Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

ATC code additions

An IP added a number of ATC codes to the lists [1] [2] that seem to be neither in the index nor in the 2012 update list. I suppose they are discontinued/changed codes, seeing that they are in "holes" in the numbering, but I would like to have a second pair of eyes on this before I revert. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They do seem to be a part of the 2010 list (follow the links to the respective drug articles and then from the drugboxes to the external ATC site (see for example edrecolomab or basiliximab). Boghog (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This leads (for edrecolomab) to L01XC01, while the code added to the list is L03AX06. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see what you mean. Basiliximab is listed under ATC_code_L01 so the codes added by the IP do seem to be in error. Boghog (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, reverted now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Signaltransduction-stub for deletion

Nominated {{signaltransduction-stub}} for deletion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Assistance please: would someone look over some contributions?

Hello. I've noticed a user making lots of edits to pharma related links. I don't know what to make of them. Can someone check that the contributions are OK and not mischievous or misguided please? --bodnotbod (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

They look good. Fixing names to match INN. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for professional writers writing WP drug articles

Members of this project may be interested in the proposal made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Good practice procedure for Wikipedia medicine articles. -- Colin°^Talk 12:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will see if this results in anything.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Caffeine FAR

I have nominated Caffeine for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging drugbox into chembox: take 2

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discovery and Development of Renin Inhibitors

Another "Discovery and development of ..." article: Discovery and Development of Renin Inhibitors, which has been tagged for review. I haven't got the time at the moment, but maybe someone else can have a look? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

List of plants used as medicine

We can use a lot more eyes to watch over List of plants used as medicine, especially as far as sourcing of medical claims is concerned. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Large navboxes

Some of the navboxes in Category:Drug templates by receptor, channel, or pump‎ are definitely too large to be of much use in this form. Some have also large numbers of redlinks; see for example {{Opioids}}. I propose moving their content to lists (List of serotonergics etc.) and restrict the templates to the most important substances – for example, include only those that are marketed somewhere, plus widely used illegal drugs. Thoughts? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these are way too large to be useful (one should quickly be able to spot the articles own entry in the navbox so that one can easily locate the most closely related entries). One possible solution is to divide the navbox into individually collapsable subsection and by default, only display the relevant subsection in articles that transclude these templates (see for example {{Transcription factors and intracellular receptors}} and {{Ion channels}}). Boghog (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I would support removing most if not all red links. These are supposed to be navboxes and there is no point including a red link if there is nothing to navigate to. The red links should be restricted to lists. Also compounds that never made into clinic probably should be removed unless they are unusually notable research tools. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

See List of opioids which I copied from the navbox. (It is linked from the bottom of the box.) The navbox needs more pruning to become useful. Thoughts about the list? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The new list looks good. I've put it on my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Another one: List of dopaminergics. The corresponding templates need heavy pruning. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

El3ctr0nika opposed pruning of these templates and moving the full contents to list on his talk page (User talk:El3ctr0nika#Lists of drugs by receptor affinity). I still think the navboxes are too large to be useful, but more input would be welcome to find a consensus. Thanks. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline's view on this topic is: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think many of the templates mentioned above because of their size definitely fall in the "hard to read and use" category. Hence I think pruning of many of these navboxes is in order. However I think the need to trim {{dopaminergics}} is less urgent since it makes use of collapsible subsections. Boghog (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Psilocybin ...

... is a high-importance article for the Pharmacology WikiProject. I'd like to bring it to FAC status, and have opened a peer review here. I welcome any comments/criticisms/advice that would help make the article better. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1,4-diazepans

Category:1,4-diazepans has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin K dosing

Vitamin K#Vitamin K2 (MK4) and bone health states that 45 mg/d (sic) of vitamin K2 were used for the treatment of osteoporosis in the study PMID 15664003, which also says milligrams. Can anyone verify whether this isn't a typo and should be µg? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is correct, 15 mg three times daily. [Glakay prescribing information]Alfaschz (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the link! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New study on the quality of articles about statins

A new article in the Journal of the Medical Library Association assesses the quality of five Wikipedia articles on statins: "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: an assessment"

