Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/Archive 1

message: Hello dear members, I'm very pleased that this WikiProject is taking off, and I intend to participate quite a lot. My previous "drug" additions include thiazolidinedione and subpages, imatinib, metformin and the statins. All need more work...
Some articles, especially the ones by User:Ksheka, have grown a nice box that might actually provide to be of some use in other drug-related articles. Examples can be seen on amiodarone and the recently featured article acetaminophen. JFW | T@lk 11:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comment

message: Hi, I notice the request for chemical structures. I'd like to put a vote in for using PPCHTeX since if all goes well it will be integrated into mediawiki some time in the future (see WikiTeX). I have been making lots of drug structures using PPCHTeX (see User:Rkundalini for instructions, and User:Rkundalini/images for the ones I've done so far), and would be happy do to a whole lot more, but will likely be too busy for the next month or so. Rkundalini 12:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The images created by PPCHTeX don't look as nice as those created by XyMTeX.  There's a lot of aliasing (even in horizontal and vertical lines!), and the font is inconsistent with other TeX used by Wikipedia.  --Eequor 13:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The aliasing problems are my own, both PPCHTeX and XyMTeX produce dvi output, and clearly the maker of the image in the XyMTeX page used a better procedure that I have used to rasterize it. Hopefully if/when PPCHTeX gets incorporated into wikimedia, it will use the same nice-looking rendering as it presently does for the math : see the WikiTeX entry for an example confirming this. Re the fonts, again that was my choice, without the \sf everywhere it would look the same, but personally, I think serifs in chemical structures create unwanted visual clutter (but see the WikiTeX entry for an example with a serif font). I take it you'd prefer serifs though? Rkundalini 11:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, see meta:Help:Formula.  Sans-serif would be inconsistent.  --Eequor 15:15, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that wikisophia  is back up, I have made some examples to show how nice the output is, see User:Rkundalini. What do you (and others) think? Rkundalini 03:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Hello. I have drawn or corrected structural formulae of some drugs using open-source drawing program bkchem (the advantage of interactive drawing programs over scripts is clear) and edited in GIMP. I draw the formulae approximately three times bigger; then I scale them down to have them antialised. I produce grayscale PNG images with transparency, which may cause problems with older web browsers, so please let me know if you notice some strange rendering of them. Settings of the formulae (bond width, font size) evolved during the time, so the style of the my most recent structure images will be probably used in future. Please let me know if it's OK. I use sans-serif font because it is very usual in chemistry. Mykhal 10:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your structures look nice. One point is that if you were to use PPCHTeX instead, one day (hopefully soon) it will be incorporated into the wiki software. This means that instead of having to run bkchem, then GIMP, then upload, then add comments, all you have to do is put the code describing the structure directly in the text of the entry, and the wiki software will automatically generate a nice image (see WikiTeX). This fits in better with the wiki philosophy since it can be trivially edited by anyone, without needing special software. All that said, you're making structures where before there were none, and that's great. If you don't feel inclined to switch to PPCHTeX, never mind! Rkundalini 00:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structures 

