Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/Archive 2

message: Hello!
I would appreciate some of the participant of this projects to take a look at this: it's a part of the newly proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) on drug articles.
thx, --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 08:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing drug articles 

message: This article is notably missing the duration of the drug's effects.72.81.21.248 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methamphetamine 

message: One editor has claimed on Talk:Mifepristone that the Mifeprex product label found on the FDA site(PDF) is not copyrighted. I asked for further information and didn't get any, so I am coming here to see if anyone knows about the copyright status of these labels. It would make sense that if it was a government job, then the work would be in the public domain like most US government work. However, if Danco labs is the creator of the label, the copyright might be a stickier issue. Text from the label was "plagarized" into the article, and I changed the text to be cited quotations. Anyway, any information will help.--Andrew c 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking help regarding copyright of product label 

message: Is there a "preferred" stub template to be used on drug articles? I am actually specifically referring to Template:Pharma-stub versus Template:Treatment-stub; there appears to be a mess of cross-usage of these two, which results in many drug stubs not falling into the Pharmacology stubs category. I'd personally rather use pharma-stub, but that's just me. Maybe both should be used? Anyway, if there's a consensus, I'd sure like to know :) Fvasconcellos 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Pharma-stub for drugs, but don't also use treatement-tub as all pharmcology is a treatement. is it not ? (treatment also includes sub-category of surgical and psychology interventions). David Ruben  Talk  22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think it should be only pharmastub. Why isn't there a drug-stub?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. I'll start switching treatment-stub on drug stubs to pharma-stub... As usual, if anyone has any objection to this, please don't hesitate and bend my ear... Fvasconcellos 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No seriously, why isn't there a drug-stub? This project should propose one.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pharma-stub is now not exclusively for drug articles but also lists people, technical terms, although the medications dominate the category. I think drug-stub could be a real addition, although, as suggested to me by Fvasconcellos: "if created, it should probably be medication-stub; drug carries the negative meaning of recreational drug for most people.".--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred stub category/template 

message: Is it ok if I do this? If you like the shortcut, copy-paste it onto the project page. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  shortcut WP:DRUGS 

message: Maybe after that recent discussion about NavBoxes, it's time to clean up :Category:Drug navigational boxes ?  is a bit silly no? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup required 

message: Any chance someone (expert-ish) could give Benzodiazepine a going over? It has just undergone some serious editing by an anon, much of which appears unsourced. Colin°Talk 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benzodiazepine 

message: I've expanded Phenobarbital, a key drug that was just a stub article, in the areas that I'm able to handle. I'd really appreciate an expert come in to take over the rest, following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Main sections of drug page and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)#Sections - medications. Thanks. Colin°Talk 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I am no expert, I have added to the "Overdose" and "Pharmacology" sections, and done some minor copy editing. Hope my edits can be helpful.Fvasconcellos 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much, your edits have been very helpful and appreciated. There are more sections to do. Can I urge others to contribute too. This is one of the most important drugs worldwide – it shames Wikipedia to see it incomplete. Colin°Talk 08:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenobarbital 

message: I've tagged ATC G03 for proposed deletion. Since we already have ATC code G03, can anyone think of any reason why it should be kept? Fvasconcellos 19:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've turned it a redirect -- I doubt anyone would object. --Arcadian 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATC G03 

message: The project page declares intent to expand all stubs within the project's scope, but doesn't actually say what those actually are:  I'm assuming everything in  (at least)?  Note also that this stub type is currently oversized, so if anyone has any input on how to split it up...  Alai 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub types 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDMOS]] needs YOU! 

message: Things may get interesting in cardiology when dronedarone will eventually hit the shelves. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dronedarone 

message: This article could use with some expansion. If a German-speaking contributor could have a look at the German version, that would be great – it seems to be more complete (could be my mistake though, I speak no German whatsoever). Fvasconcellos 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lapatinib]] 

message: For those interested, there has been a suggestion to merge Miotic with Miosis. -AED 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I've just added a small section/diagram to the teicoplanin article concerning its structure. At the moment it doesn't quite "sound right" to me, and I would appreciate some external copy editing/criticism. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teicoplanin 

message: Have a look, please. PAC-1 is new and falls more into the drug business I think.--Stone 17:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's somewhat POVish right now, and there are some style concerns, but I believe it's notable enough to keep, and could be pretty promising. Fvasconcellos 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PAC-1