Similar to an earlier study that I (HaeB) noted above some months ago, we would like to feature a review or summary of this article in the upcoming issue of the monthly Wikimedia Research Newsletter, which doubles as the "Recent research" section of the Signpost. Is there anyone who would like provide such a review? The issue is going to be published on Monday, and until Sunday evening (UTC) additions are welcome to the draft page at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-31/Recent research (also for other papers listed there). Check the previous issues to get an idea of the format.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up... I found it interesting that they faulted Wikipedia for not discussing other treatment options. These are pages about medications not the complete management of individual conditions. We have other pages that deal with that in detail. But it is a good point expecially for statins. We should discuss that these are only to be used after other measures have failed. Will fix this :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pharmacology class to hopefully come and edit

There is a pharmacology class who may be improving Wikipedia as a classroom assignment. I will give people here a heads up when things are finalized. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin D

I have recently replaced a bunch of primary research studies with reviews at Vitamin D. Could people come comment on these changes. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

nab-paclitaxel vs Protein-bound paclitaxel vs Abraxane

Not sure what the official status is, but nab-paclitaxel seems a bit more widespread as generic name than protein-bound paclitaxel, should not the article be renamed? Richiez (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

Doc James has proposed to change our Top level criteria (Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Assessment#Importance scale) to "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to pharmacology. Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Less than 1% of pharmacy-related articles achieve this rating." I agree that the current criteria are sub-optimal, especially as they wrongly assume that only drugs and drug classes have WP:PHARM articles. Thoughts? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wondering if we should have an "assessment department"? Publications are looking at how we categorize both by importance and by quality thus we should try our best to keep things reasonable and applicable to our audience. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the criteria for top-level importance should be tweaked, and many of the current members should be rerated down a level or two. Aiming for > 1% of the wikiproject's total # of articles sounds about right. Sasata (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How about we put in place something more similar to what is at WP:MED? [3] It spells out what to do for template etc. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, before I saw this thread, I modified two of the reassessments Doc James had made (Receptor (biochemistry) and Neuropharmacology). I think part of the issue can be resolved by recognizing that there is a "high importance" level, below "top importance", but above "mid importance". Also, it seems to me that the assessments ought, properly, to be relatively trivial tools used internally by WikiProject editors to help determine where editing might be needed. It's a misunderstanding for external publications to seize upon these rankings as though they were some sort of cosmic indicator of whether, for example, one drug is more important than another in Wikipedia's exalted opinion. Of course it's an understandable misunderstanding, and we can't stop them from doing it. But that doesn't mean we should take marching orders from them either. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

When we determine importance however we should IMO base this on how important our readership would consider a topic rather than how important we as either physician/pharmacists/research scientists consider it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's hard to find fault with that. But I can remember lots of times when I've seen IP comments on talk pages saying "I can't believe X isn't top importance! You only have it as mid importance! How can you say this isn't more important!" I guess I'd say that we should direct our editing efforts with an eye to what our readership cares about, and that our internal rankings should reflect that. And, anyway, these assessments are only inside baseball, not something that matters anywhere near as much as the content itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

True agree. With respect to top importance article I see these being primarily drug classes like SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics as well as common meds like ASA and nitroglycerin. Things of world wide significance as well as clinical importance. Here we have a list of the top 20 meds [4]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

One way to defuse that is to rename "importance" to "priority". People are generally less offended by "This subject is not my first priority" than by "This subject is not important". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be a Wikipedia wide change. (It needs modifying {{WPBannerMeta}}, for a start.) I think it's a good idea and would support it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Same here I think it would deal with a lot of the confusion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Chemical structure mass deletion

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_November_27#All_files_in_category_Unclassified_Chemical_Structures might interest some of you. I haven't really made sense of it myself. On the one hand, some people seem to be saying that these are all low-quality images for which better ones exist, and on the other hand, someone is talking about how he'll eventually create high-quality versions of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Narcotics for discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 30#Category:Narcotics. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding the drug box to vitamins