message: I think we should really decide upon a standard infobox, because there are lot of drug infoboxes about, all good, but all slightly different. The on sample one here's really nice, but I think the side-effects section should be removed, just for simplicity's sake. I also suggest adding the drug's ATC code to the table, as it is an international and simple way of categorising drugs. Daevatgl 16:38, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
:The side effects section is mostly just a skeleton.  Probably most articles would leave out sections of that.  Side effects will be mentioned somewhere in each article; it seems like the best standard location for those would be the infobox.
:Should ATC codes and CAS numbers both be included?  --Eequor 00:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current infobox is skewed towards medical use of drugs. It seems fairly inappropriate for drugs that are predominantly of interest for their non-medical usage. I don't have any suggestions for how to improve the situation (yet). Also, I have been adding INNs to drug pages whenever possible. This can be found using ChemID (see CAS number) but this seems to be incomplete. I have obtained access to the official UN INN site but I'm yet to see how easy it is to look these things up. Also I think it is worth including the IUPAC name in each entry. Rkundalini 12:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  The Indicated for: section should probably be expanded.  Contraindications: is still useful for recreational drugs; for example, depressants with stimulants and vice versa.  Side effects: is relevant too.  --Eequor 13:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But I don't think the term "recreational drugs" should be used since it does not encompass non-recreational, non-medical use of drugs, for example entheogens. Rkundalini 14:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think you can do a search on the INN site, but http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/0400pharmappx.pdf is a pdf containing a list of INNs (and I think CAS no.s). It might not be a comprehensive list, but it's a good start. Also I use http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com/ often, it gives a list of synonyms (but doesn't say which is the INN) and the chemical structure (they ask for registration after 10 searches or so). Keep in mind that a drug may have several different ATC codes. Matt 16:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you can search for INNs at http://mednet.who.int/ , but you (stupidly) have to apply for access (which I did, successfully). Perhaps if we flood them with requests they will realise it is a silly policy. Rkundalini 14:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another WHO site, http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/, where you can do a name search on the ATC index. If you get a hit, it should be INN. Not very practical either, but you can check whether a name's INN or not. Daevatgl 17:02, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
How does methamphetamine look?  --Eequor 01:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Looks good, but see my comment on "recreational" vs "non-medical" above. Also, what is meant by "miscellaneous"? Are these actually indications or side-effects? Probably a link to anorectic should go there somewhere too. Rkundalini 15:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The miscellaneous section is for side effects that don't fit in the other categories.  --Eequor 16:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I've succeeded (after climbing up the learning curve) in revising the mechanics of  to allow transclusion and have transcluded into Atorvastatin.  The revised template preserves all functionality of the old version and substantially reduces the complexity of pages into which it is placed. Courtland 12:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: IMHO the substance infobox should be split into two sections or boxes: into a chemical data box (including the molecular structure image) and a pharmacology data box (including the ATC code). This would allow to stay compatible with the widely used non-drug chemical data boxes and it would make sense to separate the chemical data from unrelated human pharmacological data. Compare DMT (drug boxes) and 5-MeO-DMT (chemical data box only as of now). Cacycle 19:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation of chemical and pharmacological data

message: I subtly edited the infobox template just then. The half-life link points to my new elimination half-life article (solves the problem of the half-life article being very physics/chem oriented. The legal status link now points to Regulation of therapeutic goods, since the previous link to Controlled Substances Act was too American-centric (though someone should probably update the American info on the new article, since I know almost nothing about how drugs are regulated in the U.S.). I also changed "Delivery" to "Routes of Administration" to make the meaning more explicit. Hope everyone's okay with the changes. Techelf 11:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtle changes to infobox

message: The LD50 is a popular pharmacological statistic, and it's a quantitative measure of toxicity. Shouldn't LD50s be added to the pharmacological info? rmbh 21:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. LD50 is a quantitative measurement of the dosage that is lethal to 50% of whatever organism is taking the drug. For instance, in rats, morphine's LD50 is 461 mg/kg when taken orally. It is 600 mg/kg in mice. This is a very useful way to measure the toxicity of drugs. --Alberrosidus 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LD50

message: I very briefly tried to adjust the mechanics of  to provide the option for transclusion with content filled by passing parameters, but was not successful and reverted myself.  Is there a way to alter the infobox template to provide the option for transclusion? Courtland 01:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
:I've succeeded (after climbing up the learning curve) in revising the mechanics of  to allow transclusion and have transcluded into Atorvastatin.  The revised template preserves all functionality of the old version and substantially reduces the complexity of pages into which it is placed. Courtland 12:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subst vs. Transclusion

message: I currently miss the following items in the infobox:
* T-max
* Distribution volume (l/kg)
* Plasma-protein binding %
Is it possible to add these to the pharmacological info? --WS 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox additions

message: I've taken the liberty of adding  to the listing of general templates on the main page for this WikiProject.  It is not a pretty addition ... I will work to make it so later. Courtland 12:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject main page, templates

message: I updated the drugbox for aesthetics and readability. Probably the only issue I can think of is abbreviation/contraction of entry names: molecular weight, chemical formula, pregnancy category and routes of administration. I found that it was necessary to fit these entries on a single line. I think that if people are in doubt they can always click on the name. As a bonus, the new format seems to partially alleviate the printing problem discussed a few months ago. Let me know if you have any problems with the new box. -Techelf 11:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2006 update

message: The wiki engine seems to be barfing when given pages containing more than five templates. After the fifth template (including subtemplates), edit links on later ones no longer point to the correct location. Whether this is a bug or feature remains to be debated, but it's making the editing of templates (especially on this project's subpages) a bit annoying. Foobar 04:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's so irritating!  They did that intentionally, too.  It's a terrible idea; the problem's been visible in lots of places.  I'm hoping the developers will realize it's a bad idea soon, so they'll turn it off.  --Eequor 05:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediawiki and templates

