Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

As you should hopefully know, there has been discussion of this merger for quite some time now. In any case, welcome to the New WikiProject Pharmacology, which is a merged WikiProject Drugs and WikiProject Pharmacology. The purpose of this merge was to enhance each WikiProject; WP Drugs gets the benefit of a wider scope and an article scale system in place, whereas WP Pharm gets the benefit of more members and more structure for work. All members of WikiProject Drugs are now members of WikiProject Pharmacology. While all the pages are now under the new name of WikiProject Pharmacology, not all the text may be. Please make corrections as you see pages that need to be updated. I know the categorization and templates need to be updated; I will handle that myself. If you have any questions, I would like to hear them. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work, MessedRocker - looks great! :) I've taken the liberty to update the project userbox information and to move it from {{User Drugs}} to {{User WikiProject Pharmacology}} which is also more WikiProject compliant. I already de-redirected everyone's userpage - Alison^✍ 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Luckily, the merger was easy since nothing overlapped. Anyways, I'll get the bot to tag some articles for WikiProject Pharmacology, and we can all take a field day and assess the hell out of them! :) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kewl! Bring 'em on :) I've also created the shortcut WP:WPPH which is also a little more WikiProject compliant. We still get to keep WP:DRUGS - I've added both to the project main page - Alison^✍ 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking good! I thought of creating a boilerplate message to notify participants of the merger. Any thoughts? Fvasconcellos 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That'll get folks moving on updating/evaluating stubs and stuff. Plenty to do! :) - Alison^✍ 04:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of articles

Would anyone object if I were to take my bot and have it sleuth throughout the categories related to drugs and pharmacology and have it automatically tag article talk pages with the WikiProject banner? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Should Category:Psychoactive drug stubs be bot-tagged too? --Galaxiaad 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up documentation

Hello again! Just letting you all know that I cleaned up this WikiProject's documentation. For example, there is now a style guide which merges three naming guidelines. Additionally, I created a workspace, which allows for collaborations on things that are not articles. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant

Up for FA here. Comments, edits and suggestions are welcome. TimVickers 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying us! I created a section on the WikiProject main page for listing articles up for evaluation of some kind. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

Would any of the participants be interested in Collaboration of the month system, in which we try to bring an article to FA quality? --Parker007 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! - Alison^✍ 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can create one. Hold on. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There, a nice collaboration page with a smooth process (that is, it's smoother than WP:ACID's). By the way, feel free to use the workspace anytime; it's like an experimentation/development zone for this WikiProject. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea. Now we have a week to start thinking of articles to nominate... Fvasconcellos 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus on the articles that are top/high importance yet are not even good articles. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles

I think yet another thing this project should do is work on the pharmacology requested articles (here). Some of the terms in the general medical section would fall under this project too. Looks like several members already work on it, but it could be mentioned on the project page. --Galaxiaad 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I work on Wikipedia:Requested articles/list of missing pharmacology whenever I can (i.e. not very often ;)—most of it can be cleared by judicious redirecting. I think this should have a prominent place in the Project main page, and maybe we could add a note to the top of the list saying WP:PHARM can handle such requests? Fvasconcellos 14:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Heroin name question

The discussion has been moved to Talk:Heroin. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Levonorgestrel

Could the kind editors of this WikiProject please take a look at Levonorgestrel. The first paragraph is pack full of jargon. Lead sections usually are not supposed to have jargon, or at least fancy terms are supposed to be explained. Could someone translate that paragraph into a little bit simpler language please? Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I just hacked it around a bit. Can you take a look at it now and see what you think? The article is a bit sparse on data still and needs fleshing out (some of the other progestins are only one-liners plus a drugbox!!) - Alison^☺ 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

AZD2171

I've just created a stub on this investigational kinase inhibitor being tested by AstraZeneca, previously on the list of requested Pharmacology articles. There are some interesting papers on PubMed, but most are restricted access. If anyone has any ideas on how to expand or improve the article, they'd be greatly appreciated! Fvasconcellos 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fluoxetine

Hi all. An anon editor went over the Fluoxetine article and marked it for NPOV and cites. There's a comment on the talk page. I'm in agreement here; the article looks POV-laden and is missing many critical cites/refs. I've done a small tidy-up on it but could someone more knowledgeable possibly look it over and add some refs or clean out the POV/cruft? - Alison^☺ 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fluoxetine alert

Hi there. I found a lot of copyvio, as did User:Fvasconcellos, copied verbatim from papers in PubMed (not just quotes) and other sources. Pulled the shutters down on the article until it can be properly reviewed and cleared. Looks like it might need to be scratch-written. I'll expose the DrugBox and a few other bits for the moment as this is proven to be ours. Can we try to rebulid this article, preferably without all the cruft and POV this time?? :) - Alison^☺ 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as a copyright violation. Let's start the article over again. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast!! There's lots of good stuff in there that's verifiably okay. It was all here --> Talk:Fluoxetine/Temp - stuff like the drugbox / references / links / cats, and the initial header were all verified (by me, at least) to be okay - Alison^☺ 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem -- more so with the less attended drug articles. I saw one article deleted that did not take any text from the source that was referenced on the speedy tag. Fluoxetine is a major article and should not be deleted every time someone posts some copyrighted material. I mean, if I were to copy some text from cnn.com's home page to CNN I don't think any admin would delete the CNN article. There was a lot of text that was not copyrighted on this page. Remember that ideas cannot be copyrighted, in pharmacological jargon, there are only so many ways to say the same thing. --Selket ^Talk 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the non-copyvio content. Couldn't we have moved the article content, copyvio and all, out of mainspace (i.e. to the WP:PHARM workspace) so it could be collaboratively rewritten? I'm not knocking the value of the proverbial clean slate, but that's gonna be a lot of hard work :) Fvasconcellos 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in google cache but, yes. That's a fair point. However, copyrighted text may be a problem in the article's edit history. Best move the bad article, build up a new, quarintined one from the old, then deleted the moved one. Problem with copyvio is that the text may leave Wikipedia legally vulnerable, hence the 'terminate with extreme prejudice' that MessedRocker showed. - Alison^☺ 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put, and point taken :) Fvasconcellos 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Aminopterin

With the recent identification of this compound in the Menu Foods pet food recall, the article could use some work by knowledgable contributors. Thanks! --Dfred 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of Bupropion

Somebody changed Bupropion article category from pharmaceuticals to chemicals. Can it be changed back?Paul gene 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the project banner on the Talk page? Bupropion is a chemical, so I think it falls under the scope of WP:CHEMS. I've assessed it for this project as well, so now all your bupropion are belong to us :) Fvasconcellos 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Expert advice wanted

Hi there. A discussion is proceeding on the Talk:Antioxidant page about the validity of a recent review of clinical trials of antioxidant supplements. Expert advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. TimVickers 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there another name for an Off-licenced drug ?

Is Off-licenced drug a synonym for another class of drug within Pharmacology? If so, should a redirect or merge be in order?

From the article: "An off-licenced drug does not have a licence for human use for any indication or age group (in that country)."

Thanks for your help. Guroadrunner 11:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not super-knowledgeable about this (please correct me on any of these things), but it looks like in the U.S. it's probably illegal to prescribe, dispense, manufacture, or import FDA-unapproved drugs. The only times it's definitely OK are in clinical trials and under some special programs for cancer (and other rare diseases, I think).[1]

Obviously this is related to off-label prescription, which is legal in the U.S., but kind of perversely it doesn't seem like the FDA regulates that at all, as long as the drug is approved for something, whereas each new product, even if it has the same active ingredient as a previous approved medication, has to go through the whole process of proving safety and efficacy.[2]

Drugs imported from other countries are definitely not legal until they've been approved by the FDA, as evidenced by their warnings about online pharmacies.[3] And compounding something that isn't available as an approved formulation is OK (as long as the active ingredient is used in approved medications, etc.)[4]

Anyway, that's what I know/could find... I feel like this is a legal issue that will differ by country so it's odd that that article says things like "should". (Also, grammatically shouldn't it be "off-licence drug"?) Other comments?

