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid
Would anyone be willing to take on this review?

I'm planning on immediately nominating it for featured article status after it passes GA since I've spent dozens of hours searching for medical reviews and monographs on this compound. I'm fairly certain that every known aspect of its clinical effects and pharmacological properties has been covered in the article, so it should pass the comprehensiveness criterion. Hopefully it won't take a full year of FA nominations like amphetamine did.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You might try WT:CHEM as well. Sizeofint (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to skip the GA process altogether since it's taking too long. I'd really appreciate it if others from this project would review this article at FAC: Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still need 1–2 more reviewers to take on a review of the medical/pharmacological aspects of this compound; doing an image review won't take much time either if anyone here cares to take on a review of that aspect of the WP:FA criteria (there are no fair use images; all the images are either chemical structure drawings in the public domain or CC-BY-# graphs/diagrams from open access pubmed-indexed journal articles with both captions and WP:ALT text – this is easily verifiable). I expect that a few non-medical editors who regularly review FACs will take on a review of the prose and do WP:V checks, so it's not really necessary for anyone here to do a review of that.
 * If you're interested in doing a review of this article at FAC and are new to FAC reviews, you should read the instructions on the WP:FAC page under listed under the heading "Supporting and opposing" and read User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates for a primer on how to review an article at FAC. It might help to look at how reviews in other FA nominations are structured as well, but that isn't really necessary.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 08:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to do a review of the beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid section at FAC to determine if it's adequately sourced, accurate w.r.t. the cited sources, and complete + comprehensive enough for a featured pharmacology article (i.e., determine whether or not it satisfies WP:FA criteria 1b, 1c, and 1d: comprehensiveness, well-researched, and neutral), it'd help. The medical content (i.e., the uses/side effects sections) has already been reviewed by and the chemistry section is currently being reviewed by, so the pharmacology content is really the only section that still needs to be reviewed by an editor who is familiar with the subject area. I've asked an experienced FAC reviewer to do a review of the article prose (criterion 1a), so there's no need to look at or do a review of how well the text in that section is written. Since roughly half of the pharmacodynamics section covers research involving HMB-induced anabolic signaling cascades, this diagram will probably be useful for context on how the protein kinases and related proteins that are mentioned in that section (IGF-1, Akt, ERK1, ERK2, mTOR/mTORC1, p70S6 kinase [marked as S6K1 in the diagram], and 4EBP1) are involved in the mTOR signaling pathway.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC round 2
This article has been renominated at Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive2. It still needs at least 1 more content reviewer.

I'd really appreciate it if someone with a working knowledge of pharmacology and/or molecular biology took on a review of this article; I don't expect or think it's even necessary for a reviewer to have a working understanding of the signaling pathways covered in the pharmacodynamics section in order to perform a review of the article's pharmacology content though; if there's any questions about this compound's signaling, biosynthetic, or metabolic pathways that a reviewer isn't familiar with, I'd be happy to answer them and offer relevant sources that provide any necessary contextual information to understand the more involved pharmacology content.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC round 3
See Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive3.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ixazomib for DYK
Template:Did you know nominations/Ixazomib --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about pharmacy is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Brand names typically redirected to generic names
A redirect is up for discussion here.

Basically the question is should we redirect brands to generics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This case is a bit more complex than presented above: the brand (Tylenol) currently redirects to the generic page (Paracetamol), while there is a page about the brand itself (Tylenol (brand)). --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From that discussion and elsewhere it seems clear that there is a general consensus to maintain the policy of redirecting brands to generics, although there can be exceptions; the question is whether or not Tylenol (brand) is an exception because of independent notability.Klbrain (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO most people who search for Tylenol are looking for information on the medication not a history of the brand. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc James that those looking for Tylenol want to know about paracetamol and so Tylenol should direct there. There is then the distinct question of whether a Tylenol (brand) page should exist in order to discuss the history of a notable brand. Klbrain (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Updating of Ixazomib Article
Dear Editors of the Wikipedia Ixazomib Page,

The FDA granted priority review and orphan drug designation. Priority review status is granted to applications for drugs that, if approved, would be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment of a serious condition.