message: I propose the systematic chemical names (when they are not very short, like N,N-dimethylaniline) to be written in  tag, e.g. 2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane, because  they mostly do not contain spaces and therefore are not wrapped, so they can overflow the page width.
We should also use the proper nomenclature and typesetting rules. So instead of
(3E)-4-[(3aR,4R,6aS)-1,3-dimethyl-2-oxo-hexahydro-1H-thieno[3,4-d]imidazol-4-yl]-3-butenoic acid
we should write
(3E)-4-[(3aR,4R,6aS)-1,3-dimethyl-2-oxohexahydro-1H-thieno[3,4-d]imidazol-4-yl]but-3-enoic acid.
What do you think about it?
Mykhal 15:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: shouldn't the names wrap at the hyphen marks? I hadn't noticed that they don't wrap. I find the teeny font to be tricky to read, but I don't like it when a page is forced to be wider because of a single "word". Are there other solutions to this? Matt 02:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to look for some special html character (like  ) which would be invisible, but would turn into newline char in case of need. But I was unsuccesful. Mykhal 10:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I use IE, it breaks at a hyphen (-) if needed. Do other browsers not break at the hyphen? Matt 21:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Mozilla browser does not wrap these names neither at hyphens nor parentheses.. So sometimes the chemical name is twice as longer than page width. I'll consider sending them a behavior change proposal. Mykhal 17:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a character in the ISO-8859-1 specification (‚ - see Control character), that is defined as "Break permitted here", which could be used to solve the problem. If only Mozilla/Firefox would support it...(it doesn't, I checked)--Aramgutang 05:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Heh, you can't break with   because this is exactly what it does - "non-breaking space". And it is not invisible either - it creates a space. -- Boris 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thus far I've been strategically leaving spaces in the IUPAC names, since Gecko-browsers (e.g. Mozilla) will linebreak at the spaces if necessary. However, since someone labelled these spaces "spurious", the less-than-elegant solution I've used for imatinib is to simply put  tags where linebreaks were needed - and it seems to work for both MSIE and Gecko browsers. Techelf 07:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I initially write the whole name and then open the article with Opera (I have Dumbxplorer too, but obviously i don't use it for "Wiki" work). Then i put  (i use it with " /") tags where Opera has "broken" the name. -- Boris 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic chemical names 

message: The initial List of drugs pages are finally up. When you are working on a particular drug, it would be helpful if you checked it's entries on the list to ensure that they're correct and complete. School has just started again for me now, so I don't know how much I'll be contributing in the near future. I wish you all the best of luck. Matt 22:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of drugs 

message: I have edited most of the templates to display properly under MSIE. I'm surprised the project has gone for so long without anyone fixing any of the numerous problems, I mean, didn't the main project place look like this for anyone else? (I'm using IE 6.0sp1 under Win2000 with a 1280x960 resolution if you're wondering)
Apparently, the  tags around the tables were the reason for the messy appearance. Since they surved no useful purpose anyway, I removed them, putting align="center" into the table header istead. The orange footer had problems with display that were slightly different (only the bottom half of the table backgound and border would show), but were still fixed by removing the div tags.
The infobox was the most messed up template of all. Firstly, who's idea was it to write colours in #fff format? I changed all the colours to their 6 hex digit equivalents (ie. #def -> #ddeeff), so they work under IE. Also, a big problem was the fact that the Wiki engine would sometimes randomly add  between the two tables in the infobox for no apparent reason. This messed considerably with page layout, as all space to the left of the first table would be made blank by this. I changed the code between the tables from:
 |}
 {| border="0" blah blah...
to:
 </table><table border="0" blah blah...
This ensures that nothing ever gets put between the tables. I hope the changes didn't mess up the layout for other browsers (I only checked with IE and Firefox).--Aramgutang 05:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSIE fixing 

message: Does Template:DrugsNotice really belong at the bottom of the drug articles themselves?  It seems to violate the self-reference rules, and seems out of place.  It might be better off at the top of the talk pages, like it is for some articles. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 01:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  DrugsNotice template 

message: I have added the following pharmacological templates:
*  main category for the following subclasses of psychedelic hallucinogens
**  only psychedelic hallucinogens of the tryptamine class, there is a  template for tryptamines as a chemical class
**  only psychedelic hallucinogens of the phenethylamines class, there is a  template for phenethylamines as a chemical class
**  only psychedelic hallucinogens of the lysergamide class
*  replaces  (wrong spelling)
*  
*  Anticholinergic deliriants
* 
Cacycle 20:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New templates for 'hallucinogenic compounds' 