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Hello! Not all that aware of WikiProject Drugs, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology. While pharmacology and drugs are two different things (drugs are specific objects, and pharmacology is the study of organisms reacting with objects), the two projects have the same essential goals. As someone said, there is going to be serious overlap. I was thinking that this project could merge with the pharmacology project to form "WikiProject Pharmacology and Drugs," since they both have similar goals yet the topic of drugs is more specific than pharmacology. Or this project could be considered a subproject of the pharmacology one... let's all decide. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 17:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree, Colin, but if it came down to choosing one name I would support WikiProject Pharmacology. If we start "taking responsibility" for articles such as GABA receptor and CYP3A4 (just examples off the top of my head)—topics which are fundamental to pharmacology but not "drugs" per se—WikiProject Drugs would no longer be the most appropriate name IMHO. Fvasconcellos 13:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with that, Fvasconcellos. There are arguments for/against both names and a choice often involves a compromise. The "WikiProject Drugs and Pharmacology" name is my least favourite due to duplication/redundancy. BTW: I'd prefer this reformatted back to a discussion, not a vote. Colin°Talk 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reformatted. Fvasconcellos 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Boris, I'm sorry for not notifying you—I started leaving notes on Talk pages and stopped when I realized some participants might consider it spamming. Do you think it would be a good idea to notify everyone individually? Fvasconcellos 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with individually notifying project members about significant project changes (much like a real-world organisation would be obliged to do). The 2/3 of members requirement is too high since lots of members are only occasionally active. However, there's no rush and this is still holiday season. Leaving it a few more days won't do any harm. Colin°Talk 09:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. No deadline, right? Fvasconcellos 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If we end up choosing the name "Pharmacy and Pharmacology", that raises a new issue. Are you sure that name isn't redundant? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Keep it simple. I doesn't matter if the project extends into disciplines beyond the strict definition of the word. Pharmacology will do. And before we create lots of taskforces, we'd better find some volunteers because this isn't the most active of Wikiprojects. Colin°Talk 14:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree—let's keep it simple, both the project name and structure. Most of our members are active primarily in other projects such as WP:CLINMED and WP:CHEMISTRY; taskforces may be both necessary and useful in highly active and organized projects such as WP:MILHIST, but here, for the moment, I think they'd just make things more complicated. Fvasconcellos 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Industrial processes and technologies" part can easily be covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering. I don't see any worries with making the articles complicated as they should provide information about the synthesis of the drugs as well. -- Boris 13:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Pharmacology 

message: Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to the proposed merge, I propose that these are the conditions to the merge:
* WikiProject Drugs and WikiProject Pharmacology merge and take the name of the latter.
* Members of WikiProject Drugs become members of WikiProject Pharmacology.
* Using my AWB bot, the WikiProject Drugs template will be replaced with the WikiProject Pharmacology template.
* Luckily, there are no conflicts in hierarchy. We can simply merge the existing hierarchy of WikiProject Drugs with the assessment system of WikiProject Pharmacology.
* While the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs page would be redirected to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology page, the subpages of WikiProject Drugs can simply be pagemoved to their respective titles under WikiProject Pharmacology.
Please evaluate and see if they are appropriate. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boris, I'm sorry for not notifying you—I started leaving notes on Talk pages and stopped when I realized some participants might consider it spamming. Do you think it would be a good idea to notify everyone individually? Fvasconcellos 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with individually notifying project members about significant project changes (much like a real-world organisation would be obliged to do). The 2/3 of members requirement is too high since lots of members are only occasionally active. However, there's no rush and this is still holiday season. Leaving it a few more days won't do any harm. Colin°Talk 09:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. No deadline, right? Fvasconcellos 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge conditions

message: about the merge suggession between Pharmacology Project and Drugs project .. I fully support that and I suggest that the name becomes Project Pharmacy and Pharmacology ... so it will takes cares about three related topics .
we can create three taskforces :
* Pharmaceutics taskforce
* Pharmacology taskforce
* Drugs and Medications taskforce .
--Chaos 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we end up choosing the name "Pharmacy and Pharmacology", that raises a new issue. Are you sure that name isn't redundant? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Keep it simple. I doesn't matter if the project extends into disciplines beyond the strict definition of the word. Pharmacology will do. And before we create lots of taskforces, we'd better find some volunteers because this isn't the most active of Wikiprojects. Colin°Talk 14:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree—let's keep it simple, both the project name and structure. Most of our members are active primarily in other projects such as WP:CLINMED and WP:CHEMISTRY; taskforces may be both necessary and useful in highly active and organized projects such as WP:MILHIST, but here, for the moment, I think they'd just make things more complicated. Fvasconcellos 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Industrial processes and technologies" part can easily be covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering. I don't see any worries with making the articles complicated as they should provide information about the synthesis of the drugs as well. -- Boris 13:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Merge Issue

