Talk:Druglikeness

Merge

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I was looking for Lipinski's rules, I won't have thought to look under druglikeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.104.226 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems a very sensible suggestion, drug likeness and Lipinski's rules are concepts which are contemporary. Note however that these guidelines are relevant to drugs given by the oral route only.

Especially the Lipinski's rule of five only estimates the oral bioavailability an nothing else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.70.197 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pharma. Medicinal Chemist (UK)

Except if it needs to cross the blood-brain barrier. (Druglikeness is relevant, I mean, I don't know about Lipinski's rules). --Vuo 06:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No Please donot merge. If one wants to see Lipinski's rule, it is very difficult to locate

I would keep both as separate entries and cross reference. Could imagine that the term 'Lipinski' is searched for more often than 'druglikeness'.

The problem of keeping them separate is that the same issues have to be discussed in both articles, and not only that; there are several "extensions to Lipinski's rules" that are essentially different druglikeness indices. --Vuo 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that there is sufficient published information on Lipinski's rule that a well rounded and well specified article can be crafted that has only minimal redundancy (for context) with the Druglikeness article. However, the Druglikeness article is sufficiently minute that having a section devoted to Lipinski's rule that encompasses the entire current article content is not unfeasible or unreasonable. To the matter of being able to find the information, that is solved by retaining a redirect ... that will show up both in searches and when formulating a URL. Demerger could come at a later date when a more comprehensive set of druglikeness tests/criteria have been included in the Druglikeness article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem to me like a good idea to merge these topics. As I read the discussion, it is largly one of encylopedia-tidiness versus user needs. Users will look up Lipinski rule of 5 and they should get a concise hit when they do, without the need to sort through a druglikeness category. Users are most unlikely to search for the term druglikeness. Anderstamc (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't merge them. I wanted to see an article on Lapinski's rules themselves, not a general discussion of druglikeness. This is a very useful article on it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Article can be renamed to "physicochemical properties", and expanded to include "leadlikeness" and other clearly related concepts, each of which do not need separate articles. Otherwise, note, this article needs expansion and cleanup. The perspective at present is very narrow, and does not reflect actual professional thinking on the subject. Blocks of text without citations may (per WP policy) be removed. Please, original authors of this text, add your citations. Post hoc addition (forensic referencing) is a waste of editing time and is otherwise fraught with problems. (from and antiinfectives DD prof) LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep Lipinski's Rule of 5 separate...

... for its historic and seminal industry changing role, but change this article's title as indicated above, so it can be expanded. My opinion. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Druglikeness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726171435/http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/03/26/whats_the_ugliest_drug_or_the_ugliest_drug_candidate.php to http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/03/26/whats_the_ugliest_drug_or_the_ugliest_drug_candidate.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)