Finally, this is actually a question of pharmacy/pharmacy law, not pharmacology, and you might find more help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine. --Galaxiaad 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's gotta be another name for that. "Off-licenced drug" only gets 56 ghits; less than ten when you -Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a merge/redirect to Off-label use. Sounds a bit like "Fair-use image" which doesn't really exist either (as a noun) Colin°^Talk 22:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I forgot to say in my comment but I assumed (partially from the spelling of license) it was a non-U.S. legal issue. The lack of Google hits makes the whole thing dubious though. --Galaxiaad 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the technical aspects of this issue, but I've wikified the article (as part of the wikification drive) in the hope that it will help someone decide whether to keep, redirect or merge. Smalljim 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd propose a move to unlicensed drug (or unlicenced), which gets far more Google hits, including [5] and [6], which I found quite interesting; the latter even defines a distinction between "unlicensed" and "off-label". Also, I can't help but think people may be coming to the article at its present location looking for Off-licence... Fvasconcellos 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. The first is particularly helpful and shows that there is a noun. The Off-licenced drug article is getting the object and the usage confused in parts (and may also have got the off/un confused too). I'd prefer Unlicensed medicine rather than Unlicensed drug. Perhaps the distinction isn't there (the dictionary defines drug=medicine) but to my mind the drug is the active ingredient and the medicine is the tangible thing you take (syrup, tablet, etc). One can take a licensed medicine such as a tablet and crush it into a syrup suspension to form an unlicensed medicine. The drug remains the same. BTW: the article also currently appears to give advice ("should"). Colin°^Talk 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "unlicensed product"? We could then distinguish unlicensed drugs (i.e., c:ompounds for which there is no human use indication) and unlicensed preparations. It's just an idea, and is it just me or am I sounding ORish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fvasconcellos (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I've added {{unreferenced}} and {{expert-verify}} tags to the article in case someone comes across it (unlikely, I know) and takes its content as gospel. Should have thought of this when I wikified it. BTW, I don't like "Unlicensed product", that could refer to any field (bootleg CDs, for instance). Smalljim 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice point :) Fvasconcellos 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis rescheduling in the United States FAR

Cannabis rescheduling in the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The references are an absolute mess, but I'm more concerned by the neutrality tag and reason why it was brought to FAR. Is there a POV dispute or not? (and I do mean dispute, not an objection to the article's neutrality) Fvasconcellos 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:PAH rx

New navigational template. Feedback welcome! Fvasconcellos 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)

The proposed guideline WP:MEDMOS has been declared "historical" due to lack of activity. Please can we push towards consensus and make it a formal guideline. If we think it is close, we can advertise on the Village pump. Discuss on the talk page. Colin°^Talk 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Orlistat

Hi there fellow WP:PHARM members. I've been working on orlistat for a while now, and intend to put it up for GA status soon. Any comments or suggestions, either here or on the article Talk page, would be much appreciated. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Up for GA now. Fvasconcellos 00:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anion issue

There are many drugs (and other compounds) that are in conjugate base form, and the naming for the articles of these drugs is pretty shoddy in some places. (for example, amobarbital vs. sodium amytal). It makes no sense to talk about anything except the anion, in the case of the barbiturates (and in the case of any other drugs). I take issue with Sodium thiopental. Sure, that's what it's most commonly known as, but really, what the article is about is the thiopental anion. There could be potassium thiopental, or thiopentic acid (if that's what it's called, I don't know). The point is, the cation is unimportant. It's the anion that has all of the pharmacological properties, and that should be what the article is about. I'm sure there are other cases of this out there. Not to mention MSG, glutamate and glutamic acid are not at all properly explained. Glutamate is the free anion; glutamic acid is the conjugate acid, and MSG is the conjugate base. Fuzzform 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I get what you're trying to say, that's what I try to do when editing—cf. butylscopolamine, to which I just added a Drugbox, and my moves of bisphosphonate articles (such as etidronate → etidronic acid). However, in some compounds (I can't think of any off the top of my head), the anion/cation is not the INN. What should we do about those? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Etidronate vs. etidronic acid is a borderline case. The salt form is likely the form that is administered orally to strengthen bones, whereas only the acid has chelate properties. Fuzzform 23:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't changing the cation have consequences for the ion content of the body generally? For example, potassium chloride is used in lethal injections to stop the heart, whereas sodium chloride is obviously good old salt. I accept the wider point that the anion has the pharmacological properties ascribed to the chemical as a whole but the cation is surely important. As an even stronger example, you could equally have Lithium pentothal, and Lithium pharmacology is used for depression.87.80.209.34 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would most likely change the body's ion content. But in the cases I have mentioned, the cation is not important; i.e. it does not have pharmacological significance. However, in the one case you mention, this rule of thumb doesn't hold: lithium itself has pharmacological effects. See articles hydrochloride and zwitterion. Fuzzform 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

An invitation to categorize uncategorized pharmacology stubs

Hello. The categorization taskforce is trying to find WikiProjects interested in using the bot of Alai to identify pharmacology stub articles which do not currently have a category (besides the stub category of course). If the project is interested, we could create something like Category:Uncategorized pharmacology stubs (amounting to roughly 250 articles) which could then be categorized by people knowledgeable in the subject, thus reducing the risk of improper categorization. Please let us know on the taskforce's talk page if you're interested. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a great idea. Any objections? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why is hard clam's talk page listed as part of WikiProject Pharmacology anyway? I don't see any real reason for quahogs to be pharmaceuticals. If this is a mistake, somebody should correct this. If you want me to do it, you can contact me on my talk page. Thanks. -Fifth Rider 02:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask User:RCP, who added the template. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created Category:Uncategorised pharmacology articles, I'll begin populating it soon. Alai 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll start working on it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Opium and Apolipoprotein A1

I haven't yet joined any Wikiprojects, and as a novice I'd feel uncomfortable about trying to assess and assign significance to articles I've edited. But I think these articles should be of considerable interest to this group - the one having a much longer history than I'd imagined, and the other being the basis of what might just turn out to be the aspirin of 2020. These articles aren't anywhere near finished, mind you, but I think some second opinions would help them out. Mike Serfas 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Both tagged as interesting to the project and assessed. If I may be bold, I think what you're going for here is actually peer review, not project assessment—you may want to have a look over there for an overview of the process, as WP:PHARM doesn't provide project-only peer review (unlike some projects such as WP:MILHIST). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now that Opium has reached B-class, a peer review is a good idea. But before I put it up for that I want to get rid of the "unsourced" tag I put on it, and unfortunately that requires fixing the unsourced claims first. Plus it would be nice to fix the Eurocentrism a bit (i.e. put in something about the Arabic period from 400 to 1500 AD). The early Chinese prohibition (1729) should be explored better as well, though it's a complex subject and maybe a peer review would provide better insight. Mike Serfas 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Well first, I better introduce myself, I'm Ryan - a final year undergraduate studying pharmacology. I'd like to help with this project, I have an interest in cardiovascular and anti-arrhythmic pharmacology, would anyone like to give me a prod and point me in the direction of articles that need attention!? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, and welcome! Well, you could always check Category:Antiarrhythmic agents and subcategories for individual drug articles. As a single suggestion off the top of my head, calcium channel blocker could use some expansion, references (as an admin I presume you're familiar with WP:V ;) and a more formal tone.

If you're interested in assessing articles, you could also hang around Category:Unassessed pharmacology articles and Category:Unknown-importance pharmacology articles and, of course, Category:Pharmacology articles needing expert attention. A quick browse of the navigation templates will also invariably lead you to some individual drug articles needing some TLC. Again, welcome, good luck and good work—the project could use more activity! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Calcium channel blockers would be an extremely good theme for me to work on (Just handed in my undergraduate thesis on the comparison of NCX knockout mice with NCX wild types with respect to arrhythmias!), I'll check out everything you've noted tomorrow. Lets hope I can put my expertise to good use :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All right then. Care to work on Sodium-calcium exchanger as well? Happy editing, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ryan - welcome to the project. Nice to have you on-board. (your reputation precedes you :) ) - Alison ☺ 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Beclomethasone and BDP

There are peoeple that keep wiping out Beclomethasone's page and putting a "redirect" to Beclometasone dipropionate simply because INN has decided to name the latter the same way as the former. I don't know the reasons behind that call (i tried to get some "free text" articles from PubMet about the metabolism of BDP to see if it gets converted to beclomethasone once it is inside the cells but couldn't get any, all they talk is about the effects) but these two are very different compounds - BDP has 2 additional propyl groups, which make it not only heavier bit also more lipophilic as they prevent the formation of 2 H-bonds that beclomethasone does. Now all we need to figure out if the information on the Beclomethasone's page describes Beclomethasone pharmacological properties or it actually describes BDP ones. -- Boris 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Beclometasone itself is never used clinically in UK, but it is an accepted generic name that refers to Beclometasone dipropionate which is used as a cream, nasal spray and inhaler (hence the description of Beclometasone being the INN). "Beclometasone" is thus not notable in itself (ie does not need separate article) but should (as in its clinical use) redirect to BDP. The selection of a single article about a clinical entity is similar to Betamethasone which is a single article about various salts, but none of the salts per se are notable (ie being a diproponate, valerate or sodium phosphate is not the issue - whereas being a salt of Betamethasone is). The difference in these two cases is that Betamethasone is used as a number of different salts, so the article chosen is Betamethasone (rather than any specific salt), whereas "Beclometasone" only ever clinically implies Beclomethasone dipropionate, hence the choice as to which is the article and which should be teh redirect. David Ruben ^Talk 11:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave, beclometasone dipropionate and betamethasone dipropionate are ESTERS of propionic acid with beclometasone and betamethasone respectively, not another salt of beclometasone and betamethasone respectively. -- Boris 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - I stand corrected - but I had taken this from Betamethasone which in thw lead-in current says "It is available as a number of salts:" David Ruben ^Talk 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject tags