Mhowellcmi123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I mentioned the priority review; orphan designation already was in the article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pharmaceutical companies of the United States
Should Template:Pharmaceutical companies of the United States include defunct companies? There are a lot of companies in this list that have closed or been bought by another company. Natureium (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This list will soon be replaced by a single link to Pfizer ;-) More seriously, one option might be to split the list into current and former companies. Another is to list the acquired companies in parenthesis after the acquiring company. Boghog (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think those are both good ideas. I'll look at about what proportion of the list are defunct when I have time later. And I guess if they were bought be a foreign company, they can just be taken off the list, as they are no longer an american company. But honestly, we're getting close to an oligopoly. Natureium (talk)

My new question is- why are there so many more articles in the category "Pharmaceutical companies of the United States" than there are listed in the template? Natureium (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps size does matter? Or is that the Pfizer in me talking? ... On a more serious note, it would be reasonable in a template to have lower limit on, say, turnover, so that the template doesn't become unwieldy.Klbrain (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mutually exclusive categories
Does anyone have an opinion of whether the categories Abandoned drugs and Experimental drugs should be mutually exclusive? i.e. If a drug is abandoned, is it no longer experimental? Natureium (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and then: PETSCAN has 12 now. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's also, and probably others that I'm less familiar with. Natureium (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Added that one as a subcategory (no doubles). New PETSCAN now has 26. -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started removing the category from drugs that are obviously abandoned (e.g. due to safety, rather than there just haven't been any clinical trials in 10 years), so that number is changing. Sorry if I'm causing any confusion. Natureium (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)No problem if that's the fact. But do leave that subcategory I made it, because that is what it is per WP:CATEGORY. (Unless an 'Experimental cancer drug' is somehow not an 'Experimental drug'???). -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Experimental cancer drugs already has the cat Experimental drugs. Does adding it twice do anything special? Natureium (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * should have subcategory . That's how categories work. Usually, no article appears in both. (as you write it here, that would be inverse?). -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look here, I added in December, and you added it again. I removed it, and you re-added it. Does it need to be listed twice? Natureium (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed that one, when adjusting the PETSCAN. Clean now. Do you need more PETSCAN stuff? (You can try with other category names easily). -DePiep (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll play with the PETSCAN. Natureium (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion they are distinct categories. Category:Experimental drugs for drugs currently undergoing clinical trials (and maybe pre-clinical research too) and Category:Abandoned drugs for drugs that entered clinical trials, but the company involved has announced that they are no longer conducting any clinical trials. I would also distinguish abandoned drugs from Category:Withdrawn drugs, which were once marketed drugs, but are no longer.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is sound reasoning, so I'm removing Category:Experimental drugs and Category:Experimental cancer drugs from drugs that are clearly abandoned. Natureium (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Go to Template talk:Infobox drug later on if you think this should be a parameter. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If I think what should be a parameter? Natureium (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Drugbox could have experimental/abandoned/withdrawn showing (but not the default 'on sale'). Categories should be used as intended (and will not be added automatically). -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Edgar. If something is "abandoned" it should no longer be "experimental" and yes "withdrawn" is distinct.   Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Article on FDA expedited programs
If I were to create an article on the expedited programs for review of new drugs by the FDA, would it be deleted? All of these methods have their own articles, but I think it would be informative to have an article comparing the different methods (fast track designation, orphan drug designation, accelerated approval, breakthrough designation, priority review coupons). Would this be appropriate? Natureium (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone else been plagiarized by the authors of an academic journal article/review?
I honestly don't really care about being plagiarized (TBH, I'm sort of flattered), but I noticed that copied content that I wrote in the N-methylphenethylamine article a while back almost verbatim, although the references are different. There's about 3-4 other sentences scattered throughout the journal article that also appear to be copied from WP articles on individual trace amines, but overall it looks to be fairly minor compared to what was copied from the NMPEA article. The vast majority of this review contains a lot of original writing (or at least not plagiarized from Wikipedia) and IMO is a pretty useful sources for citing new content, but I thought it was amusing that it contains article text from the English Wikipedia. Has this happened to any other pharmacology editors before?

