From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Atypical Opioids[edit]

Tramadol is an atypical opioid (reference). I feel that this deserves a mention in the first paragraph, i.e.; "Tramadol ... is a centrally acting, atypical opioid analgesic used to treat moderate to moderately severe pain." Thoughts?

(Psychonaut25 - 13375p34k / C0n7r1b5 04:43 AM EST, 15 October 2013 (UTC))
I so agree! That not only deserves mention I think it deserves its own paragraph in the lead. Fuse809 (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation style[edit]

In this edit:

  • A mixture of citation styles that was replaced by a single consistent style.
  • In an older version of the article shows a clear preference for the Vancouver system author style. According to WP:CITEVAR, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. The above edit restored that predominate style.
  • The use of a single author parameter to store multiple authors in the {{cite journal}} has long been accepted and has not been deprecated. Furthermore the Vancouver system is specifically mentioned in {{cite journal}} documentation.
  • The coauthor parameter has been deprecated and the above edit replaced several occurrences of this parameter with a single author parameter.
  • The journal abbreviations in the above edit follow the system used by the National Library of Medicine and PubMed.

The above edit was reverted with the justification that the edit is a violation of WP:CITEVAR. Quite to the contrary, I believe that the above edit is completely consistent with CITEVAR as it restored the originally established citation style. Hence I propose to restore the the above edit. Is there consensus to revert the reversion? Boghog (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1#What's the point?. This article didn't use the Vancouver system, it used a hybrid system that used some features from Citation Style 1 (quote marks around journal article titles, italics for books and journal titles) and some from Vancouver (separating author names with commas, writing author names as "Jones J" rather than "Jones, J.". The documentation for {{tl}cite journal}} mentions the Vancouver system, but does not describe it correctly. None of the other cite xxx templates that I can find mention Vancouver. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This article didn't use the Vancouver system – an earlier version did and according to WP:CITEVAR, the originally established citation style does matter.
  • None of the other cite xxx templates that I can find mention Vancouver – irrelevant. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • but does not describe it correctly – Fixed in this edit. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The earlier version mentioned by Boghog did not use the Vancouver system. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
It did use an Vancouver system author style. Boghog (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This stripping of journal names down to impenetrable crap like Expert Opin Pharmacother, and author names into run-together gibberish like "Jones HB, Smith TE, Garcia XJ", has to stop. This is not your journal, and WP certainly does not have to follow the excessively compressed and jargonistic style preferred by the journals you read. See the essay WP:Specialist style fallacy for an analysis of why attempts to impose on Wikipedia some style quirk from specialist publications is usually both a bad idea and a failure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not your journal either. Are you suggesting that we repeal WP:CITEVAR? And why is "Jones, H.B.; Smith, T.E.; Garcia, X.J." necessarily better than "Jones HB, Smith TE, Garcia XJ"? The later is much cleaner and easier to read. Boghog (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
With respect to the author format, the WP:specialist style fallacy, does not apply. IMHO, the Vancouver author format is more readable for both specialist and non-specialists. It is also easier for non-specialist editors. Hence I believe that the KISS principle is far more relevant in this context. Boghog (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Finally the journal name abbreviations is a side issue. I have restored the full journal names in this edit. Boghog (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

On stuffing multiple authors into '[co]authors='[edit]

Both of you seem to be abusing the coauthor/authors parameter. Why not break out each author into last-first parameters? E.g.:

|last1= Raffa |first1=  RB
|last2= Buschmann |first2=  H
|last3= Christoph |first3=  T
|last4= Eichenbaum |first4=  G
|last5= Englberger |first5=  W
|last6= Flores |first6=  CM
|last7= Hertrampf |first7=  T
|last8= Kögel |first8=  B
|last9= Schiene |first9=  K
|last10= Straßburger |first10=  W
|last11= Terlinden |first11=  R
|last12= Tzschentke |first12=  TM

Is this just too much trouble? Or is there some other reason? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The coauthor parameter is deprecated while a single author parameter is not. Why use verbose "first1, last1, first2, last2" parameters? To generate metadata that no one uses? The use of verbose author parameters overwhelms the wikitext making it harder for editors to locate and edit the text. The purpose of the citations is to support the prose, not the other way around. Boghog (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe the 'author=' parameter is intended mainly for cases (such as corporate or group authorship) where 'first/last' is not appropriate. To use it as a replacement for 'coauthors=' is just a way of getting around the ban on the latter. If reducing verbosity is the highest priority, then why bother using templates at all? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The templates save space by providing doi, pmc, and pmid links and also insure consistent formatting. Hence using a single author parameter (especially if there a large number of authors) within a cite template IMHO represents a good compromise between functionality, consistency, and compactness. Boghog (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, as I have stated above, the use of a single author parameter to store multiple authors in the {{cite journal}} template has long been accepted and has not been deprecated. Boghog (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I am for consistency. As long is this is the same format the cite template generate in the edit bar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So verbosity is not an overriding consideration in whether to use templates, and the trade-off with other factors is somewhat a matter of personal taste. Okay. I think this use of the 'author=' parameter is bad practice, not justified by long use, but probably not worth debating. ~ 20:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Tramadol has been recently found in a South African tree."[edit]

this needs to be rephrased at least bc Tramadol is a trade name not scientific name. (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Tramadol isn't a brand name, it's the generic name, hence it's also a scientific name. It is the name set by several medical associations including: the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the British Pharmacopoeia and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Plus if you have this attitude and maintain that tramadol still isn't a scientific name and rather favour a chemical name then we might as well rename the whole article by its chemical name. Which as per WP:PHARMMOS and WP:CHEMMOS we do not do and hence I fail to see why we should do so for this one sentence. Brenton (talk|email) (I automatically watch all pages I edit) 18:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
What attitude did the poster have? He/she posted a statement that was in error but thought it was correct so brought it up in the talk section. I'm not sure why you need to get defensive about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal Status[edit]

Removed, "Similarly, unlike opioid analgesics, tramadol is not currently scheduled as a controlled substance by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. However, it is controlled in certain states", from Australia paragraph in the "Legal Status" section because it makes no sense to mention the DEA and USA laws in the Australia paragraph. The paragraph preceding the above mentioned paragraph talks about USA laws in regards to Tramadol, including the DEA's recent announcement to actually federally schedule Tramadol as a Schedule 4 controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. The states that have already scheduled Tramadol have been mentioned in the paragraph preceding the Australia paragraph and mentioning it again in the Australia paragraph is not only redundant, but doesn't belong in a paragraph about Australia's Tramadol laws. User "Boghog" has undone my above change, so I discussed my change here and will undo his action to revert my work. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDSandPOTSY (talkcontribs) 07:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone update the status of the patents on the drug? Its a couple months past the May 2014 date so unless something happened to extend the patent which it seemed to be going the other way (moving forward the date the patent is expired) then it is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)