message: I think that it should be noted that dissociative anaesthetics such as ketomine, dxm, pcp, and nitrous oxide should probably not be classified as a subset of hallucinogens, due to neurological differences. In general, however, the Hallucinogenic Drug Templates are poorly organized and worded and need an organizational overhaul. I am not particularly up to this challenge, as I would find it more suitable for someone with a large measure of expertise to do this. If you are out there reading this message, please take some time to think of an organizational heirarchy to present on this talk page that you think would parallel the standards of current medical thought. I will help when I have the time. The reason why I brought up this general criticism, though, is that I think that linking drugs via Hallucinogens rather than by their technical classes is a poor choice, since there is great subjectivity in what makes something a hallucinogen. For instance, many people regard certain cannabinoids as being halluniogenic, and others not. (And some as being stimulants and depressants as well.) It would be more suitable to either just note on each page that there may be hallucinogenic properties, or to create one seperate notice, placed on each page of a drug that has been considered hallucinogenic. Flying Hamster 20:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific and General Criticisms 

message: Added proton pump inhibitors ... I will try to find some way to fix the hallucinogen mess when i get time Cocoapunk 22:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Proton Pump Inhibitors 

message: Ok now I have done some research (predominantly on erowid) and I do believe that Disociatives are their own class of drugs, as most use is quite different from the standard measure for a hallucinogen (The Mescaline Scale). Here is how I believe we can break up the Hallucinogen Categories:
-Disociatives (Own Category)
- Create a category for Anticholingergic drugs and put the delirant drugs there (all the drugs, while used recreationally, have clinical applications as anticholingerics and they should stay like that)
- I believe that the separation between different hallucinogens should be regarded in the clinical sense, because while the US gvmt. considers almost all hallucinogenic drugs illegal and of no use, most are useful psychiatric tools. However the only real blanket term i can think of is hallucinogens so unless anyone else can suggest a better way to separate regular phenethylamines and hallucinogenic phenethylamines with out this disorganization it swould help
- THC should be considered a Cannabinoid because if we look at this from a clinical aspect THC and other cannabinoids have clinical actions related to the CB receptors, and all characteristics of this binding are not hallucinogen-like
- Enactogens are fine as they are
- While most of the time Dextromethorphan is considered a disociative, it is a mu-opioid receptor agonist and that is its clinical method of action so I am unsure of its classification
If everyone can agree with certain thoughts on hallucinogens I will create the categories and organize it. Thanks for the suggestions Cocoapunk 01:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "hallucinogen" is not a category.  dxm is categorized as a dissociative, which it is, as well as a number of other things.  non-clinical/medical use of dextromethorphan has its own article, Non-medical use of dextromethorphan, because of the point you bring up about its principle use.  due to this project not coming to any decisions about how to deal with hallucinogens, the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants was set up; for categorization, see Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants Categorization.  --Heah (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please see my reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Drugs/Categorization. --Rkundalini 06:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah I have a problem with rigidly using ATCCS (a scheme for therepeutic drugs) for all drugs, many of which are primarily used for non-medical / "recreational" purposes. However later in the above entry s/he seems to come round to keeping non-ATCCS classifications, I agree with everything s/he says there. See also  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Drugs/Categorization --Rkundalini 03:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just want to say that as a feminist, I love the use of s/he as opposed to "he or she"... :) Flying Hamster 05:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hallucinogen Classification 

message: I added to the Arguements for on all 3 sections, I wrote 2 of them myself. I feel both of the ones I began could be expanded but should not be expanded into the dominion of the Prohibition (drugs article. The point-counterpoint section seems long and repititive(sp?). I'm considering printing out all the points and there counterpoints on individual sheets of paper then going to work grouping all of the similiar ones and trying to eliminate the redundant ones and some seem to be more facts than points. Some could be reworded to a more NPOV and I suppose they could be categorized based on for/against and the main concept why they argue for or against drug prohibition(like "victimless crimes" or "immorallity"). Do you think this would be the right direction to take with that page?
Eric Urban 22:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This should probably be discussed on Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition. btw spelling: argument, repetitive. Rkundalini 02:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguements for and against drug prohbition 

message: If you need photos, there are lots on the DEA website (PD, as works of US government employees). David.Monniaux 08:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I'd like to ask you to consider changing the text of your template. The current text:
:If you are interested in editing this article, please see its talk page and ensure your edits are consistent with the goals of the project.
implies that an editor should not edit the article unless they are working on this project. That is not a very wiki attitude. It also doesn't make a lot of sense, as some materials used as drugs also have significant unrelated uses. Securiger 10:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of template 

message: Pardon, but is this WikiProject on Drugs, or what? --Abdull 02:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs 

message: I was wondering if I can participate in the project without having to add my name? I'm interested to participate, but don't know if I will have much time to contribute. Fadix 19:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Participation on the project