This paragraph is from this reference's section on NMPEA (the struckout text isn't copied from the NMPEA article):"N-Methylphenethylamine (NMPEA) is a naturally occurring trace amine neuromodulator in humans that is derived from the trace amine, phenethylamine (PEA) [103,105]. It has been detected in human urine and is produced by phenylethanolamine N-methyltransferase with phenethylamine as a substrate [106]. PEA and NMPEA are both alkaloids that are found in a number of different plant species as well [63]. Like its parent compound, PEA, NMPEA is a potent agonist of human TAAR1 [103,104]. However the functional roles of NMPEA in mammalian brain is not clear."  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It has happened before (see for example this discussion). The publisher of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, Elsevier, does have a procedure to handle cases like this. If the plagiarism is extensive, it might be worth contacting the publisher. It happened to me once as well, except I was a referee to a manuscript submitted for publication.  There was passage that looked like I had wrote it ;-) When I checked it out, sure enough, it lead to passage in Wikipedia that I had written.  Needless to say, the manuscript was rejected for publication. Boghog (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, it's OK to copy directly from Wikipedia with attribution, but not without. But professionally, when writing in a scholarly journal, it's really unacceptable. You can certainly tell the publisher as Boghog indicated, but it's a question of whether it's worth the bother. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

EMA401 withdrawn?
As far as I understand it, EMA401 has been withdrawn from clinical trials. Does anyone know if this is the case? The article could do with some serious culling of old (and somewhat promotional) information. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 11:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * that article is a disaster. gah.
 * according to AdisInsight the trials were stopped in summer 2015 (ref). That is about the same time that Novartis bought Spinfex, the originator.  In that context seems most likely that clinical development was paused not killed but uncertain. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone
...with the appropriate experience swap in a drugbox for the chembox, at amyl nitrite. This is more appropriately a drug, historically and practically, than some natural products that have been given drugboxes, and giving this compound a drugbox allow use of several useful fields that are not present in the chembox. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll see about doing that when I have time within the next 3 days. It's rather tedious to swap all the parameters since they're not identical in these infoboxes.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ pls take a look to drugify if a bit more? -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Extracellular chemotherapeutic agents
Problem with how this template is being populated. See Template_talk:Extracellular_chemotherapeutic_agents Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Mutations that drive resistance to targeted cancer drugs
Hi - I worked over Osimertinib last night, and added content about resistance mutations. Not sure where that should go. I put it in medical use (!) which may surprise you but that drug's provisional approval in the US came with a requirement to use a companion diagnostic to ensure that the cancer has a specific mutation in EGFR, so it made sense (to me) to put it there. But maybe it should be in pharmacology?

This is an important facet of these targeted cancer drugs and perhaps PHARMMOS should give advice about where to put this content, generally. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Example section Erlotinib Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any problems with the way you did it, but I guess I could be missing something. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't do the Erlotinib one - somebody made a whole section out of it. Which is interesting but not in MEDMOS or PHARMMOS. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox drug: "Legal status = Rx-only" may be too absolute
Infobox drug has option legal_status to enter any text, that will show unedited. The template does make one edit though: it replaces Rx-only with "℞ (Prescription only)". These occurrences, some 600 articles, are listed under * in. Also, there are country-specific options like legal_UK; these do not matter here. Example: Alprazolam.

My question is: is this not too absolute for a statement: saying 'It is Rx-only everywhere? There is no world-wide law saying so. I propose to make it, by the same automate, more relaxed: "In general, ℞ (Prescription only)". -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm actually in favor of just removing it entirely. The only globalizable legal statuses we have are OTC and Rx-only, and even those vary too much by country for the general legal_status to be of much use. Your "in general" proposal is a relatively acceptable alternative but just clarifies the vagueness present and would probably look a bit out of place compared to how the other legal_XX variables are processed. Garzfoth (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean delete the whole parameter? Or hide just 'Rx-only' and 'OTC' input? There could be useful remarks (any text) in there, possibly sourced. Shall I track all those with input? (Background: before the country-specific _XX options, this parameter held all the legal info. Just noting where it comes from). -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

✅ this:
 * 1. added prefix text to Rx-only
 * 2. added similar for OTC


 * 3. Also categorise when any other text is entered (so: we list every drugbox that has input in this)

All these articles (and more because of legal_XX irregular inputs), are in.