message: Could someone please look into this. The article Methylenedioxymethamphetamine uses a less standard box, it's more manual, and quite cumbersome. I'm not too familiar with boxes in general, but it needs to get changed to the easier standard. Hah, this would take me hours... perhaps someone more gifted could make the change. Thanks!
PS: I'm not sure the drugbox for lsd is larger than the width it is supposed to be, 300px. --x1987x(talk) 04:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to try and clarify - is the request to convert the box into Template:Drugbox ? David Ruben  Talk  05:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The article needs some serious cleanup, though. Fvasconcellos 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - much easier on the eyes! Needs a cleanup crew :/ --x1987x(talk) 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert MDMA "synChemBox" into a normal drugbox 

message: Question: should articles on medications intended solely for animal usage get Drugboxes as well? Dirlotapide is making some waves in the lay press, and I was about to add a Drugbox to it when I wondered. Any opinions? Fvasconcellos 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirlotapide 

message: There seems to be some weirdness associated with the above term. I'm not sure though if I'm knowledgeable enough to untangle it. Right now, it redirects to Regulation of gene expression which is fine and good when we're talking about genes. However, hormone up and down-regulation only gets a one-line mention. When I think of downregulation, I think of the hormone or neurotransmitter regulation loop (see Receptor (biochemistry)#Receptor Regulation). A lot of the GnRH (ant-)agonist articles are linking to Downregulation where they probably shouldn't.
Thoughts? - Alison✍ 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alison, IMHO both links (up- and down-regulatino) should not be redirects; I'm thinking a disambiguation page might be in order. I'm wary of making any changes myself though, perhaps the folks over at WP:MCB can provide some insight and further opinions. BTW the Regulation of gene expression article concerns me as well, it seems to be in need of some cleanup. Fvasconcellos 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Downregulation]] 

message: This guy is very suspicious. His "main text" edition on some "opioids"-related articles are very odd to me, and he keeps adding links to palliative care, he either doesn't know what he's doing or he's just "f"-ing around. I reverted two of his edits in Heroin. Maybe we should ask him to explain how to dissolve 1kg(=1000mg) of heroin in 1ml of water??? I would like that someone who is familiar with the opioids material checks his work. -- Boris 01:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just misguided. BTW isn't 1000 mg=1 gram? :o) Fvasconcellos 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops. :). Lol. Yet, even that seems kinda high considering heroin's structure, but i might be wrong here as well. If i knew the opioids better i would definitely check his work. -- Boris 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I'm not that familiar with opioids :D so I'll leave that to another editor... Some of his/her edits to palliative care are IMHO coming close to agenda pushing though, definitely something to keep our eyes on. I will, however, keep my good faith and my distance until he/she crosses the line. Fvasconcellos 14:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Claud Regnard]]

message: Hi! Some assistance is needed on the talk page for the Paracetamol article. Yesterday an anon modified the article to say that paracetamol did not have a narrow therapeutic index, and when I reverted that edit, he E-mailed me (!) to argue the point. (Note that I'm no authority on this subject; I reverted the edit because [1] it was an edit to a longstanding FA, and [2] it was unsourced.) At that point I posted a note on the talk page about the issue; he has now responded. Someone who can answer authoritatively is needed at the talk page. Thanks! --Tkynerd 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Paracetamol]] 

message: There is currently a discussion regarding the definition of "psychedelic drug" as it is used in Wikipedia right now, to define a specific group of drugs. The counter-argument is that psychedelics can be used to describe a larger set of drugs, including dissociatives. I invite all interested parties to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants#Categorization dispute. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychedelics vs. dissociatives 

message: I've created a userbox for WikiProject Drugs. It can be found here: User:Fuzzform/Userboxes/WikiProject Drugs, or you can just insert  in your list of userboxes. It's probably in the wrong place, as this is the first time I've made a userbox, so feel free to move it (as long as you say so on this page). Fuzzform 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for such a userspace-based userbox - it is still permissable (as far as I am aware) for projects to have a userbox, and for this project there already exists :Template:User Drugs and to use this in one's talk page just add the code:  which gives:  David Ruben  Talk  01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Per the above conversation, who at this point has any objection to me merging the two projects under the name "WikiProject Pharmacology" and then merge everything under that name appropriately? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me :) Fvasconcellos 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I say go for it! - Alison✍ 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no one opposes by midnight Monday (UTC), then I will go ahead and do the merge myself. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing the merge