![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Hey All. We have just starting running edits from this project through the "copy and paste" detection bot found here [User:EranBot/Copyright]. There are some false positive and negatives. All results need human follow up. But it is decent. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Good evening. I'm just posting here to notify this project that I have nominated a Pharmacology article for deletion due to the fact that barring one sentence and an infobox, it's empty and has only been edited twice since 2011. If you have any input, would someone please be kind enough to expand Ethallobarbital to at least a stub if possible. Right now, it's not so much a stub, more like a Zygote :) If anyone has the opportunity to fill this in, please do! It's been empty since 2009 and utterly unreferenced, barring a PubMed citation. I'd rather it carry on than get shifted off. Thank you! CharlieTheCabbie| Yack to the driver 00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics (including, of course, pharmacology). Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 December 2014
All medical, anatomy and many pharmacological navigation boxes have changed.
The small line of links at the bottom of the navbox has now changed to an "Index of..." with "Description", "Disease" and Treatment" subsections. This will affect almost all medical, anatomy and pharmacology navboxes. As an example, see here:
The links at the bottom ("Index of the peripheral nervous system...") are what have changed. A full list is at Template:Medicine navs.
Previously all navboxes have had a line of links to other navboxes embedded within them. An example is here: [1]. Prior to today, that line that was a list of abbreviated terms that linked to relevant templates. This attracted a lot of negative feedback, and a length discussion was held on how to improve them. See here for the RfC: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Roundtable_discussion_on_legibiltity_and_usability_of_medical_navs. We concluded that it would be better for the embedded navboxes to be expanded in full form. This is much easier for mobile use, links are clearer, and lay users who may not be familiar with the abbreviated forms can now use the templates with greater ease.
We expanded all the abbreviations. We tried very hard to get the right balance between readability for lay audiences, who are not familiar with medical terminology, and technical accuracy. We have tried to use standard terms for all the templates. Further explanation can be found by reading the discussions on Template_talk:Medicine_navs
Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Please leave feedback here: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Feedback_after_roundtable_changes
I've had occasion to post to this page a few times in the past year. Because of its size it takes quite a long time to load (meaning multiple minutes on some connections I have used) and because there are so many threads it is a little hard to keep track of. Would there be any objections to making this page automatically archived, say after 28 days? I would be bold and do this myself, but seeing as this is now 2015 and it hasn't already been done, I feel I should be certain and ask first Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a WP:PHARM High-importance & level-4 vital article article split.
Insert your 2¢ if you have any. If anyone objects, propose an alternative; I'm going to follow through with some action to address the problem within a month since I won't let that travesty of an article remain as is. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The name of {{ Glucocorticoids}} was recently changed to {{ Glucocorticoidics}} in this The the usual term for glucocorticoids is glucocorticoids:
This includes:
There appears little to no precedent for the term "glucocorticoidics":
Also I noticed that we have related navboxes that are named {{ Estrogenics}}, {{ Mineralocorticoidics}} and {{ Progestogenics}} whose names also strikes me odd, especially given the following MeSH terms:
Based on the results of Google searches, there is a bit more support for the terms estrogenics, glucocorticoidics, mineralocorticoidics, and progestogenics but these terms are still not widely used. Wikipedia is meant for a wide audience. Hence I propose that the templates adopt the MeSH names that are shorter, simpler, more widely used, and are still fully accurate.