--DePiep (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) -edits- DePiep (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes in Preformatted input
I have walked through all articles with non-standard legal input ('input not recognised'). See, down from 1750 P. The category also has an options overview and a detailed TOC (sorted per country). Articles categorised do not signal an error (could be OK).
 * I have diffused general input into country-specific when possible (from 'legal_status' into 'legal_US' etc). What remains in legal_status is, as intended, input like: 'Illegal in Sweden, Japan, China, Switzerland, Poland, Russia'. (RU and PL almost always with a reference!). Also appearing: 'Withdrawn from marked; In trials phase III; Investigative'.
 * Added to the recognised options:
 * Output has more explanations like 'precursor' for UN schemes, not just code any more where possible. See options list.
 * US: 'not FD approved', 'Investigative New Drug', 'IND', 'Analogue', 'Analoge'.
 * NZ, UK: 'Temporary Class'
 * GE: 'Rx only' for 'Anlage III'
 * legal_general: 'unscheduled; uncontrolled; legal; non-regulated', 'investigative', 'veterinary only'.


 * To do
 * Some input relates to the development-cycle (not exactly legal status). Maybe split into a separate parameter? Would specify status like 'investigative' and 'withdrawn'. Later more on this.
 * I'd like to see more descriptive wording, not just "Scheme 3". See the options list in the category and documentation. CA, NZ, UK, US and EU, UN.
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't "not/approved by FDA" etc. be in Licence? Its not about legal really. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Pharmacy" the place
I live in the United States and use the term "drugstore" to mean "pharmacy".

Can I get an opinion on whether "community pharmacy" is the Wikipedia article for that topic? There is also "drugstore".

I hesitate about community pharmacy because I was considering whether there should be a general article for "pharmacy the place", whether it is for the community or a hospital or anything else. There seems to not be one of these, right?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I live in the US too, so I'd also like to hear from any editors elsewhere. To me, a drugstore sells many kinds of products and includes a pharmacy within it. A pharmacy is specifically where prescriptions are filled (and a few other healthcare services are handled). As you say, a community pharmacy (typically inside a drugstore, but potentially also inside a clinic or freestanding) and a hospital pharmacy are distinct categories of pharmacy – and mail-order pharmacy would be yet another. As for how many or few pages we should have for all of this, I don't have a strong opinion, but I see nothing wrong with having multiple articles, so long as they are adequately cross-referenced. I could even see a rationale for a disambiguation page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, in US ... the term "drugstore" to mean "pharmacy". That would be "pharmacy (shop)", I guess.
 * Doesn't this show the need for article like:
 * Pharmacy (shop), a place providing pharmaceutical services. In US called "drugstore", in UK there are "community pharmacy"'s, while hospitals have internal pharmacies called (todo). Depending on local law, such a place can have or must have a pharmacist present, and can or can not sell non-pharmaceutical products like shampoo.
 * This has the advantage that at least I, an outsider to both, finally can find the differences in this wiki ;-). To me, these are not obvious, not even which word is used in which country. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Update - I changed the name of "community pharmacy" to Pharmacy (shop). I rewrote the lead and put an explanation on the talk page. If anyone has more to say then please go to that article's talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

CCX832
CCX832 nominated for deletion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS shorcut updated
Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.


 * WP:CHEM now refer to WP:CHEMISTRY
 * WP:CHEMS now refer to WP:CHEMICALS
 * WP:CHM is deprecated

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"FDA approved": legal or license?
Correcting this (into license) would cleanup ~100 drugboxes. Talk is here. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Writing the lead
Important imo discussion happening at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates, related to discussion we recently had about leads in Nov 2016, here. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)