Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Good work, MessedRocker - looks great! :) I've taken the liberty to update the project userbox information and to move it from  to  which is also more WikiProject compliant. I already de-redirected everyone's userpage - Alison✍ 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Looking good! I thought of creating a boilerplate message to notify participants of the merger. Any thoughts? Fvasconcellos 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. That'll get folks moving on updating/evaluating stubs and stuff. Plenty to do! :) - Alison✍ 04:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome 

message: 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)
replies: text: Should :Category:Psychoactive drug stubs be bot-tagged too? --Galaxiaad 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic addition of articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaned up documentation 

message: Up for FA here. Comments, edits and suggestions are welcome. TimVickers 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Antioxidant]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Definitely! - Alison✍ 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can create one. Hold on. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Nice idea. Now we have a week to start thinking of articles to nominate... Fvasconcellos 14:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Requested articles

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Levonorgestrel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[AZD2171]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Fluoxetine]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Nicely put, and point taken :) Fvasconcellos 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fluoxetine]] alert 

message: 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)
thread_title: Help needed on [[Aminopterin]]

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Expert advice wanted

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cannabis rescheduling in the United States FAR

message: New navigational template. Feedback welcome! Fvasconcellos 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:PAH rx]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Up for GA now. Fvasconcellos 00:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orlistat 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anion issue 

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

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

text: Thanks. We'll start working on it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An invitation to categorize uncategorized pharmacology stubs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Opium]] and [[Apolipoprotein A1]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Beclomethasone]] and [[Beclomethasone dipropionate|BDP]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Could someone update the information in the progress section? Fuzzform 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done by a bot every two days. Hey, nice work :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject tags 

message: I've proposed a number of new subtypes of , 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)
thread_title:  pharmacology-stub subtypes proposed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: '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 , by the way.) I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this matter :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories by company? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reviewing [[Theobromine]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Project's main page

message: 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)
thread_title: Dealing with recombinant drugs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Poppers]] and [[Alkyl nitrites]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Diramamorphine]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consistancy for Comparison 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Could use some help with mitotic inhibitor article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Organic compounds database

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for Comment at [[Psychoactive drug]]

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hair-raising 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Article assessment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: JFW, you owe me a new keyboard! ;-) Dr. Cash 16:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RS]]?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Articles in serious need of attention

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Resveratrol]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal: new drugbox for combinations? 

message: Just a pointer to a proposal to merge  with a proposed  into current . 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)
thread_title: Drugbox upgrade

message: 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)
replies: text: Could you add PMID/DOI codes to the references? JFW | T@lk 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: :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 . Could use a hand or a cluestick, please :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind—users experimenting with creation of hoaxes. Warned, reverted, deleted, blocked as necessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catch :) - Alison ☺ 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Isopapa-dimethoxy-aniline]] 

message: Bupropion was just promoted to FA status today! Congrats to all those editors involved! Dr. Cash 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo-hoo! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yayy!!! :) Well done, everyone  - Alison ☺ 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  We did have a collaboration page, but it was terribly inactive. MessedRocker (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New [[WP:PHARM]] [[WP:FA|Featured Article]]

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Impromptu list of candidates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Peer review for [[Therapies for multiple sclerosis]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notes on [[Aspergum]] and [[Paclitaxel]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  MEDMOS discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: [[Ethanol]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Streamlining articles 

message: The above article really smacks of WP:OR or at best, an obscure neologism. Thoughts, anyone? - Alison ☺ 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Cosmetic pharmacology]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Aspirin]] extended for one week at [[WP:RxCOTW]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Interesting new drug delivery method

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, I've inserted the  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)
thread_title:  People seeking medical advice 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Potential Pharmacology article for [[WP:DYK|Did You Know?]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Varenicline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opium now a Good Article - what next? 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Superdrol 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Tie-breaker needed at [[WP:RxCOTW]]

message: Please see here, and share your thoughts.  Alai 04:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet Another Proposal for additional pharmacological stub types 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for articles on the total synthesis of pharmaceuticals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Kamagra 

message: As a result of the discussion mentioned above, four subtypes of  are to be created (and will be shortly after I have posted this): , ,  and . 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 ; 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 ;
*:Image:Phenobarbital3d updated.png for ; phenobarbital, despite no longer being first-line, is still the most widely used anticonvulsant;
*As for , 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)
thread_title:  Image search for new stub types 

message: 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)
replies: text: Deleted. And I've blocked the serial hoaxer, too. — Scientizzle 00:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  One more hoax? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Therapies for multiple sclerosis]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Varenicline and animal studies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Now merged by . Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Quaternary_ammonium_muscle_relaxants]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sulfa merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neurotransmitters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Statin development 

message: Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics, created by  on the 14th. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new article 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Assessment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[DaTSCAN]] : New article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blog discussion on error in a drugbox 

message: Eltrombopag (created yesterday by JFW) and lacosamide (created this morning by . Help expanding welcome :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential DYK candidates 

message: 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- SexSy 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)
thread_title: [[Selenium sulfide]]

message: Is up for GA status. Comments and improvements welcome! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just passed by . Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Clindamycin]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide]] FAC

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Menthol]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Bupropion]] on Main Page 

message: ::--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion: Aquaretics