Talk:Norepinephrine

message: The section above appears to be reaching a consensus to split the article in two, one relating to the drug, the other to the hormone/neurotransmitter.  However there isn't yet a consensus on how to arrange the split.  There are basically three possibilities:  (1) No default -- norepinephrine becomes a disambig page, referring to the other two; (2) default=drug --- norepinephrine is about the drug, norepinephrine (hormone and neurotransmitter) is linked from the top of it; (3) default=neurotransmitter -- norepinephrine is about the neurotransmitter and hormone, norepinephrine (drug) is linked from the top of it.  Which do you favor? Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is which topic are people more likely looking for rather than which came first historically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

text: *seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I just split off the drug-related material into norepinephrine (drug).  This is not an obstacle to the "no default" option if we ultimately choose to go in that direction.  As I noted above the main obstacle to that option is that it would require several hundred wikilinks to be changed.  My action would be an obstacle for the "default=drug" option, but that's not really on the cards anyway at this point.  If the name I gave the new article is suboptimal, it can easily be changed. Looie496 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I have now fixed all of the wikilinks that should point to norepinephrine (drug), as far as I can tell.  If we decide to go with "default=neurotransmitter" no further changes are needed to wikilinks or article structure, but (to repeat) nothing that I have done up to this point is an obstacle if we ultimately decide to go with "no default". Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal RFC: How to split? 

message: I noticed ref 1 doesn't have the info it's being used to cite (unless it's in one of the links?).  Could a more precise ref be added?  Also, isn't the "upon the kidneys" translation for adrenaline and epinepherine (i.e. epi- = upon, neph- = kidney)?  What does the nor- add? delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add ref 1; I'll look for a better source.  The rationale for "nor" is explained in the Structure section -- I don't think it is interesting enough to belong in the lead. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seppi333 has fixed this by adding another ref, I believe. Looie496 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I still don't see it, I just see a page of links with no mention of norepinephrine. Can someone link to the specific page with this info? Or provide a quote? delldot ∇. 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the 2nd instance to it.  It's still citing the sentences about the terms norepi/noradr in latin/greek. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I wasn't sure which instance you were referring to.  I've supplied a different ref for the etymological information, in which it can more easily be found in the article (the History section). Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it ok that this is defining adrenalin, not noradrenaline?  Seems odd that that's in the lead with the etymology of the wrong substance.  Are you sure the 'nor' is not worth mentioning in the lead? I'm not trying to be a plague here, if you're both confident I can drop the matter. delldot ∇. 06:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

text: There's an entry for Nor- if someone wants to incorporate it. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick comment

message: I have had many family issues and I profusely apologize in the delay of this review. I will jump in again. I'll be finishing the review up with my other account. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been mostly out of action for the last couple of weeks, so I'm actually happy that not much has happened here during that time.  I do look forward to getting this in motion, though.  Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I do feel badly because the other reviews that I have done have been completed in a week or less. I'm back to work. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many apologies 

message: various compounds have their biosynthesis section oversized. they can be split into their pages and referenced. example: norepinephrine is synthesized from dopamine, which is synthesized from tyrosine. only the dopamine to norepinephrine part can be left in the page, contrary to the current overdetail starting from tyrosineMinimobiler (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is your opinion. The article was also passed as a good article - you need to propose the change in material not just go ahead and mention this afterwards.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  regardless - the entry on the talk page needs to be a proposal left for comments from others.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting biosyntheses 

message: Nor adrenaline actually decreases heart rate.
reference from Principles of general pharmacology by KD Tripathi. Zaidanzargar (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: References to this on the page would need to be adjusted and refs supplied.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart rate.