Should we do this and is there any reason why it is not already done? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Which ones exactly? Vitamin E and vitamin K are about groups of chemicals with vitamin E/K activity, and the other pages I've checked to have drug-/chemboxes. If you find any missing ones, please feel free to add them. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Those and vitamin D. We have created a box for families of chemicals as seen here SSRI--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yes, I guess those vitamins would qualify as drug classes and could profit from {{drugclassbox}}es. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Marking all Essential meds as Top Importance

I propose that all medications that are listed here by the WHO be listed as top importance. List_of_World_Health_Organization_Essential_Medicines Comments? They add up to about 350 in total. [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Pharmacology Assessment Scale, major classes of drugs (e.g., penicillin) should be listed as top importance while major individual drugs are listed as high importance (benzylpenicillin, the "gold standard" penicillin). If there are many commonly prescribed individual drugs within a class, they should be listed as mid importance. Hence I would support listing most of the drugs on the Who list as high importance while some (e.g., individual beta lactam antibiotics) should be list as mid importance since there are many on this list within this class. Boghog (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes so I am proposing we alter the assessment scale. We currently have 127 top importance articles [6] of which may such as NNT would not be of world wide interest.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the current assessment scale is sensible. An article about a class of drugs is inherently more important than any of the individual drugs within the class. The top importance rating should be reserved for only the most important articles (e.g., drug classes, fundamental pharmacology concepts, etc.) whereas the high importance rating is appropriate for individual drugs that are widely prescribed. Boghog (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would agree however that Number needed to treat (NNT) is probably not of top importance. Boghog (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Pharmacology is defined as the study of drug action. Hence the scope of this project is wider than the sum of individual drugs. Furthermore the vast majority of drugs have analogs that work though essentially the same mechanism of action and consequently drugs within the same class are often interchangeable. Hence the importance of any one drug within in a class, no matter how widely it is prescribed, is less than the drug class. Boghog (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• While we are at it, I also think it is important to agree on what constitutes a core pharmacology topic. For example, concepts such as pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, ADME, and receptor IMHO are fundamental to pharmacology and therefore should be rated as top importance. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Can’t agree more; you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Somehow I missed reading the assessment discussion above which is obviously very relevant to this thread. I largely agree with the proposed changes to the "top level criteria" with the following observations and caveats:

• Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. – I would hope that core topics such as pharmacokinetics (what the body does to the drug) and pharmacodynamics (what the drug does to the body) would be of strong interest to non-professionals as well as professionals. However if this wording were used to exclude rating pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics as top importance articles, then the wording needs to be changed so that the interests of both professionals and non-professionals are taken into account.
• Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. – This wording implies that drug classes but not individual drugs should be listed as top importance.
• Less than 1% of pharmacy-related articles achieve this rating. – There are currently ~ 7800 articles in the pharmacology articles. The 350 WHO Essential Medicines list represents (350/7800)*100 = ~4% of the pharmacology articles. Hence even rating a fraction of this list as top importance would seem to be excessive.

To reiterate, I think the drugs on WHO Essential Medicines list are very important, but for the reasons stated above, I think they are more appropriately rated as "high" instead of "top" importance. Boghog (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Broken links to FDA’s website

Hi!
2½ years after FDA redesigned their website we still have many broken links in articles. Some of them have been corrected, a few tagged with {{deadlink}}, but most lead into electronic nirvana. Have a look at two archives from 2009: here and at WP:MED. Feel free to jump in and document your fixes at User:MastCell/FDA_links (also a good entry point to note which articles might have dead references). Alfie↑↓© 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The header of your page seems to say we have to replace every occurrence of "http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/" with "http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/", leaving the rest of the addresses alone; which could easily be done with AWB. What about the links below, is there a simple rule how they should be replaced? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It seems so. But note that links in the FOI-section are just a minor part of the broken ones. Concerning the other links: I haven’t been able to see any pattern. Many files follow the new ‘UCMXXXXXX.YYY’ terminology, but the site’s structure is totally different. Sometimes there is a redirect in place (especially warning letters), but leading not to the one you are aiming at but only to an overview of the year. :-( Alfie↑↓© 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pity. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My experience is that it was really annoying to correct most of the links. Perhaps we should ask MastCell to generate an updated list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:AIDS Compounds