message: Is there a convention in Wikipedia regarding the use of the registered trademark symbol ®?  I've seen it applied for various drug names.  My personal bias is that the ® symbol "commercializes" the feel of the entries.  My sense is that the only time I've seen the symbol used in the medical literaure is in advertisements!  Andrew73 19:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been discussing this with Andrew on email. I think trademarking the first instance of a brandname is a good way of showing the difference between trade name and generic name. I make it a point to say in intros that drugs are marketed as followed by the brand name. Wikipedia should use generic names (an exception is combinations, such as Serevent). JFW | T@lk 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They aren't used for other trademarks, so I wouldn't use them specifically for trademarked drug names. --WS 21:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: A common use in pharmacy texts and practice is to write the name of the trademarked drug in all caps.  I'm not sure if that would go against the style rules for Wikipedia or not, but I do know it's common practice in school.  Starbane 04:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I favor just capitalizing the trade name (which seems standard practice in medical journs)...all caps seems too much like shouting!  Andrew73 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registered trademark 

message: An anti-vaccine editor thought he could freely hijack Polypharmacy for his agenda. I'm have a lot of fun there. Care to join? Invitations not required, but hard evidence is useful. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So this is your take on fostering the Wiki's collaborative approach?  Simply deleting content that doesn't suit your pov seems to violate the spirit and intent of the Wiki.  And please, kindly adopt a friendlier demeanor.  Ombudsman 21:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polypharmacy 

message: I've written BAY 59-7939. Does anyone know how to find the molecular structure of this serine protease inhibitor? It may well provide what ximelagatran could not. JFW | T@lk 09:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BAY 59-7939

message: Recommend adding cannabidiol to this template    --Thoric 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antipsychotics template 

message: I noticed your template linking style and was wondering if there was a reason to use it over the "tl" style. Is there? Thanx 68.39.174.238 01:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird template linking 

message: Some drug articles, such as trazodone and dantrolene, have been expanded by anons to include all sorts of material. Some of it sounds reasonable, but most of it is unsourced, uses odd spellings (frequently German contaminations and terminology) and may be unverifiable. I am slowly coming round to the view that such edits should be discouraged. What are your views on reverting these edits, or copying them to the talk page? Usually, the anon is not a fixed IP and cannot be invited to give sources for the material inserted. JFW | T@lk 12:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these edits should be discouraged, unless verifiable.  I'll take a look at these articles and see if I can find suitable sources for the inserted material. --Uthbrian (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unformatted and unverified additions 

message: Why have you people merged "Drug therapy" with "Pharmacology"? Now, about the therapy itself - when are the drug companies going to stop making single-drug prescriptions? How much more research (apperantly they have decided to ignore completely the common sence) that proves the better efficiancy of the multy-drug ones do they need? All this "lets do it in a way to make more money" approach makes me sick. -- Boris 23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't here when the merge happened, but apparently it was the result of vote for deletion.  --Uthbrian (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only guess, judjing by the reactions of the voters, what the original "Drug therapy" article's content was. I think this article has to be written again even if it has to be a short definition. So, what's your "say"? And don't you guys think that any page that is the result of the work of any of the projects should be mentioned as such not only when it was a stub but even after it was completed? I had to make a bit of a search (tracking the editors) to find your project to drop the note because i didn't know which project(s) was/were taking care for it. -- Boris 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also help a bit, i have been adding images here and there check the "Synthetic" section. I know Jfdwolff is helping too. I'll talk to the members of the project i'm in to see what they have to say about this labeling thing. -- Boris 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice images, Boris!  We probably need all the help we can get with chem structures.  JFD has definitely been helping out too.  I guess I underestimated the amount of participation there has been.  However, there is still no active collaboration among us to really improve a given article.  I've personally just been randomly browsing and fixing what I can here and there.  --Uthbrian (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drug therapy

message: #Can anyone help produce a copyright-free image of flucloxacillin, e.g. as per .
#Additonal information on metabolism would be helpful.
#Were does one look to research US Pregnancy risk categorisation ? David Ruben  Talk  03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wish is fulfilled. =) Though I don't know where to find US pregnancy categorisation data either. -Techelf 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice image, Techelf!  About the US pregnancy category, I normally do a search at Rxlist.com.  I also have access at Clinical Pharmacology - Gold Standard Multimedia.  However, I couldn't find any mention of flucloxacillin or floxacillin in either database.  Maybe it is not marketed in the US? I will check elsewhere later.  --Uthbrian (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flucloxacillin