Is there support for the renaming of these navboxes? Boghog ( talk) 11:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Glucocorticoidic is without any doubt a valid wordRight. 599,000 to ~3 search results and I would still argue that these few sporadic examples are probably typos. I also note that the authors of number of these highly atypical examples are non-native English speakers. At best, "glucocorticoidic" represent a tiny, tiny minority view and therefore is WP:UNDUE and not permitted in Wikipedia. Furthermore, terminology that is used in one field ("dopaminergic" in neurotransmitters) may not be transferable to another field ("glucocorticoid" in nuclear receptors). Employing this analogy amounts to original research. Boghog ( talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.Also per WP:COMMONNAME, search engine results are a valid way of establishing the most common usage. "Glucocorticoidic" is almost never used (essentially zero Google Scholar hits) whereas "Glucocorticoid" is highly used (greater than half a million Google Scholar hits). In short, "glucocorticoidic" is not a word. Boghog ( talk) 15:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Google Scholar "glucocorticoidic" results
|
---|
|
Hi All. I'm a pharmacist and pharmacy prof from the University of Waterloo. I'm learning how to edit Wikipedia (steep learning curve!). My plan is to start by working on antibiotics and to see where it goes from there. My biggest interests are in patient health literacy and antibiotic stewardship. I'm wide open to suggestions and feedback as I learn.(first lesson: sign in before doing an edit :) Kagpharm ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Should biosimilars get their own page? I just noticed the new article Remsima, the brand name of a biosimilar to infliximab. For small molecule pharmaceuticals, it makes sense to have only one article titled at the INN and then redirect all brand names/generic products to that article, since they all contain the same API. However, biosimilars do not necessarily have an identical API (that's why they are biosimilars). So should Remsima be merged with infliximab, or left as a standalone article? And if it remains standalone, would it be acceptable to have a separate article for Remicade? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 21:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Everyone,
My colleagues, user:J. A. Leavitt and user:C.G.Pharmacy, and I are pharmacy students at the University of Waterloo completing independent research projects on editing Wikipedia. Our goal is to improve the readability of antibiotic articles that are backed by reputable sources. We are working alongside pharmacy professor user:Kagpharm (Pharm D), a pharmacy school librarian (PHD candidate) and user:Doc James. As a team, we would like to revise the Cefalexin page so that it can be used as a standard for updating other Wikipedia pages. We hope to continue to edit other Wikipedia pages as well and welcome any feedback regarding our edits. We want to contribute to making Wikipedia accessible, understandable, and accurate for all Wikipedia readers.
We are currently editing sections of the article and were wondering what Wikipedia’s trusted resources are for pregnancy and lactation information, as well as, for drug interactions? Any feedback or suggestions are most welcome.
Thank you, Carly-pharm ( talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Digestives has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated the amphetamine article with this blurb for TFA; I'd appreciate any input for/against the nomination or comments about the blurb at the nomination page.
Thanks
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
20:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
See Template:Did you know nominations/Bromelain (pharmacology). -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 17:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I am posting here to request the development of a new Wikipedia page for the COPD treatment tiotropium + olodaterol fixed-dose combination (FDC).
Tiotropium + olodaterol FDC is a new treatment developed by Boehringer Ingelheim. Phase III data has shown that tiotropium + olodaterol FDC provides even further lung function, symptom and quality of life benefits to patients than tiotropium or olodaterol alone.1
Tiotropium + olodaterol FDC has been submitted for Marketing Authorisation in Europe and the US and if approved, could offer an important additional treatment option for the estimated 65 million patients worldwide who live with COPD.2 _
Please note, all information submitted for this page would be factually-based and relate largely to the significant amount of trial data available for this treatment.
Would the Wikipedia Pharmacology community consider the creation of this new Page for this new FDC treatment option of COPD? If so, please let us know if you would need additional, unbiased and scholarly material for the creation of this new article.
We look forward to your reply.
Kind regards Christoph_Hallmann
1. Buhl R, Derom E, Ferguson G et al. Once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination via the Respimat® improves outcomes vs mono-components in COPD in two 1-year studies. ERS 2014 abstract No. OP1895. 2. World Health Organization. Chronic Respiratory Diseases. Burden of COPD. Christoph Hallmann ( talk) 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I make it a point to stay away from anything related to MEDRS, but you guys might want to take a look at this article. Apparently developed by an account called "Mesports" which has a matching website that seems to sell or otherwise market this stuff. It looks like there's some refspam promotion and/or use of non-reliable sources also. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In {{
Drugbox}}, we can add the legal status for some countries (AU, UK, US, ...). There are pre-set options, which nicely link to for example: CA:
Schedule I
. Documentation is completed now, and changes are a bit more easy. If you're interested, please take a look and drop improvements (better links? better texts? sources OK?).