The project tag continues to appear on the talk pages of strangely unrelated articles (often involving mollusks). Please keep an eye out for any inappropriately tagged articles. Cheers everyone. Fuzzform 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone update the information in the progress section? Fuzzform 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Done by a bot every two days. Hey, nice work :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

pharmacology-stub subtypes proposed

I've proposed a number of new subtypes of {{pharmacology-stub}}, here. (The categorisation of these seems a lot better now, for which I'm sure this project deserves the credit.) Someone knowledgeable might want to look in, and check that they don't overlap unreasonably, might be useful as sub-topics, etc. Alai 23:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories by company?

What is the policy on allowing drug products to be categorised by company? A new user, User:G716 (contribs) has created Category:Gilead Sciences, which includes compounds like Oseltamivir (Tamiflu). On the one hand, when I look at the Viagra article I don't see a category like "Category:Pfizer pharmacuticals"; however, in other commercial products such as cars it is common to have such categories (such as Category:Ford vehicles). Should we allow such categories, or not? Walkerma 05:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't object to such a categorization, particularly for medications not available as generics, but I do foresee the potential for some issues. How notable should a manufacturer be to warrant its own category? Should we include only "blockbuster drugs" or everything a certain company manufactures/markets? What about drugs developed by one company, then marketed by another? My personal take: Category:Lilly's been around for a long time, and I never objected to its presence in articles such as tadalafil or atomoxetine. (As for the Viagra article—sildenafil, cough, cough—we do have Category:Pfizer brands, by the way.) I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this matter :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Theobromine

Hi I'm reviewing theobromine for GA status. I've put it on hold for now. One of the reasons is that it seems to be missing rather a lot of the headings on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide. Could you let me know whether I'm being too idealistic, but I'm assuming that if you as a group feel that these headings should be covered in all drug articles, then an article shouldn't be promoted to good until they're covered. --Peter cohen 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they obviously should not be present if there isn't enough information to fill them out :) Ideally an article should be pretty comprehensive and follow a certain "template", but the "guideline" is unofficial and there should probably be some leeway in this particular article, as theobromine is probably more notable for its presence in chocolate than any pharmaceutical use. I won't get too much into this, though, as I reviewed the article for GA the first time around :) Best of luck, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did pick this article to review because I immediately thought "chocolate". So I shan't argue with that point. --Peter cohen 08:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just be careful not to encourage too much informality or undue weight :) (mmm...chocolate) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Project's main page

I haven't been there for a while and today i kinda stumbled upon it and it struck me how poor the page looked considering the ammount of members and the ammount of articles this project takes care off, so I decided to upgrade the design by applying the one created by User:ClockworkSoul and used in MCB. If some of you can take a look at it and see if there is anything else that needs to be done (i bet there is) to get it completed. -- Boris 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I've made some tweaks, to make the links point to the right places etc. and also added a shamelessly self-promotional picture, since I don't think we have any featured pictures :( Anyone have any extra ideas? BTW, we are seriously behind on collaborations, request pages... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with recombinant drugs

In the discussion page for tissue plasminogen activator, a suggestion was made in the discussion page to rename tPA as alteplase. I'm wondering if this sort of degeneracy is being addressed for the new recombinant proteins, and especially those which have differing names from the endogenenous peptides. Obviously co-ordination with Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology would be a good idea to get a template which is amenable to both projects, unless this has already happened Markjohndaley 16:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Poppers and Alkyl nitrites

I've proposed a merge, in line with standard practice on combining chemistry, pharmacology, history, and sociology into single articles. Outside input is welcome. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks sensible to me and I've voted for it. BTW The talk page of the poppers article is dominated by arguments about an alleged AIDS link. The presence of people who understand scientific articles would be beneficial in helping raise the level of evidence used. A merge might achieve that --Peter cohen 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

When does a drug become notable?

I hope this is the right place to bring this up. At what stage of development does a compound become notable? Should a drug only merit mention in wikipedia once it is commercially available? Or should it be once it is used on humans (in clinical trials)? Or may be once used on animals? Or even earlier sitting in a test-tube in a laboratory? Or perhaps even earlier, in a patent or in the literature? Is it dependant on development stage at all? I was just wondering how notability applies and if this topic been discussed before. Cheers. Pgr94 12:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy answer to that question, but here are a few of my thoughts. I would certainly say that all marketed drugs are notable because medical need is a prerequisite for drug approval (theoretically, at least) and Wikipedia should be a good source of neutral information about all forms of medical treatment. I think drugs in clinical trials are notable if they represent a novel mechanism of action, or have the potential to be a "blockbuster", or are "first-in-class", or have gotten attention in the popular news media, etc. But beyond that, I would say that Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability (such as non-trivial media attention, published clinical data in reliable sources, etc.) can give direction as to whether an experimental drug should be mentioned in Wikipedia or not. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this has ever been officially discussed before. I agree with Ed that there is no easy answer, and that all marketed drugs are notable as there is a potential that readers will turn to Wikipedia for information on them, but for experimental drugs there is no "cutoff". With regard to including, say, information on an experimental drug into the article on the disease it is intended to treat or help manage, if I observe and recall correctly the members of our medicine projects seem to use Phase III trials as this cutoff. We do, however, have articles on drugs which are not yet at this stage of development, such as some drugs mentioned in the NCI's Cancer Dictionary. In my humble opinion, if there is enough information from reliable, scholarly sources to build a comprehensive, accurate article, not violating our guideline of not being a crystal ball and not misleading potential readers, then it could be covered, even if at earlier stages of development. I'd say it is a matter of common sense and should be looked at on a case-by-case basis; no notability guideline is applicable in all circumstances. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Pgr94 for raising this thread, the articles previously queried to me were Pralatrexate, Ocrelizumab, CHHIP, Apolizumab, Beraprost, CytRx. Now CHHIP as an oncology trial seems notable, in as much as most cancer patients are in some form of trial as the field of oncology constantly develops. Also CHHIP is "out there" in the real world being applied to large number of patients; but I would agree that that article needs properly sourcing and citing. What though of the other articles in this list ? David Ruben ^Talk 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so here are some of key criteria for drug notability mentioned above:

• phase III or later, including marketed drugs (and presumably ex-marketed drugs)
• blockbuster/first-in-class/novel mechanism of action or patented (can't be patented without being novel)
• popular news media

These criteria are very inclusive and most drug candidates satisfy at least one (e.g. few drugs reach trials without patent protection). Perhaps it is useful to ask the inverse question: when is a drug not notable? Reversing the above conditions suggests generics/bioequivalents that haven't made it to phase III and that haven't attracted media attention. Is that a sensible criterion? Will it cover many drug candidates? Is there a problem with simply allowing all drug candidates - are there going to be so many as to be unuseful? Pgr94 12:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think these criteria exclude most drug candidates. Every new drug candidate will be patented (very few exceptions) - so I don't think this should affect whether it's notable enough or not for Wikipedia. However, a majority of drug candidates that enter clinical trials never become marketed drugs (in some areas such as CNS, the success rate is ~10%). A majority of drug candidates will fall out of development before they get any significant media attention. And, of course, most drugs are not first in class. As to the issue of generics - we typically have articles based on the active drug substance which will include the branded drug and also later generic/bioequivalents. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As Ed said, WP articles are (or should be) on the active substance, so generics and all relevant formulations should be covered by the one article. We do break this rule sometimes (e.g. Actiq and fentanyl) and should probably look into such "forks" eventually. I do think allowing all drug candidates would be a bit much—since the drug discovery/development process is lengthy and few will ever make it to the market, many articles of little interest (specialist or otherwise) would be left. The question is, how little interest is enough interest? Some drug candidates will of course be notable precisely for their failure to ever reach marketing status, such as torcetrapib and TGN1412.