message: When I was editing MRSA, it occurred to me that using the BANs for combination antibiotics/drugs isn't ideal, since most people outside the UK would really be aware of them (except co-trimoxazole). A quick look at Category:Combination antibiotics shows the use of hyphens (quinupristin-dalfopristin) and slashes (piperacillin/tazobactam). Another widely-used method in pharmacy is "+" (e.g. codeine+paracetamol).
I was hoping that perhaps we could standardise on a convention that makes combination preparations obvious to all readers, and that emphasises they are combinations. My own view is that we should use "+", and I propose that all pages on combination drugs, and all references to them in other articles, should be changed to that format (e.g. co-amoxiclav should be changed to amoxicillin+clavulanic acid) while retaining redirects and a mention of the BAN in the article. -Techelf 02:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good idea.  It encourages use of the generic names, which is really the best way to refer to drugs. --Uthbrian (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, I'm really not sure about the plus sign. The slash is better. But if the INN is co-this or co-that then this is the preferred one (e.g. co-amoxiclav is better than Augmentin or amoxicillin-clavulinic acid). JFW | T@lk 21:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point-- I completely forgot about the INN standard.  Techelf, what do you think about using the INN? --Uthbrian (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is an INN for combinations is there? Co-amoxiclav, et al., are only BANs as far as I remember. But yes, either slashes or pluses seem to do the job all right. My preference for "+" is because slashes usually denote "or" whereas pluses denote "and". But I guess maybe it doesn't matter that much on Wikipedia, since we usually enclose alternative names in brackets rather than using slashes. -Techelf 08:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, I was referring to pages for standard drug combinations. Although I also like BANs (I started the co-amoxiclav stub), there's still the problem that BANs other than co-trimoxazole aren't used at all outside the UK. Some combinations also don't seem to have BANs, e.g. fluticasone+salmeterol (according to my BNF47). But you're right, deciding the order for certain combinations is tricky, e.g. I've seen both codeine+paracetamol and paracetamol+codeine in use. Where does everyone else think we should move from here? -Techelf 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combination drug nomenclature

message: I created this one for the gang. The small image is of penicillin. I wish it had better resolution. The background color is the same as the one on the right side of the info tables. Opinions plz. -- Boris 16:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use box

message: I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place to lodge this request.  I'm a new Wiki person and someone from Boot Camp sent me on a path that led to here.  I am working to improve the Tourette syndrome article, and just made a large number of edits to the treatment section there. (I'm not done -- still have to tackle stimulants to reflect new research showing they can be used in the presence of tic disorders, other treatment of ADHD comorbid with tics, SSRIs, and others.) Besides being new to Wikipedia, I registered after a controversy got going there over Marinol.  I'm not a pharmaceutical person, just a layperson, and have no personal experience with medications for Tourette's.  Further, I'm afraid of being too bold and deleting some stuff that was previously there, as I don't want to ruffle feathers when I'm completely new to Wiki and in the midst of some editing controversy there.  Is there anyone here who would be willing to look over the treatment section of Tourette's and clean up any pharmaceutical gaffes I may have committed in the medication entries there?  I also came across several medications that have no entries (inversine, mecamylamine and guanfacine come to mind).  Is there another place I might make this request?  Thanks in advance!  Sandy 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomorrow i got a day off, i'll try to make inversine, mecamylamine and guanfacine pages for ya with the structures. You can create the pages yoursel by just folowing the empty links.  -- Boris 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help  - I don't know enough about the medications to create the pages myself ... there may be others missing from the Tourette syndrome page, but those are the ones I recall.  Thanks again!  Sandy 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Boris 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Boris ... appreciated!  If anyone has some time to kill and would like to have a look at the Treatment section of Tourette syndrome, I probably googed a lot of stuff, since I don't know meds that well.  Thanks again  Sandy 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - I like what you wrote -- I could say a few things about those "research purposes," and the folks who hold the patents, but it wouldn't be Wiki-appropriate :-)  Sandy 04:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just "copy/paste"-ed it from a website. So, what about this "as research tool"? Tell us. -- Boris 14:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The concern is that inversine is possibly being used in ways that have been shown ineffective by controlled studies, and with attempts to extend its usefulness.  I personally witnessed some very aggressive marketing of it to the Tourette's community via the internet.  According to some sources, most of the original research on inversine/mecamylamine was done by a group in Southern Florida who have published disclaimers that they hold patents, that appear to be related.  It appears that, in spite of controlled studies which have proven inversine ineffective as monotherapy for Tourette syndrome , it is prescribed in Florida for Tourette's.  I have not read the full study myself, but I have seen reports that it contains the disclaimer "Financial Disclosure: A.A.S., R.D.S., and P.R.S. are inventors on a patent owned by the University of South Florida, which covers the use of nicotinic receptor antagonists for the treatment of nicotine-responsive neuropsychiatric disorders. A.A.S., R.D.S., P.R.S., and D.V.S. are also scientific consultants for Layton BioScience, Inc., who owns the trade name and marketing rights to mecamylamine."  It is not clear if there is an effort to squeeze something meaningful out of the patent, but anecdotally, one encounters accounts of people from Florida who are being prescribed inversine today (almost five years since the publication of that study) for Tourette's.  Please take careful note of all of the language I've chosen -- I don't think this is entirely Wiki appropriate.  :-))  Sandy 17:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pharmaceutical review and editing help needed