Documentation is at {{ Infobox drug/legal status}}, talk is at Infobox drug, legal status. - DePiep ( talk) 15:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created this template {{ Rx}}:
{{Rx}}
→ ℞- DePiep ( talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Polysporin, in which one view is to merge with Neosporin, another is to leave the two articles separate, and a third is to merge the two under the generic name in the header above, which now redirects to Polysporin. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
June 30, pregnancy category labeling in the US changes (no more letter codes A-B-C). New rules PLLR could be an article.
As I am working with {{ Drugbox}} (esp. pregnancy category documentation), I'd like to learn what will happen. I have not seen a single example (medicine label). What to expect? How to handle? - DePiep ( talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Should Radium-223-Chloride be an article about Radium-223 or Radium-223-Chloride ? Should this be an isotope article, or a pharmacological chemical article? See talk:Radium-223-Chloride for the discussion -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have suggested the following post to the Talk:Afatinib Page but have not received a response. Therefore, I will post it here. Thank you for your attention.
I would like to propose a further update to the current article for afatinib. Information on recently published scientific data (Yang et. al. Lancet Oncology 2015) ), relevant to the approved indication for afatinib as a treatment for non-small cell lung cancer is missing from the “Medical uses” section of the current article. Below I have drafted some suggested wording about this data for inclusion in the article, for your consideration. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this suggestion and, as always, am grateful for any feedback and advice. In addition we propose an update to ongoing clinical research, which investigates afatinib in head and neck squamous carcinoma as well as other ErbB driven tumors.
Suggest wording: Afatinib was investigated as first-line therapy in two pivotal, Phase III trials, LUX-Lung 3 and 6. Both studies were large, randomized trials comparing afatinib to standard of care chemotherapy, LUX-Lung 3 in a Caucasian and Asian population, LUX-Lung 6 in a solely Asian population. Both trials met their respective primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS). Data presented at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting 2014 from the LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials, and now published in Lancet Oncology demonstrated for both studies independently a significant overall survival benefit (secondary endpoint) for NSCLC patients with the most common type of EGFR mutation, Del19, compared to standard chemotherapy. A combined exploratory analysis of the LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials demonstrated a prolongation of overall survival (secondary endpoint) in lung cancer patients whose tumours harbour common EGFR mutations (Del19/L858R), compared with standard chemotherapy.
Sagschneider ( talk) 08:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials.
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Feb;16(2):141-51. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71173-8. Epub 2015 Jan 12.
Targeted therapies: LUX-Lung trials-not all mutations are created equal. Hutchinson L. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar;12(3):127. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.9. Epub 2015 Jan 27. No abstract available.
Common EGFR-mutated subgroups (Del19/L858R) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: chasing better outcomes with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Reguart N, Remon J. Future Oncol. 2015 Jan 28:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] Sagschneider ( talk) 15:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Community,
I posted the following suggestion on the Dabigatran Talk Page, but it has unfortunately not received any attention. Please see below. Thank you for your assistance.
In order to supplement the completeness of this Wikipedia article, I was wondering whether readers would appreciate a more complete list of regulatory approvals for dabigatran to be added in the “History” section. Currently, the “History” section does not reflect the approvals listed in the “Medical Uses” section. I could imagine that the article would benefit if the two sections were aligned. If you would like further information or dates, I would be happy to provide them here.
Tvrdonova ( talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I posted this edit on the Nintedanib article Talk page, but have not received any response. Please see included suggestion below. Thank you.