Before writing an article on a drug, although I've started few, the first question that comes to my mind is "has it been assigned an INN?" I usually think, if it's only still known by its codename, it's probably too early to have an article on it. That may be quite naïve on my part, and hasn't stopped me from creating articles such as AZD2171 (still in Phase I) but I like "quick and dirty" criteria. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Patented is irrelevant to notability IMO. Colin°^Talk 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Diramamorphine

Has anyone ever heard of this? I haven't, my usual sources turn up nothing, and the drugbox has apparently been copied from heroin. Based on the creator's contributions, I'm thinking of sending it to AfD as a hoax. Perhaps it was a typo (thinking of diamorphine?) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. I parsed it as Diamorphine & had to read it twice. Looks like it meets WP:CSD#G1 - Alison ☺ 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Per your reasoning and comments at WP:CHEMS (cross-posted there, forgot to notify here—sorry!), I'm tempted to redirect it to heroin as a typo of diamorphine. One could then argue for CSD R3, but I am of the opinion that redirects are cheap :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep. I say do it, so - Alison ☺ 02:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Feeling BOLD today :) Redirected. It looks like the chemists agree & nothing links directly to it - Alison ☺ 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistancy for Comparison

Many of the psychiatric articles are laid out in completely different orders and discuss different topics. It is difficult to compare the medications because you can't go to one page, notice a side effect and then go to the next and look at the same section to see how it differs.

Many of these articles have been filled by anonymous contributors, sometimes with a rather anti-psychopharmacological agenda. I should think that a restructuring of these articles should be accompanied by a pruning of biased waffle. JFW | T@lk 13:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apixaban

I couldn't find many primary sources on this novel oral anticoagulant being developed by Bristol-Myers-Squibb. Does anyone have access on its synthetic history (e.g. is it chemically related to rivaroxaban) and recent trials being conducted? JFW | T@lk 13:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apixaban is a factor Xa inhbitor that is structurally similar to rivaroxaban (it has the phenyl-morpholinone portion in common). It is in clinical trials (not sure at what stage, but rivaroxaban is further ahead). I can give you a list of literature/patent references if you would like. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Would love some literature. Please dump it on my talkpage... Cheers. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a bit long I put it on a user subpage here. As far as I know, it's a complete list from Chem Abstr. of references that mention "apixaban". --Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Will work on it... Don't have it deleted. Do you mind if I move it to my own userspace? JFW | T@lk 15:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to copy or move it. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Would you like me to kill off the resultant redirect? JFW | T@lk 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Could use some help with mitotic inhibitor article

I recently started and partially developed the article mitotic inhibitor. I beleive it has a high importance to this project, because of its extreme importance in the research and treatment of cancer. I am new to wikipedia, so any help writing and formatting the article up to wikipedias standards would be very helpful. Also, at the moment, there is still a lot to be said about mitotic inhibitors. It would be great if someone could assess the article for quality and importance. Dancanm 18:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome. I've assessed the article—very nice work, by the way—and done some minor cleanup. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements

What's WikiProject Pharmacology's position on including advertisements in articles about drugs (see Diazepam, Fluphenazine, Trifluoperazine)? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, IMHO this meets Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. I can't say they're really necessary or add that much to the articles; historical ads could be very appropriate to illustrate, say, a History section (as in diazepam, although that image is unacceptably large) as opposed to just "being" in an article with very little content (such as fluphenazine). I am also slightly bothered by the images' high resolution, and by the presence of two ads in fluphenazine where one would suffice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The images need rationales, by the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the advertisements provide some historical context. I've been arguing that the inclusion of pharma ads is akin to e.g. including the ads for Coca-Cola article. Andrew73 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If the specific articles discussed the marketing history of the product, I would be more likely to agree with you. But right now they just appear as old advertisements with little to no context in the article as a whole. So I would vote to remove them unless there was some specific reason why that ad was significant and if it was, then it should state so in the caption and in the article's text. Remember 14:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do feel (as I mentioned above) that they are appropriate for and can enrich the History sections of articles. Granted, as U.S. ads one may argue that they also add geographical bias, etc. No-one has raised this point, but I don't think such...historical ads could ever be construed as an endorsement of the product? If they meet WP:NFCC I personally see no reason to remove them all. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're used to illustrate a discussion of the history of the drug, then that would probably be OK. As it now stands, I am disputing whether or not the images used in Diazepam, Fluphenazine, and Trifluoperazine are acceptable. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Remember the dot, plus I like his name. Remember 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the one on diazepam is certainly acceptable; IMHO it perfectly accompanies the statement "Diazepam was the top-selling pharmaceutical in the United States from 1969 to 1982, with peak sales in 1978 of 2.3 billion pills." Unfortunately, the resolution is very high and, right now, the image is following the drugbox; if the History section were moved to the bottom of the article (contrary to WP:MEDMOS, but MEDMOS is not set in stone) it would be a great fit.

I wouldn't object to the removal of the other images, or to their deletion—it doesn't look like these articles will be expanded anytime soon, and I've no time at the moment to do it myself :( Any takers? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the urgency to delete these images. For example, take the ads for fluphenazine. The themes and images used in the ad typify the views of schizophrenia and its treatment at the time (this ad is from the 1980s). You could contrast that with ads for e.g. Zyprexa, etc. I'll add the appropriate information for fair use. Andrew73 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Organic compounds database

I have been working on it for a while. I thought that it could help us a bit when making searches for articles about organic compounds, as Wikipedia does not have it or at least i'm not aware if there is one. It is in a very basic form right now and contains only 229 entries but i've been adding new features almost every other weekend (some of them you will find quite familiar) and i will continue to do it, plus i'm constantly adding new entries as well, so nothing is final and there is plenty of room for improvement - for an example a "Search" can be done only for the different identifiers (PubChem, CAS, etc), for a string in the name and synonyms, and for the chemical composition which are all in the "General" tab of the "Search" form - the form opens up after moving the mouse over the "Actions" in the navigation row, and the clicking on "Search" in the pull down menu that pops out.

I hope you find it usefull. Any "how to be improved" feedback would be welcomed.

P.S. It DOES NOT work in Dumxplorer. Once i used to take my time to make the javascript code run on Dumxplorer too but i just got tired of it and now i stubbornly refuse to do it. Opera (I recommend it) and Firefox run it fine. -- Boris 10:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Psychoactive drug

There is a discussion on Talk:Psychoactive_drug - a Venn diagram on Psychoactive_drug which some editors feel constitutes OR and is incorrect. Would be good to get some pharmacologists and or medicos in on it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hair-raising

I was today again confronted with a horrible case of drug-bashing. Duloxetine is another case of a poorly organised page on a psychopharmacological substance written almost entirely by anons and loaded from beginning to end with doubtful criticism. That includes case reports on possible side effects (generally very poor sources on actual drug safety) and so on.

Which brings me to Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction. This equally hair-raising article sprung to life a few months after I'd had a very long argument on the same subject with Shibidee (talk · contribs). A careful literature search at that point showed that this was a non-existent entity that was being promulgated heavily on blogs and forums. (Hmm, depression also causes sexual dysfunction. How on earth are you going to distinguish between the two?) I'm very reluctant to get personally involved, but I feel it is high time that we start applying very strict criteria to the articles on psychopharmacological drugs. Isn't it rather odd that these claims are by and large only made on psychopharmaca? (Yes, I know about Roaccutane and interferon.) JFW | T@lk 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness we can change these pages, am I right? I will see if I can do anything to fix up these articles. MessedRocker (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Isotretinoin

I am concerned that one anonymous user is repeatedly adding material to Isotretinoin which isn't supported by research. The user is claiming that low dose treatment is just as effective as FDA-approved treatment without citing sources. diff

I would like another voice in this discussion as I'm confident that this anonymous user is adding original research. Rhobite 10:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it. They also removed sources (whether intentionally or otherwise), and additions such as the following are IMHO unacceptable with or without a citation:

In countries that do not restrict distribution of isotretinoin, pharmacists recommend 5mg to 10mg per day, since at lower dosages many of the adverse effects are diminished or non-existent.

Which countries? Who are these pharmacists? Is this reduction in adverse effects anecdotal? Has it been published? Sorry to be abrupt, but that's OR until proven otherwise, and thus—fortunately of unfortunately—inadmissible. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bupropion

Bupropion is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bupropion. The Pharm project might want to add {{MCOTWannounce}} to its mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

I've recently begun going through the list of unassessed articles, assessing each one for class (quality) and importance. For quality, I am rating each one using the standard wikipedia grading scale (stub < start < B < GA < A < FA). Of course, GA & FA require nominations, but I don't have to worry about that since 99.9% of these articles are falling under the first three quality classes, and not the developed ones,... I guess we got a lot of work to do.