Is there any reason to be using a separate template, {{AIDS Compounds}}, for this class of drugs? All other drugs use {{drugbox}}. ChemNerd (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 12#Template:AIDS Compounds. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason seems to be the NIAID-AIDS parameter, which is obviously intended to link to NIAID ChemDB, a data base of the NIH [7]. Can we establish consensus whether we want this link included in the drugbox? It is notable? Does it contain useful information? Do we risk table creep? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NIAID-AIDS parameter in the drugbox

• Support – Gryphon Scientific manages the ChemDB for the US NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. The database is a purely informational database that focuses on drugs in preclinical testing and screening phases. We thought it would be of use to the scientific community (particularly, those in the field of drug discovery) to include NIAID-ChemDB references on US/UK/EU approved/pending drugs, as it would provide direct access to a database that surveys publicly available preclinical papers relating to HIV and opportunistic infection drug development.

We understand now that forking templates are frowned upon, so we are wondering if NIAID-ChemDB reference numbers could be added to drugbox. It would not be an overly-cluttered addition, as it would only appear on a select list of drugs, and would be a useful scientific resource like any of the others in Drugbox. Any other suggestions for ways to include links to NIAID ChemDb you might have, are appreciated. If an admin would like to contact us about this, please feel free to do so. Mort459 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the "List of resources searched" on the NLM's Drug Information Portal, the NIAD ChemDB shows along with HSDB, Medline/PubMed, TOXLINE, PubChem, and ChemIDplus. Each of these six is listed as a "Detailed Summary" resource there. That would seem to argue that we should give each of them parallel treatment in the chembox or drugbox. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning these additional databases, see for example: ChemIDPlus: Linezolid:

• PubChem – already included
• ChemIDPlus – largely redundant to PubChem
• Medline/PubMed – links to PubMed articles that discuss the drug, possibly relevant
• TOXLINE – The TOXLINE database containes citations to the toxicological literature that is available under the TOXNET system. Possibly relevant.
• HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank – this is not particularly relevant to drugs

In summary, I don't think any of these links (except PubChem of course which is already included) will add much. Boghog (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mort, welcome to Wikipedia. Do you happen to know how many drugs are listed in this particular database? A parameter that's only useable on a couple dozen articles might not be so desirable an addition to the infobox, but it could be listed under WP:External links. On the other hand, if it's hundreds of drugs, then perhaps we should have it in the main drugbox rather than just the narrow one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We will begin by updating approximately 3,000 FDA approved drugs and 160 drugs currently in clinical development, and represented in the NIAID database. Once that is complete, we will identify and update other wiki pages for compounds and compound combinations also represented in the NIAID database. In the future we anticipate creating links as new promising compounds are identified. Mort459 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mort459 (talk • contribs)

>3,000 sounds like a worthwhile number of links to include in the drugbox. I noticed it is possible to query the NIAID database by CAS number (see for example 30516-87-1). Since the CAS numbers are already included in the drug box, User:BogBot could parse the drugbox for the CAS number, interrogate NIAID database for the AIDS#, and then add the populated NIAID_ChemDB parameter to the drugbox. Alternatively, if you already have compiled a mapping of the AIDS# to some data that is included in Wikipedia drug articles (e.g. INN, CAS number, PubChemID, etc.), BogBot could work with your mapping instead. Boghog (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We're currently talking about what we think the best way to do it is. We'll let you know out thoughts on the matter soon. Mort459 15:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Actually it is already implemented in the {{drugbox}}. I had included the parameter (called "NIAID_ChemDB" instead of "NIAID-AIDS") in the {{drugbox/sandbox}} with a request for comment here. No one responded to the request and I subsequently forgot about it. In the mean time, the sandbox was synced with the production version, so if the parameter NIAID_ChemDB is added to the drug box, a link to the NIAID ChemDB will be created. Boghog (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It seems that all the NIAID-AIDS parameters have been removed again, so BogBot could save a lot of time by re-adding them. The parameter NIAID_ChemDB works well on Lopinavir/ritonavir (although I'd remove the "AIDSNO:", which doesn't seem to be officially part of the id). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The "AIDSNO:" was added to be consistent with the way some of the other links are displayed (see for example the PubChem, ChEBI, and ChEMBL in the drugbox in the Zidovudine article). Boghog (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue with "AIDSNO" is that the database used to be primarily for AIDS research, but has grown in scope over the past decade to include numerous infectious agents. For now, feel free to leave "AIDSNO:" in, but we may request it is removed after discussing it further. Mort459 15:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, you have convinced me. Since the scope of the database has expanded, "AIDSNO:" should be removed. Boghog (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose NIAID-AIDS parameter in the drugbox