Extended content
|
---|
I would like to propose the following updates to the Nintedanib Wikipedia entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintedanib) to ensure the content is up-to-date and reflects the current regulatory status of nintedanib. As currently noted, nintedanib is approved by the FDA and the European Commission (EC) for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis under the trade name Ofev®. (www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm418994.htm; http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/003821/smops/Positive/human_smop_000760.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d127 ). Regulations dictate that the Ofev® brand name – which also relates to the particular dosage of nintedanib for use in IPF – only be linked with this disease. In November Vargatef® received approval from the European Commission for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002569/smops/Positive/human_smop_000727.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d127). The brand name Vargatef® is only associated with NSCLC. I have provided some suggested wording amendments to the entry for nintedanib to make this important distinction clear to readers. As noted, the recent FDA and EC approvals of nintedanib (Ofev®) for the treatment IPF would suggest the need for further details on the disease and relevant clinical trials. I have provided suggested wording to provide a brief overview of these points following a similar format to the existing content. I would be grateful for any further guidance you may be able to offer to bring the nintedanib entry up-to-date and to clarify any perceived inaccuracies.
Nintedanib (trade name, Vargatef® in NSCLC, Ofev® in IPF) is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) developed by Boehringer Ingelheim for the treatment of lung cancer patients with advanced adenocarcinoma and patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Nintedanib inhibits the receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) which are involved in the formation and maintenance of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) and signalling pathways of fibrotic processes.[18][19][20] Nintedanib is approved in the EU under the brand name Vargatef® for use in combination with docetaxel in adult patients with locally advanced, metastatic or locally recurrent NSCLC of adenocarcinoma tumour histology after first-line chemotherapy. It is also approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in the USA and in the EU under the trade name Ofev®. Nintedanib is also under investigation in a number of other solid cancers including hepatic cell carcinoma, mesothelioma and colorectal cancer. Contents 1. Nintedanib in oncology 1.1 Mechanism of action 1.2 Clinical studies 1.3 Adverse events 2. Nintedanib in IPF 2.1 Mechanism of action 2.2 Clinical studies 2.3 Adverse events
Nintedanib targets growth factor receptors, which have been shown to be involved in the mechanisms by which pulmonary fibrosis occurs. Most importantly, nintedanib inhibits receptors for platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).[18] [19] [20] By blocking these signaling pathways involved in fibrotic processes, it is believed that nintedanib reduces disease progression in IPF by slowing the decline of lung function. [18] [19] [20] 1.3 Clinical studies The clinical efficacy and safety of nintedanib in IPF has been established in 1,231 patients with IPF in one Phase II clinical trial (TOMORROW) and two replicate Phase III clinical trials, INPULSIS®-1 and -2.[18][21] These were double blind, randomised and placebo-controlled trialscomparing treatment with nintedanib 150 mg twice daily to placebo for 52 weeks. The INPULSIS® trials were identical in design and patients were randomised with a 3:2 ratio to nintedanib and placebo, the TOMORROW trial was similar in design but also included other treatment arms (dose finding study) in addition to treatment with 150 mg twice daily.[18][21][22] Results from INPULSIS®-1 –and -2 show nintedanib slows disease progression by reducing the annual rate of decline in lung function by approximately 50%. The treatment effect on FVC was consistent across all 3 studies.[23] The TOMORROW and INPULSIS®-2 trials also met both secondary endpoints – results demonstrate there was significantly less deterioration in quality of life (measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire - SGRQ), and a reduced risk of a first acute exacerbation in patients taking nintedanib versus placebo. In the INPULSIS®-1 trial there was no difference between the treatment groups for these key secondary endpoints. [18][22]. 