message: Hydroxytropacocaine (created on 5 August 2005 by 220.238.59.123) ??? I just can't find it in any major chemical database. Yet several websites either cite this article or point to it - a, b, c, d, e, etc. WOW. They should not deal with stubs, that's for sure. This guy, John Malpass, claims that he has synthesized 1-Hydroxytropacocaine but i just can't find the article - Malpass, J.R.; Wallis, A.L. Tetrahedron, 1998 , 54 , 3631-3644. Some "search results" for Hydroxytropacocaine are pages that cite Coca (a, b, c, etc) - there Hydroxytropacocaine is mentioned among the chemical found in the coca leaf, section 1.1. Pharmacological aspects. This part of the article was added by Ddhix_2002 on  12 November 2004, i would like to aks him/her about the source but i don't think i'll get a responce as soon as i would like to. It's amazing in this case how high the percentage of the "search results" related to "Wikipedia" is. Honestly, this worries me a bit. I just hope that Hydroxytropacocaine is not a hoax. Anyone who's got acces to the academic chemical databases plz help. -- Boris 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, it doesn't appear to be a hoax.  According to the Tetrahedron paper you cited, it is found in Erythroxylum coca.  Here is a link to the abstract: . --Uthbrian (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  -- Boris 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to help! :-) --Uthbrian (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoaxes

message: I think that we should implement some sort of peer review process here, locally (that is, as part of the WikiProject Drugs), for any drug related pages that are nearing perfection. This way more featured article candidates can be produced. I don't recall ever seeing a drug related page on the Wikipedia front page as a FAC. Also, it would of course be helpful to get a wide range of input, in order to improve all articles supported by this project. Fuzzform 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: It looks to me like the WikiProject Drugs page could use some wikification. The page has no intro and a section called Title that contains only the title of the page, which is already clear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it should be cleaned up a bit. --Alberrosidus 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify?

message: The board needs scientist from a lot of different projects maybe there is one from Drug Projectto join the group. --Stone 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review]]

message: You may be interested in TGN1412 - the drug involved in the big clinical trial news story in the UK. We've got quite a lot of info but the more the merrier etc. Secretlondon 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just waving this under your noses

message: Hi, 
It's that time when my students are doing a poster project on organic chem. products, mostly pharmaceuticals, and I've noticed a serious problem with some of the drug pages that students have shown me.  If you take a look at a page like Naloxone, it looks fine on my screen.  However, when you go to "printable version" Firefox expands all of the external links and the table expands to match - this makes the table fill up the entire page.  At WP:Chem we have a strict policy of not allowing external links in the tables for this reason; if necessary we have an inline reference that takes you to an endnote that has the link.  Can you fix this problem? Cheers, Walkerma 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since i don't want to mess  up i "created" a new version, attached it to the name of an old template and tested it here. Right now all the rows with table cells that have lightblue background color are mandatory, but i can easily make them all but one (about the mass) optional. -- Boris 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it does not makes sence at first, but when we put the external links in the infoboxes (or anywhere in the main text) they screw up the printed version of the article b/c the whole address of the link (which sometimes can be few rows long) is inserted where the link is and that is very annoying. The same does not happen to the wiki links, so that's why i had to use this "redundancy" - i don't print the articles but some people do. I wish there was a better way but for now that is the only one i am aware off. -- Boris 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print problem with drug infoboxes 

message: I know that there is one more drug infobox, that includes the pharmacological info only, and when it is present it is positioned just under the main drug info box. I need this "secondary" infobox b/c i want to add its parameters to  but i can't find an article that has it (i just can't remember where i have seen it, it was few months ago). Anyone? -- Boris 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The second drug Info Box