For the importance assessment, I'm trying to fit everything into the following general scale:

top	This is the highest importance. Articles rated as top-importance are generally major classes of drugs (e.g. Anti-inflammatory, beta blocker), or a major concept of pharmacology (e.g. Clinical trial, Pharmacogenomics). Interestingly enough, there are no actual individual drug articles assessed at this level.
high	Articles assessed as high-importance generally include major drugs, like a prototype drug for a class, the first drug discovered in a class, or a drug that has received major media coverage (e.g. Penicillin, Caffeine, LSD, Viagra).
mid	Drugs which are commonly prescribed and/or used but not the major drug in its class, are assessed at mid-importance. Examples include Daunorubicin (similar to Doxorubicin, which is assessed high, but with over 2,000 known DOX analogs, we're not putting all of them at high-importance ;-), Kanamycin, Tetracaine.
low	Drugs assessed at low-importance is pretty much everything else. Not very well known, primarily research compounds that are not on the market but might be used in the laboratory for studies, etc,... (e.g. PA 824, 5-Methoxytryptamine).
none	Haven't really used this yet. Mainly for anything categorized to the wikiproject but doesn't fit elsewhere (lists, categories, etc).

Hope this helps! Anyone that wants to help out, feel free to join in! If you have any ideas for improving this criteria, let me know. Dr. Cash 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS?

In several drug articles, I am seeing inline citations and external links to two sites, which I am uncertain whether they meet wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. They are erowid.org and lycaeum.org. While there is some information that appears reasonably accurate on both sites, probably a bit moreso on erowid, they do seem to be more closely affiliated to the illegal drug community than the academic community. Lycaeum, for example, has a link that says "trip reports", with users posting their own personal experiences about taking various drugs. I don't think this is exactly the kind of thing that wikipedia wants to be associated with,... Rather than going on a massive deletion spree, I'd rather post here and inquire what other editors think about these sites and their relation to wikipedia? Dr. Cash 03:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the second site, but some context about the first source is available at Erowid. --Arcadian 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither Erowid nor Lycaeum are WP:RS. They are personal experience by people who experiment with psychoactive substances. JFW | T@lk 06:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to play devil's advocate, but doesn't allowing such links discourage the addition of such anecdotal content into the articles themselves? I'd rather see a link to Erowid than a 2,000 kB-long piece on someone's experiences with such and such obscure home-brewed tryptamines :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very happy discussing the reliability of Erowid, but so far I have only seen it as a repository of subjective experiences, which is almost by definition unencyclopedic. I think that neither Erowid nor the 2,000 KiB piece are particularly helpful if a reader wants to understand the effects of a particular compound. Scientific studies with specific endpoints/reproducible markers are much more helpful than "whoa man, good stuff this! better than ganja for sure, mate!" JFW | T@lk 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me while I mop the floor and wipe the coffee off my nose. Now I remember why I never go near our...more psychoactively-themed articles... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

JFW, you owe me a new keyboard! ;-) Dr. Cash 16:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Emails Derek a new keyboard with coffee-resistant heavy-duty plastic cover JFW | T@lk 10:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles in serious need of attention

After briefly reviewing this project's three featured articles, I noticed that two of them are a bit in need of attention. Specifically, Caffeine and Paracetamol (the Antioxidant article is still ok ;-). Caffeine has a couple of 'citation needed' tags, and could probably use a little bit of minor adjustments. It was promoted to FA in september of 2006. Paracetamol, promoted to FA in the dark ages (may 10, 2004), has large sections of the article that are unreferenced, and probably does not meet the FA criteria as it stands today. This should be fixed ASAP before The Big R notices and puts it up for WP:FAR. Dr. Cash 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, paracetamol has been heading towards FAR level for quite some time. Perhaps we should focus on it specifically, as caffeine is still reasonably well-maintained? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul has never put an article up at FAR that I can remember; the person who is most likely to review medical articles is right here, and I'm glad to work on them first, using FAR only as a last resort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Resveratrol

This article has just been promoted as a Good article. It wasn't previously tagged with the WP:PHARM wikiproject, but I think it fits the category. It looks very good. A little more work, and it might make FA. Dr. Cash 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: new drugbox for combinations?

Attention, fellow WP:PHARM members :) I've proposed the creation of a new template to be used in articles on combination medications (such as co-trimoxazole and ampicillin/sulbactam). Discussion is here. Input is welcome :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Drugbox upgrade

Just a pointer to a proposal to merge {{Drugbox-mab}} with a proposed {{Drugbox-combo}} into current {{Drugbox}}. See Template_talk:Drugbox#Time for new drugbox? proposal and the Template_talk:Drugbox#Single solution for consideration, please add any comments there. Test template at User:Davidruben/Templates/Drugbox-combo (ignore the "-combo" in its name - it would replace code at Drugbox).

Also, only fair to pointout, Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox & Chembox unification thread. Automated fill in by Diberri's tool would be lost. I'm personally moderately against this idea (but I understand why suggested), but what do others think (again reply on the template talk)? Clearly only one set of changes appropriate. David Ruben ^Talk 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

New article

Hartmann F. Stähelin just made DYK. Would anyone care to have a look, maybe expand a little? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you add PMID/DOI codes to the references? JFW | T@lk 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But of course. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Isopapa-dimethoxy-aniline

Cross-posted to WP:CHEMS.

New article. I've never, ever heard of this (not surprising), but it appears to be an elaborate hoax. No hit on the CAS or PubChem entries, ATCs do not exist. The second cited source is actually PMID 17569741. Could use a hand or a cluestick, please :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind—users experimenting with creation of hoaxes. Warned, reverted, deleted, blocked as necessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch :) - Alison ☺ 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry there was anything to catch at all. This is just plain sad, and disrespectful of those who contribute productively with their expertise to make Wikipedia a place where people can go for reliable information. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

New WP:PHARM Featured Article

Bupropion was just promoted to FA status today! Congrats to all those editors involved! Dr. Cash 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yayy!!! :) Well done, everyone - Alison ☺ 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should start an official collaboration, sort of like WP:MCOTW. I'm always shocked at how much work most articles under our "jurisdiction" need. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We did have a collaboration page, but it was terribly inactive. MessedRocker (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I just found out that, apparently, MCOTW is now MCOTM (M for month), so there you have it. Maybe this time around we could shake it up a little :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Might be an idea to start that up again. I'd put in a bit of work on it where I can :) - Alison ☺ 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be happy to participate, even if it's just in copyediting. Collaborating so that an article improves quickly is really exciting. XD --Galaxiaad 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A good first step maybe is starting up a standing list of chunky/substansive articles with a good foundation for making a crack at FAC sometime. I (and others) have souped up chlorpromazine and clozapine, while fluoxetine would be one where there are more published criticisms so would be easier to get material not published by pharma. paracetamol is a former FA which is a bit rusty and I am sure, heck why not do aspirin why we're at it....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Impromptu list of candidates

• chlorpromazine
• clozapine
• paracetamol
• aspirin
• fluoxetine

..of course I'm biased as psychiatry is my field.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new page for a Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week. It should be functional now, and ready to go. If everything goes well, and all approve, I would hope that the first WP:RxCOTW can be selected by September 5, 2007. Dr. Cash 05:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone's super keen, I'll hold off on the psych ones as I'm a bit tied up at the moment with some other editing so I've nominated paracetamol which would be a straightforward fix, and aspirin, which is in pretty good nick and may be a good one to get the ball rolling and improve morale etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, everyone :) I'll be a bit busy over the next few days, but will see how much I can do! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have improved a lot this article in the last month and I´m thinking of nominating it for good article. I have asked for a scientific peer review; but I would appreciate any comments on how to improve it both in contents and style. The discussion page for the peer review is: Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Therapies for multiple sclerosis --Garrondo 08:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Myself and other editors are going over the article. It could certainly use some copy editing, and edits for compliance with WP:MOS. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes on Aspergum and Paclitaxel

I'm merging the article worklist with a new assessment page, since it doesn't seem to be being used anymore, and a much better way of keeping track of the articles is through the categories instead. These two comments were on that page, so I'm copying them here, since they seem to be relatively recent. Dr. Cash 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Aspergum - Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Paclitaxel - DLuber1

I found an error on the Paclitaxel page and made notes in the Discussion under Production. I followed the link at the top to check out the Pharmacology group and joined, but it looks like nobody's home. I'm new to all this so maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, I don't know the ettiquette for editing pages, I figured I'd post something here that I think this entry needs correction, and if the original author or anyone else doesn't object in a few weeks I'll remove the Zhao reference and incorporate my comments and references. -DL --DLuber1 18:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like nobody's home—oh well :) I guess we do need to shake things up a little. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

MEDMOS discussion

Discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Ethanol

As part of WikiProject GA's sweeps process, we are reviewing all current GAs to see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm reviewing all of the chemistry articles. As it stands now, Ethanol is dangerously close to losing it's GA status, having been nominated early in the GA program's history (12/8/2005), it lacks referencing, and has become a bit disorganized. So if anyone has a moment in the next couple of days, swing on by and see what you can do.