2.2 Adverse events In INPULSIS®, the most common adverse events with nintedanib* were gastrointestinal, generally manageable and of mild to moderate intensity, rarely leading to treatment discontinuation.[22] • Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event experienced in 62% of patients treated with nintedanib versus 18% in patients in the placebo groups[22] • Less than 5% of patients discontinued treatment due to diarrhoea events[22] • In those patients who experienced diarrhoea, 95% of events were mild to moderate in intensity[22] The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was similar in both treatment groups. [22] More than 90% of eligible patients who participated in the INPULSIS® trials opted to continue with nintedanib treatment as part of an open-label extension trial.[24] 3. References 11.^ "Boehringer Ingelheim - AGO-OVAR 12 / LUME-Ovar 1 Trial Information". 2011. 12.^ "Boehringer Ingelheim - LUME-Lung 2 Trial Information". 2011. 13.^ "Boehringer Ingelheim - LUME-Lung 1 Trial Information". 2011. 14.^ http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=++%09+BIBF+1120&phase=1 18. L. Richeldi, U. Costabel, M. Selman, D.S. Kim, D.M. Hansell, A.G. Nicholson, K.K. Brown, K.R. Flaherty, P.W. Noble, G. Raghu, M. Brun, A. Gupta, N. Juhel, M. Klüglich, R.M. du Bois (2011). “Efficacy of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis”. N Engl J Med. 365:1079-1087; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103690 19. M. Selman, T.E. King, A. Pardo (2001) “Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: prevailing and evolving hypotheses about its pathogenesis and implications for therapy”. Ann Intern Med 134(2):136-51; doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-2-200101160-00015 20. L. Wollin, I. Maillet, V. Quesniaux, A. Holweg, B. Ryffel (2014) “Antifibrotic and Anti-inflammatory Activity of the Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Nintedanib in Experimental Models of Lung Fibrosis”. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 349(2):209–220; doi: 10.1124/jpet.113.208223 21. L. Richeldi, V. Cottin, K.R. Flaherty, M. Kolb, Y. Inoue, G. Raghu, H. Taniguchi, D.M. Hansell, A.G. Nicholson, F. Le Maulf, S. Stowasser, H.R. Collard (2014). “Design of the INPULSIS trials: Two phase 3 trials of nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis”. Respir Med 108(7); 1023-1030; doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2014.04.011. Epub 2014 Apr 29 22. L. Richeldi, R.M. du Bois, G. Raghu, A. Azuma, K.K. Brown, U. Costabel, V. Cottin, K.R. Flaherty, D.M. Hansell, Y. Inoue, D.S. Kim, M. Kolb, A.G. Nicholson, P.W. Noble, M. Selman, H. Taniguchi, H. Brun, F. Le Maulf, M. Girard, S. Stowasser, R. Schlenker-Herceg, B. Disse, H.R. Collard (2014). “Efficacy and Safety of Nintedanib in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis”. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2071-2082;doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1402584. 23. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/205832s000lbl.pdf Ovef® highlights of prescribing information. Boehringer Ingelheim. Revised 2014. 24. Boehringer Ingelheim. Data on file. |
Lismmq ( talk) 09:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
Drugbox}} has the option to enter |legal_status=Rx only
. Then the infobox drug says:
(See full
documentation and
500 articles doing so). There are also country specific options like |legal_CA=Rx only
. These are OK.
But. I think thethere can not be a worldwide regulation "Rx only". So I propose to declare this input invalid, do not show in article, and make the maintenance task to edit the article into being more specific or sourced. -
DePiep (
talk)
20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
|legal_status=
and will show unedited. My beef is: as quoted, the default option has no such country specification. That is unacceptable. -
DePiep (
talk)
18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)My impression is that it will be very, very difficult to make and keep this accurate. In which case my proclivity would be to leave it out. The average person in Zambia, Ukraine, or Vietnam is going to have a much better idea where to get good information on the local regulations for drugs than the average English Wikipedia editor. Why claim to know more than we do? Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing to add |PLLR=
to {{Drugbox}}.