message: There are several categories that drugs can be put into: Benzodiazepines, Sedatives, Hypnotics, Anticonvulsants, Muscle relaxants, Anxiolytics, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, etc. Some of these categories concern chemical groupings and some the function. I propose that we should clarify that drugs should only be put in a functional category if that is a current (or significant historical) indication. This indication would, of course, be mentioned in the article and supported by references. There are simply too many properties for each drug and it isn't useful to the reader to include them all. For example:
*If a drug had a side effect of causing low blood pressure, but wasn't actually used for lowering high blood pressure, it shouldn't be included in the Antihypertensive agents category.
*Many drugs have anticonvulsant properties but few are used as such. This may be because they would induce coma before being effective, are highly toxic in effective doses, are addictive, etc. As an extreme example, even aspirin could be considered an anticonvulsant (, , ).
*One area of difficulty might be the off-label or (scientific) experimental usage of a drug. Where to draw the line?
*Currently virtually all the benzodiazepines are in virtually all the possible categories, even though each is generally only indicated for one or two things. This has the effect of diluting the useful information.
The same rule should apply to the Categorization templates. However, I do wonder if they are actually useful at all. They are often very bulky and effectively just duplicate the standard category system.
Finally, I question whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/Categorization is serving any useful purpose. There are standard Wikipedia articles covering much of this information.
Colin°Talk 12:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug Categories 

message: Hi, I was looking at this article and wondered if anyone thought it was a bit biased? Is polypharmacy by definition not just taking multiple drugs? It does mention "even when all prescribed medications are clinically indicated but there are too many pills to take" - I still think that is biased as the definition of 'too many pills' depends on the patient's views. 
JFW made a comment on the talk page about this subject that polypharmacy is not always "too much" and I agree. With regards to the section on potential interactions, what about positive, synergistic effects? I agree polypharmacy is often negative but I think the tone of this article is a bit strong and doesn't mention any cases in which it may be desirable or necessary.
Does anyone agree with me and want to make it more balanced? If not then I'll change it myself sometime. I'm just new though so I'd be happier if someone more experienced gave it a go.
:Hi Linberry, go ahead and make whatever changes you think are appropriate. I'm sure that at least a few of us have that page on our watchlists. By the way, you can sign and datestamp your posts with four tildes (~~~~). -Techelf 12:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polypharmacy (again)

message: Interesting new drug. Have a look: ivabradine. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting drug indeed. JFW, would you like me to draw a high-resolution version of the structure in ChemDraw? -Techelf 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the article, v good, the one thing that confused me was the I(f) channel? Don't know much about cardiac stuff and can't find it on Google. What sort of ions does it conduct? Would be interested to know. Any chance of expanding on that in the article? Berry 21:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might want to search for "funny channels" or "funny current"... there is some info about it in the article Cardiac pacemaker. --Steven Fruitsmaak 15:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone has added some extra stuff to the article about this - that's a real improvement. Berry 18:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivabradine 

message: Pitavastatin. The world will not be running out of statins for a while. JFW | T@lk 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord, may rivaroxaban not suffer the fate of ximelagatran. As a hospital doctor I'm starting to hate warfarin. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitavastatin 

message: I have created  and the accompanying category :Category:Redirects from brand names.  Information on the suggested scope and usage are found at Template talk:R from brand name. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'R from brand name' template 

message: I have a question for an editor. The article on Isotretinoin contains a lot of unlinked side effects. Are these actually needed? I cleaned up the article here. Thoughts? -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a quick glance over the list and it seems to just list every single possible adverse effect associated with isotretinoin. So in that regard, no I don't find it a very useful box to have there since the adverse effect information in the main text seems to be more useful. -Techelf 07:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Isotretinoin]] question 

message: At Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine, there is a template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions used to help standardize the layout of the pages. Is there something similar for this project? If not, would anyone here be interested in collaborating to create one? A good place to start might be to identify articles which have most of the needed headers in a logical order, and work backwards from there. --Arcadian 14:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The LSD article would be a good candidate for having most of the needed headers in a logical order to create a template from.  (BTW, we could also use a template for drug class articles... i.e. sedative, stimulant, etc) --Thoric 14:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page format

message: Currently User:Prisonnet are discussing whether or not it is appropriate to include ATC codes in the navigation templates. Comment from interested parties is welcome at 2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates. --Arcadian 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ATC codes

message: The psychoactive drug article is a central hub to a fair number of drug articles (close to 100 now), and seeing as the chart itself was previously nominated as a featured picture candidate, and just recently someone nominated the article as a featured article candidate, I think the time has come to try to get the article polished and up to snuff.  While I realize a lot of owness is on me to add more references for the chart itself, the rest of the article could use some work, and I could certainly use some feedback on item placement within the chart.  --Thoric 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychoactive drug page needs your help