I've also nominated this at WP:RxCOTW, though I think it needs to be fixed a bit earlier than the COTW program will start, and I'm not sure if it's the best drug to launch the program with? But if you disagree with this, you could always vote for it at WP:RxCOTW,... Who knows, maybe it'll eventually get FA status,... ;-) Dr. Cash 06:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Streamlining articles

I was organising aspirin along the same lines as bupropion so the headings all matched up and pondered whether the interactions section was better as a subsection of adverse effects - given that WP is mainly for laypeople so the former section is more relevatn to adverse effects. This also makes the sections more heirarchical. Anyone have a strong opinion on this either way before I do it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... why not? That's a more prescribing information-like order. My one concern is that most relevant drug-drug interactions are metabolism-related, so keeping an Interactions section after Pharmacokinetics might provide more context. I see the aspirin article has no dedicated ADME/PK section, though, so moving it up next to Adverse effects isn't a bad idea. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They're actually two different topics altogether. While most people probably think of drug interactions as a bad thing, interactions between two drugs can also be favorable, such as when two drugs are combined to increase the overall effect. Dr. Cash 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

True but it depends what is termed by interaction - for the most part they are either unforseen or watched-out-for issues that have to be addressed - hence my idea about putting it there. Drugs used synergistically are unusual/significant to the point that they probably are better with an individual section each (though I haven't checked this out on other articles...)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I see Dr. Cash's point, though—it's the same as naming a section "Side effects" when all it describes are adverse effects. However, coverage of beneficial interactions, as well as beneficial secondary effects, is probably limited on WP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetic pharmacology

The above article really smacks of WP:OR or at best, an obscure neologism. Thoughts, anyone? - Alison ☺ 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective of the science(s) of pharmacology, chemistry, or drug design, I've never heard the term before. It sounds to me to be rather concocted. A google search for the term yields this interesting paper by Dr. Peter Kramer, a psychiatrist. But the paper was only published in 2000, and it doesn't appear to be a scientific source as much as a social science or religious source. I would think that this would be of more interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology than us, so you might want to run it by that group. Dr. Cash 05:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Aspirin extended for one week at WP:RxCOTW

I have decided to extend Aspirin for one more week, to give it a little bit more time to fix up the article and get it closer to featured status. Also, given the participation level in WP:PHARM, I don't want to overburden too many people too early on. I think progress is being made on Aspirin, and an additional week will help it out tremendously. I am still opposed to any further extensions towards three weeks or one month, as I don't think that would necessarily help the article in question and I don't want this new collaboration to become too stale too quickly.

So a new article for collaboration of the week will be chosen on September 19, 2007, whether Aspirin is finished or not. Currently, there is a tie with 4 votes each for Paracetamol or Muscle relaxant to be the next collaboration of the week. Any input on breaking this tie would be appreciated. Dr. Cash 01:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting new drug delivery method

There's an interesting article on ZDNet about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery. Dr. Cash 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That is very interesting. Those articles are, respectively, listy and stubby—I can't even think of where to add it :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

People seeking medical advice

I don't hang around pharma pages, so I was alarmed to find this going on at Talk:Tramadol. Is there a specialised template notice for this problem? Tony 08:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've inserted the {{talkheader}} tag which may be used on any article's talk page, also deleted some mostly unsigned blogging. David Ruben ^Talk 12:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential Pharmacology article for Did You Know?

The article on Tapentadol was recently created on September 18, 2007. Since this is within five days, this gives us a unique opportunity to shoot for a possible Did You Know? listing for it on the main page. Dr. Cash 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. This press release claims that, if approved, tapentadol would be the first oral opioid to become available in over 25 years. That sounds like a nice hook, if crystal ball-ish :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Varenicline

Please comment at Talk:Varenicline on the reliability of lay sources in attributing adverse reactions to medication. JFW | T@lk 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Opium now a Good Article - what next?

I'm a bit uncertain how best to develop Opium further at this point. As I understand it, I/we could (a) seek A-class status for the article with WP:PHARM and/or WP:CHEMS, (b) put it up for peer review, or (c) shoot directly for FA (although the article likely needs further contributions to meet the comprehensiveness criterion). I suppose people here can help most readily with the first option :) Any advice? Mike Serfas 04:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Superdrol

Resolved

Superdrol (via WP:PROD on 2 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Theobromine peer review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Theobromine/archive1. MessedRocker (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tie-breaker needed at WP:RxCOTW

There is currently a tie in the total number of votes for Collaboration of the Week. Paracetamol and Receptor antagonist each have four votes each. It would be nice if someone could cast their vote here and help break the tie. If they're still tied tomorrow, I'll go with the article that was nominated first, which is Paracetamol in this case. Dr. Cash 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Proposal for additional pharmacological stub types

Please see here, and share your thoughts. Alai 04:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on the total synthesis of pharmaceuticals

The question is, should the pharmacology guidelines for INNs apply to organic synthesis articles?. Please see discussion at Talk:Paclitaxel total synthesis. --Itub 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

PTC124

PTC124 is a novel small-molecular agent that makes ribosomes less sensitive to stop codons. It attracted a paper in Nature (PMID 17450125) when its beneficial effects on nonsense-mutation related cystic fibrosis were documented. Now there is some data on muscular dystrophies. An initial Wikipedia version was a poorly written copyvio, and was deleted after a short AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTC124. Anyone interested in writing up this fascinating new compound? JFW | T@lk 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit out of my league, I'm afraid, especially explaining the mechanism of action and making it lay-friendly. As an aside, I can't even find a structure for this; I presume there's one in the Nature paper?

WP:PHARM needs more activity. <sigh> Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: PMID 17389552 may be helpful as well. Any takers? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Nature paper gives the systematic name: (3-[5-(2-fluorophenyl)-[1,2,4]oxa-diazol-3-yl]-benzoic acid; C15H9FN2O3. --Itub 08:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that makes it a lot easier—it's CID 11219835 from PubChem. I just hope nobody sues me :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Kamagra

J.Picton (talk · contribs) has created a page on Kamagra, which is a sildenafil-containing preparation produced on the Indian subcontinent. I turned the page into a redirect, because we have no articles on individual brand names barring some very specific exclusions. The user undid my move, stating that Kamagra is a major brand that deserves its own page like Pepsi vs Coke and so on.

Can we get a degree of consensus on the wisdom of making forks for brands, and under what circumstances this may or may not be a good idea. Kamagra scores 2,000,000 Google hits, almost exclusively advertising. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kamagra is a brand of sildenafil. It is not a range of products, like Tylenol, Advil or Nurofen. In my very humble opinion, the only notable aspect of Kamagra is this gel formulation ("Kamagra jelly" gets major Google hits). That can be mentioned in the sildenafil article, as can any underground significance I'm not aware of (as long as it can be reliably sourced, of course). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Kamagra just a brand and whilst may so mention in sildenafil article, would be quite inappropriate to have its own article, as per existing practice on INN generic vs brand drug for articles (see WP:MEDMOS#Naming_conventions). David Ruben ^Talk 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree about Kamagra; I think that in almost all circumstances, brand names of a drug should redirect to the INN. However, I think the naming conventions merit further discussion. Fvasconcellos has pointed out that some ranges of drug products have their own articles (should they?); combination products also present problems (should Vicodin redirect to hydrocodone or should there be a separate hydrocodone/paracetamol article? Does a combination product have to be notable enough in itself to merit an article (e.g. multi-ingredient cold medications)? Or must it have some kind of synergistic effect, e.g. Zestoretic, amlodipine/benazepril, etc., which (I think?) are mostly combined for ease of administration, and where there's not much more to say than is already in the separate drug articles). There are also still separate articles for Adderall and Benzedrine, purportedly because the former is a mixture of salts and the latter is of historical/cultural significance. I guess most of this is still fairly straightforward and might not need a lot of discussion, but it at least needs to be more evenly implemented. --Galaxiaad 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image search for new stub types

As a result of the discussion mentioned above, four subtypes of {{pharma-stub}} are to be created (and will be shortly after I have posted this): {{analgesic-stub}}, {{antihypertensive-stub}}, {{anticonvulsant-stub}} and {{sedative-stub}}. I would like them to use more representative images than the usual Image:FlattenedRoundPills.jpg. Any syggestions? I thought of the following:

• Image:Captopril.svg for {{antihypertensive-stub}}; ACE inhibitors are the first line of drug treatment of hypertension, and captopril is the ACE inhibitor;
• Image:Paracetamol-3D-vdW.png or an opioid structure (such as Image:Morphin - Morphine.svg) for {{analgesic-stub}};
• Image:Phenobarbital3d updated.png for {{anticonvulsant-stub}}; phenobarbital, despite no longer being first-line, is still the most widely used anticonvulsant;
• As for {{sedative-stub}}, that's a tougher one. I welcome suggestions.