PLLR is the new US FDA drug labeling rule regarding pregnancy and more. Discussed at
Infobox drug talk. -
DePiep (
talk)
22:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It appears the FDA are getting rid of ABCDX and instead using prose. This might be good content to copy and paste into all our articles. I guess we will see. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
|PLLR=
free text parameter to {{Drugbox}} next to old ABC classes, not interacting. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Probably needs to be deleted since it has no sources, but would otherwise need to be renamed Nitroglycerin/caffeine or vice versa. Anyone think this kind of niche combination drug article is worth keeping? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
See WT:MED#Route of administration articles + template. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
A discussion of interest to this project is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#drug_names_.28especially_for_generics.29 - please do weigh in there. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).-- Lucas559 ( talk) 15:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The above article has been nominated for deletion. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 06:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Could use some eyes. It seems to have taken on an unusual character, comparing dosages between individual entries, etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed generalizing WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants to cover all recreational and entheogenic drugs at WT:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants#Broaden scope and rename project. Please offer your input. Sizeofint ( talk) 21:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wondering what people think of putting lots of brand names in the infobox such as here [2]? IMO we should limit to 3 to 5. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
So what is the list of articles having a disjoint re {{
Infobox drug}}
and {{
WikiProject Pharmacology}}
? -
DePiep (
talk)
01:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I have made two proposals to improve infobox drug here [3]. One is to move the identifying info lower in the article. The other is to add pricing info. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
A proposal to move the identifiers section of {{ infobox drug}} (that contains CAS numbers and links to chemical/drug databases, etc.) from the infobox to the bottom of the article has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. (Restatement of section above, but neutrally worded and more descriptive). Boghog ( talk) 15:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone has comments on these image changes Special:Contributions/Gotgot44 by User:Gotgot44 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion on the organization of a med article Talk:Dioctyl_sodium_sulfosuccinate#Essential_medicines Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Trademarks.3F. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an Medical Marijuana expert, but it seems weird that we don't have an article on it since it's the only form legal in an increasing number of the more conservative U.S. states. We have Cannabidiol about the base chemical compound, but not about the common medication that's increasing in use. Any medical folks want to help get this one rolling? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney ( talk) 11:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion here [4] Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water (data page). This is applicable to drugs in the scope of this project that have data pages. Sizeofint ( talk) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
See Template:Did you know nominations/Vosoritide. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look at tetrachlorodecaoxide? There are enough papers on it for me to believe that it exists but the structure shown must be wrong. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 09:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Some confusion here, editors changing things back and forth:
-- -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyone here willing to draw/upload one? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please review this article. I fear it is being ignored because it covers a specialist subject. Gomach ( talk) 12:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Proposal_to_explore_through_2016_-_consumer_information_in_the_infobox. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This has grown out of a page deletion request I started... Do we need, or want, some sort of policy for pages about designer drugs? We currently list over 400 of them, which is about the size of the Antibiotics, Antidepressants and NSAIDs categories combined. So, like it or not, we appear to be becoming the de facto public source of information on these things. The most obvious problem is that these compounds are intended for human consumption but almost all the pages fail WP:MEDRS. Thing is, I'm not sure if MEDRS is suitable in this instance; I don't think it was written with these sorts of compounds in mind as it assumes that high-level tertiary sources will always be available. I don't want to see huge numbers of pages deleted but at the same time we need to maintain some standards.
So I suppose what I'm hoping to finds out here is
Cheers. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about this new article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate. Since it is relevant to WikiProject Pharmacology as well, members of this project may wish to have a look. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I was confused by the naproxen article. It describes only the acid, but says "Naproxen _and_ naproxen sodium are marketed under various brand names,...". The are two different pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/... pages, for the acid and the sodium salt. PDR seems to confuse them, implying that enteric-coated tablets are not the sodium salt, but then describing them elsewhere as the sodium salt. The suspension form seems to be clearly be the acid, so both are used.
What is the Project's position on such compounds? Can an article have two Chemboxes? Should the article be about the common drug, with a stub article for the acid? 73.81.150.65 ( talk) 08:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
|PubChem2=
, see
/doc; this option will be enhanced this week). If this is not complete enough, it is perfectly OK to add a second {{infobox drug}}. There also could be created content article like
naproxen sodium (chemical), when the chemical aspects are worth it. -
DePiep (
talk)
10:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC){{Infobox drug}} links to the FDA site for 'licence data', eg warfarin. Recently, the link was changed at their site just leading into the general search page. Can we cure this? Discussion is at Talk:Infobox drug. - DePiep ( talk) 10:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Input at Talk:Triptan#Drug safety warnings would be welcome. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)