(no entries)

Proposed closing of discussion as "support"

With all the opinions on one side, and none against, we seem to have a consensus here, and so, unless anyone disagrees strongly, I suggest we now regard this discussion as closed, and that community consensus supports this proposal. -- The Anome (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support guys. We talked about it, and ideally we'd like the drugbox reference to appear as "NIAID_AIDS" as opposed to "NIAID_ChemDB", only because of the official name of the database. That would be preferable, if no one is opposed to that, but ultimately it is at your discretion. Mort459 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the official name is "ChemDB HIV, Opportunistic Infection and Tuberculosis Therapeutics Database" or "NIAID ChemDB" for short. Or am I missing something? Boghog (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Another name on the page is "Division of AIDS Anti-HIV/OI/TB Therapeutics Database" which clearly implies that the scope of the database is wider than HIV therapeutics. Boghog (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

While the database includes compounds that target a large range of infectious agents, the main focus behind it is HIV and opportunistic infections. A lot of infections that are not strictly opportunistic infections (meaning that they can easily infect people without HIV or a compromised immune system as well; ex. Herpes Simplex viruses), happen to be more common/deadly in immunodeficient patients. As such, while the scope of the database has certainly broadened considerably in the preceding few years, it is still maintained with AIDS, as a whole, in mind (that is to say, not only HIV, but HIV along with any infections that are dangerous to patients immunocompromised by HIV). This is our thought process behind using "NIAID_AIDS" as opposed to "NIAID_HIV" or just "NIAID_ChemDB." The decision is ultimately yours, however, and we intend to update the appropriate pages with the correct NIAID numbers either way. Mort459 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mort459 (talk • contribs)

Let's just call it "NIAID ChemDB" for now, as per the actual, apparently official, usage on the web page cited above, and get the template field active and the data into the infoboxes. We can always change the name later, if we want -- it's a simple matter to rename the parameter and change all the references using a bot, if we decide as a community to do so. -- The Anome (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree: do something now to get this resource to readers, and worry about what the perfect label would be later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

Can we consider replacing the image in the Template:WikiProject Pharmacology with this image. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the image. Not sure, though, whether it is recognisable as tablets at low resolution (see User:Anypodetos/Sandbox2). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thxx for the comment, I feel we can differaniate between pills at such resolution. Being bold, I have changed the image. Revert if you wish. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 08:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID nominated for renaming

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 22#Category:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to include model organism data

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers

So, there's a new project which may be of interest to some here. It arises out of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#UID_interface_to_Wikipedia, a proposal to make wikipedia articles available by their unique identifier - for instance by their DrugBank number. Umm. For reasons which should be all to obvious to anyone interested in computational access to information. And those two pages are all I have to show you, but I live in hope of input from you to take it all further. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tripeptide-37

I have nominated for deletion the new pharmacology-related article Tripeptide-37. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripeptide-37. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GAR of Resveratrol

An article that you have been involved in editing, Resveratrol has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

Category:Natural opium alkaloids - help needed

Category:Natural opium alkaloids is being discussed for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 15#Category:Natural opium alkaloids. Help from experts would be much appreciated. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding drug mechanism data to drug boxes

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nitrazepam

Cross-post from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Assessment:

I would suggest the article Nitrazepam be re-written by someone without such a selective dislike of nitrazepam. It reads like an amateur anti-benzo rant, and its highly selective references to pubmed articles is likely to mislead. I would downrate it to 'C', not 'B', as its overall effect is to terrify people taking this drug, not inform them. --Posted by 120.148.2.96 (talk · contribs).

I case more about the content of the article than its rating. It does seem to be overly negative to me, but I lack expertise. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding drug mechanism data to drug boxes: take 2

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)