If anyone has any ideas or complaints, they're more than welcome :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One more hoax?

Droneamphetamine. No Google hits, no PubChem hits, drugbox is a copy-paste from heroin. Looks like a diramamorphine situation again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. And I've blocked the serial hoaxer, too. — Scientizzle 00:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice to know my, erm, "vandar" is still somewhat accurate, sad to know hoaxes are still a problem with scientific articles. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia

If you're as dedicated as I'm guessing you are based on your dedication to stuff, how would you guys like to have Veropedia accounts so that you can improve articles to standard quality and then upload them to Veropedia so that they can be preserved? MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already uploaded some pharma articles. It's pretty easy. Anyone who needs access, just email me and I can add you - Alison ^❤ 07:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Sounds interesting—I would like to know more about the criteria, process etc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have nominated the article for featured article after working on it. If anybody thinks the article is good enough please vote for it. Any comments for improvement will also be welcomed.Garrondo 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles to watch

• Hepatotoxicity has just been nominated for GA, after significant work by Countincr (talk · contribs) of the Clinical Medicine project. This is a more general medical topic that should be of particular interest to the Pharm project.

• Rmky87 (talk · contribs), with help from Fuzzform (talk · contribs), has been working on Primidone for quite some time (I've been watching from afar with interest :) Perhaps this is our next FA in the making? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! What I really need is that Chinese study, that French paper, maybe that one Dutch article that says that the typical epileptic primidone user is an elderly person who started on it before it became wondrously unpopular, some of the articles I only cited because the titles were so tantalizing and I was young and stupid, and to make the essential tremor section at least as large as those sections devoted to things for which it is hardly ever used. I also need to get that Lancet article concerning the aftermath of AstraZeneca's decision to get out of the business of manufacturing and selling that particular drug. I'm also working at reading the full texts of all the articles I can get in my city. Can anyone figure out how to pad flesh out the mechanism of action section? It's rather emaciated right now.

Apropos of nothing, does anyone know where I can find all of that Russian, Italian, etc. stuff listed at the bottom of my user page? I'm thinking of improving the galantamine page once this is done. Everything is out of order and so many once not uncommon uses are not discussed at all.--Rmky87 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was unwise to say that all of those uses were once not uncommon; I think I only found two or three links concerning it and epilepsy.--Rmky87 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Varenicline and animal studies

Linkinlogs (talk · contribs) is very keen to include an reference to an article on alcohol dependence and varenicline. The problem is: it is an animal study. I dispute that we need to include animal studies unless of absolutely earth-shattering relevance, and I was wondering if we could have a somewhat clearer policy on this. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we should look at things on a case-by-case basis; for instance, when I started a minor "overhaul" of Orlistat, I chose to keep mention of PMID 16377080 in the article; it got a bit of press and was used by Public Citizen as part of their rationale for banning orlistat. As for the varenicline study, I'm not keen on including something so preliminary ("The data suggest that the α4β2 nAChRs may play a role [...]"), but it seems to have gotten a lot of press coverage, and we should ultimately cater to the reader while providing accurate, reliable information; people may be coming to Wikipedia and looking for this. In the future, it may pan out or lead to nothing, but I don't think a brief mention, clearly qualifying that this is an animal study, would be inappropriate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Quaternary_ammonium_muscle_relaxants

A new article popped up in the last few days. Perhaps you folks might want to take a look? --Cheers from WP:CHEMS; Rifleman 82 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article seems pretty good, and very well-outlined (class project perhaps?); although there will certainly be overlap with Neuromuscular-blocking drugs, perhaps this is the solution to the problem we ran into on Muscle relaxant, of how much emphasis to give neuromuscular blockers. The structure–activity discussion is also far better developed than at our other current articles. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Content's over my head, but I think it needs spell-checking, typo catching, un-overwikilinking. I've spent some time working on those issues, but it could use another look. Also, maybe someone can spiff-up the images (points at Fvas). :) --Rifleman 82 14:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the same vein, New Camptothecins has also popped up :) It's very comprehensive, but needs some wikifying, and should probably be merged with Camptothecin, or moved to Camptothecin analogues?. Someone should get in touch with these new contributors—if they're really on a class project or something, we could be losing a valuable outreach opportunity ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now merged by PFHLai (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the best solution is to merge Quaternary ammonium muscle relaxants with neuromuscular blocking drugs. Virtually no one calls them by the former name; pharmacologically, they are referred to by the latter. Though a major characteristic of pretty much all of them is a quaternary cationic nitrogen atom. This is because they are mimicking the structure of acetylcholine, so as to competitively bind in its binding pocket. But overall, quaternary ammonium muscle relaxants and neuromuscular blocking drugs are the same thing. Dr. Cash 04:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sulfa merge

I'm going to be working on merging Sulfonamide (medicine) and Sulfa drug, if anyone wants to help that would be way cool. If not, no big deal. Just thought you guys would want to know :) Lizz612 18:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we would :) Go for it—seems like a great idea, and long overdue. If you need a hand with cleanup, let us know! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neurotransmitters

In "Talk:Neurotransmitter#Neurotransmitter effects" I describe a recent psychopharmacology mishap I'm recovering from, and my attempt to map the effects of changing neurotransmitter levels. Does my interpretation appear correct? Which receptors appear to have been preferentially overstimulated or understimulated? 66.218.55.142 12:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Statin development

Just a note to point out that some chaps from Iceland have been doing some sterling work on statin development. I'd personally prefer to merge this into the main statin page, but perhaps there are other views? JFW | T@lk 14:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It does look like excellent work. Maybe a separate page is warranted, with partial merging of some content? I have a feeling some of the more, well, pharmacological aspects (SAR, etc.) are a bit beyond the interest of the average guy who wants to know "why do I have to take Lipitor". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But I thought that as an encyclopedia we ought to be covering some of the knowledge available on the non-relevant but yes-encyclopedic subjects... Most patients will have little interest in the fact that their antiarrhythmic was developed as an antianginal in Belgium.

In any case, the gents from Iceland have requested that we defer the merge until their professor approves their work. A+, I'd say. I wish more students did this. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, though that's the beauty of summary style. So, it was really a university project? We've been getting a wonderful little boom of those :) The expanded Camptothecin page even made it to DYK. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with university projects, as long as they adhere to policy and cite their sources. If we need to do a bit of mopping up after them - so what? JFW | T@lk 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Isn't mopping up just what we're supposed to do? No complaints here :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to merge it. It's quite detailed, and I can't see that it would make sense to put it all into the statin article; it seems to fit best as a sub-article, linked to via the 'history' section. Although I don't think we should hesitate to assist with the article's development, or apply a "hands off" approach until the article is graded. It's great that there are more academic projects out there willing to educate students by having them contribute to wikipedia, but at the same time, it should be realized that this is a public project, and students need to interact with the community (this should actually be part of their education). I've seen many class projects actually get published in professional, peer reviewed journals before, and the journals don't have any special rules for these class projects -- they're treated like any other paper. Dr. Cash (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Our professor has copied the article so there is no need for the hands off approach anymore. You can edit it as you wish. Wozniakinn (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Although to reiterate my point, which seems to have been missed, one of the key elements of class projects using wikipedia should be for students to gain experience in developing articles and content with the greater community, not as a "dumping ground" for material generated in class that they don't want to see edited by others. Professors should realize this when making assignments instead of treating wikipedia like a cheap and easy way to publish material and content. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dr Cash's words, although I must say that in this case the editors responded swiftly to my messages. I would strongly encourage both editors to remain involved with their article, and hopefully join us in a more permanent fashion. In this WikiProject we can always use a few academics! Your professor can join too! JFW | T@lk 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another new article

Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics, created by Lilypink (talk · contribs) on the 14th. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiratumumab

Has anyone actually heard of this monoclonal antibody? I cannot find any reliable info this (google or pubmed), and i am wandering if in fact it is a hoax (as with many other suspicious mAbs listed in the template). I was going to nominate it for deletion, but the last thing i want to do is get a genuine article deleted. StephP (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is no verification possible, the article should be deleted. I presume it was a mistake, because iratumumab has been mentioned in the literature (PMID 17335294). It should be deleted like other articles, and its mention in the drugbox[7] removed once deletion has been completed. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps PROD it? I also couldn't find anything on PubMed, and a quick Google search didn't find "tiratumumab" in any INN lists or USAN decisions (most of which I've found to be indexed). Has Blake3522 (talk · contribs) (monoclonal stub creator extraordinaire) commented on this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I ran a quick check and was unable to find reliable info on most of the alleged mAbs in that template. Anetumumab, Betumumab, Cetforlimumab, Cetinlimumab, Cetlalimumab, Cetolimumab, Duntumumab, Extumumab, Futumumab etc... I cant help wandering if this is a practical joke. StephP (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of these drugs may be so experimental that they haven't even got their name into Google. The content is also suspicious; some claim that monoclonal antibodies "are used to treat osteoporosis". That is incorrect. You might want to try Special:Whatlinkshere/Anetumumab. It is possible that these pages were generated after a very long "list of oncology-related terms" was uploaded to Wikipedia, many of which were of distant notability or very experimental.

If you really cannot find anything, I suggest sending an email to the original creator (he has not responded to his talkpage messages), and simultaneously sending the whole whack to AFD. Let us know when this happens, so we can comment. You may want to inform WP:CLINMED as well. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia is not directory or a listings, then if no one above can locate citation to verify, then all 198 articles in Category:Monoclonal antibody stubs (?any of these not created by Blake3522 (talk · contribs)?), should be considered for AfD as hoaxes/non-notables by an editor who left the project in April. However whilst I agree for one single delete nomination, articles must individually be assessed for inclusion in this process, as an example Ibalizumab created by same editor, yet the name is valid(see [8]), and some hits on Google, but none of these establish it as in clinical use, production, having been subject of a journal paper or widely reported (aka WP:RS) as currently being used for research - so fails WP:N. David Ruben ^Talk 15:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PS That user has not set their account for wikipedia email link - I've left therefore one final notice at their talk page.David Ruben ^Talk 15:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of them do appear to be notable as well as verifiable, e.g. efungumab. This needs a thorough check. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As a self confessed eventualist I agree with JFW in that articles that have potential should be left and will get expanded. However, I have a (small) interest in mAbs and I cannot recall ever coming across the ones i listed above, neither in recent literature nor at any conferences. Despite showing recent activity in other wikipedia areas Blake3522 (talk · contribs) has failed to respond to validation requests. if there is no opposition I will get round to nominate (at least some of these) for deletion. StephP (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've set up a list here from the content of {{Humanmonoclonals}}. Tomorrow I'll scan PubMed and Google for sources. After scanning a PDF of Hospital Pharmacy, I've just found several of these to actually be redundant: names under consideration by the USAN Council to possibly become USANs. For instance, anetumumab, duntumumab and zalutumumab are all proposed USANs for a single mAb[9], and zalutumumab seems to have been eventually adopted.[10][11]. Maybe generous redirecting can sort out this mess. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that [[12]] is a better list of useless mabs. Otherwise you miss some crap, for example, Tucusituzumab. I believe that if the name is not in PubMed it is not notable enough to be in WP. Generous deletion is indicated for all those absurdomumabs.Paul gene (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of them probably do need deletion. In anticipation of a mass AfD, I've followed your suggestion and am using the category to check for sources. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blake3522 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of BlakeCS (talk · contribs). How about closing both accounts? Admins among us - respond.Paul gene (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are several legitimate uses of sockpuppets. It seems the second account was created after the first account's last edit, and they were not used simultaneously. I may be assuming good faith a little too far, but I won't block established accounts absent evidence of bad-faith efforts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. And the accounts are no longer used for vandalism now that it is all done. So formally Blake3522 is a good wikipedian. Paul gene (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

OK, I've finished going over the list above, in no small way thanks to Paul and StephP. Of the 197 articles in the category, 129 (roughly 65.5%) could be sourced. Since I meant to verify the existence of the compound and nothing else, I took an INN or USAN listing to be sufficient; some articles, of course, had more available sources (i.e. that could be used to expand the article), and 68 had none—no hits on PubMed, no CAS number, not in INN lists or any Google-indexed USAN decisions. This is obviously a quick and dirty method, but I believe it is enough. I propose a two-step process:

1. List these 68 articles at AfD (a single AfD) as failing WP:V. If they are all deleted, there will be some cleanup to do (templates, etc.)
2. Discuss the notability of the remaining (verifiable) articles. Verifiable does not equal notable, and many of these compounds are still in phase I/II trials or have had nothing on them published in years.

Thoughts? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I support an AfD for the 68 (they might even be speedy-able). For the others, I think we keep the bar relatively low for keeping the article, but keep the bar relatively high for including the articles in the navigational templates. --Arcadian (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Support listing all unverifiable mumabs in one AFD. Not for speedy as far as I can see. JFW | T@lk 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Of the remaining 61 articles, I suggest speedily deleting those that have no references. The legitimate ones usually have at least one. Paul gene (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would also support AfD nomination of the 68 non-verifiable articles. StephP (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well; I'll list them. None of the CSD fit here, although a case could be made for WP:CSD#A1 in some of these. AfD is best. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD is now up. Thanks, everyone. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD was closed early & all deleted...This sort of thing really irks me. Any good reason why I shouldn't block both accounts of this user? — Scientizzle 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I see grounds for blocking: refusal to participate in the verification process or to respond to queries... How very strange. JFW | T@lk 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

DaTSCAN : New article

I'm really rather new here, so apologies if I'm out of place. I created a new article today and I need the assistance of a pharmacologist. I'm a medical radiation physicist by trade, and I'm very familiar with DaTSCAN as an imaging technique but I fear my sketchy knowledge of pharmacology may be letting the article down. Does anyone have any suggestions? Jonnylaney (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and you did come to the right place. I am not a pharmacologist (although we have some on board :) but you seem to be off to a good start. I would like to suggest two minor things: providing more references for the "Technical details" section; and moving the article to Ioflupane (123I), as that is the International Nonproprietary Name of DaTSCAN, and our style guidelines recommend that articles on medications/diagnostic agents be named after the INN whenever possible. Moving pages is quite straightforward, but we can help you with that if you wish. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I was just perusing some pharmaceutical pages for inspiration and noticed that drugs seem to be entered by their pharmacological name with reference to any trade names in the respective article. That's a good plan, I'll get on it. It'll be better for my learning if I fugure it out for myself. Reference wise, I'm sure I can dig up some proper citations, I'll set that as my second task. Thanks for your advice! Jonnylaney (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blog discussion on error in a drugbox

Please see this blog comment. I should mention that he has previously blogged about a case where one of the major databases had the taxol structure wrong, and we had it right. Antony Williams is seriously interested in helping us, I believe. I will raise this at WP:CHEMS also. Walkerma (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential DYK candidates

Eltrombopag (created yesterday by JFW) and lacosamide (created this morning by Animated Cascade (talk · contribs). Help expanding welcome :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Selenium sulfide

I came across this article whilst looking at selenium compounds. (I contribute to chemicals project). I believe that this compound is better described stoichiometrically as selenium disulfide. What is sold commercially is probably a mixture of cyclo- Se_xS_y compounds with maybe a little elemental sulfur and selenium too, depending on the method of production. If noone has any objections I will make some appropriate changes to the article.Axiosaurus (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clindamycin

Is up for GA status. Comments and improvements welcome! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Shame clindamycin has a bad press in some respects. I find it extremely useful in recalcitrant cellulitis. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just passed by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide FAC

Hi there, NAD is up as a candidate for featured article. Reviews, comments and suggestions are welcome on the nomination page. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Menthol

This article was promoted to WP:GA back in 2005, but a re-review indicates that it no longer meets the GA criteria, so I've had to delist it. I did add it to the WP:PHARM project (originally only part of WP:CHEMICALS), and assessed it at B-class. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bupropion on Main Page

Just a reminder—bupropion will be Today's featured article for December 21 (tomorrow). Let's keep an eye out for vandalism and inaccurate additions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Aquaretics

Aquaretics at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaretics (21 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)