Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Contents

Bacopa monnieri[edit]

This article got a huge amount of text added by an IP and I am not sure whether this is appropriate (it's about the pharmacological properties of this plant). It seems well sourced, but perhaps someone from this project could also have a look? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Let's just say that this plant needed some pruning. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Haha, clever Nimptsch3 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Could you have a look at this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Backlink removal[edit]

Hi, can somebody help fix the talk page of Ipratropium bromide/salbutamol? It has a backlink leading to the talk page of Ipratropium_bromide, because the software thinks it's a subpage of the latter. Thanks! Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no solution for that, to the best of my knowledge. Unless we can find a character in the charset that looks like a forward slash but isn't parsed by the wiki as a subpage. JFW | T@lk 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
One possibility would be to move Ipratropium bromide/salbutamol to Ipratropium bromide–salbutamol. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow. I just checked AC/DC and it also has the same problem. How about Ipratropium bromide+salbutamol? Or moving it to a page without the slash and using {{displaytitle}}, would that work? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That would mean changing most of the page titles in Category:Combination drugs and its subcategories, plus the links in the relevant navboxes (and modifying WP:PHARMMOS, of course). Is that worth the trouble? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, about the existing consensus for naming at PHARMMOS. Unlike the rock band, it's not clear to me that the source material, as opposed to Wikipedia, follows a convention of using the slash. To me, the slash sort of implies "or", when this is obviously a matter of "and". Personally, I prefer the n-dash over either the plus sign or the slash, but I agree that it's not very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The recognised name of these combination drugs is with a forward slash. I don't actually care what the talkpage looks like, as long as readers can find what they want. I think we need resounding consensus on this WikiProject before officially moving all pages to a title without a slash, using {{displaytitle}} and leaving behind redirects to use from the search bar.
It is just not important enough, I'm affraid. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine with me, and I agree that it's no big deal. However, it's not really the "recognized name" outside of this WikiProject, insofar as I can tell. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
So what about "amoxicillin/clavulinic acid" and "piperacillin/tazobactam"? JFW | T@lk 21:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature-based renaming[edit]

See Talk:NBOH-2C-CN where several articles are requested to be renamed using a different nomenclature -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we have info on brand names in Wikipedia articles?[edit]

I've been working on the page for Ondansetron and I'm inclined to delete the "Brand names" section, but I don't want to just commandeer the article.

First, there's a somewhat random and not at all comprehensive list of manufacturers of the drug around the world. Since fluoxetine is a pretty commonly used drug, I assume that article must be pretty solid and well-maintained, so I thought I'd just do what they did and include all the available manufacturers/brands like they did here. However, as it turns out, a similar list for ondansetron would just be massive. The fluoxetine list can't be comprehensive, then, if the list for the much less widely-used ondansetron would rival fluoxetine's. Is it really useful for an encyclopedia to have this info, then--especially if it's not comprehensive or at least not current? Here are the brands & manufacturers of ondansetron around the world:

http://www.drugs.com/international/ondansetron.html

It's insanity. Do we really need to reproduce this info in the articles? Especially since it's difficult to keep current and is easily accessible on the web. For the sake of consistency, can we just put external links to these lists at drugs.com at the bottoms of our pages?


The rest of the section is just a blurb about Baxter's approval status for manufacturing ondansetron:

On May 29, 2006, Baxter Healthcare received tentative approval[21] to market its own label of Ondansetron Injection, USP, 8 mg/50 mL and 32 mg/50 mL iso-osmotic sodium chloride solution, beginning upon expiration of GSK's patent later that year.

It seems pretty random to have info on one pharmaceutical company's FDA approval process. It's more like a news item that would have been relevant in 2006. Update: I've deleted this from the article.

So, I just want to delete the entire section. Nimptsch3 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


I don't see why having such a section is necessarily bad; on the contrary, some people might be interested in reading a drug article to learn about available brands. However, in the interest of time for the editor (and the reader), it would probably be more useful to constrain the list to medications that are currently available in different regions. If that list is too big, another constraint like the "top X brands by (some measurement factor, e.g. sales)" brands per region might make for a more feasible list size. If there's no clear way to filter a list, linking out might be best. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, those suggestions would make the list size more reasonable. Still, I'm not sure if that kind of data (e.g., top sellers) is available, or if it's wortwhile to do that kind of work and constant maintenance. Top sellers are probably in constant flux to some degree, and what's the point of an outdated encyclopedia?Nimptsch3 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit: As to your second question, if it's about the approval process for the prototype brand (first time the drug goes through the process), then it's probably worth keeping it - possibly in the history section. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I took out the bit about Baxter. It wasn't even about the prototype brand--it was just one of the [now many] available generics
I have no concerns with a brand name section at the end of the article. Only the first one or two should be mention in the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. No concerns in the sense of, you think it's a good section, or as in, those sections don't interest you? I'm inclined to just have mention of the one or two brands in the lead IMO.Nimptsch3 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am okay with people creating exhaustive lists of brand names and placing it at the end of the article. When there they should not be capitalized though. The first one or two brand names should be mentioned in the lead but not any more. English Wikipedia is used by many people in primarily non English speaking countries. We are a global encyclopedia and therefore I think we should have this global information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything above except the capitalization of brand names. Brand names are proper nouns hence following standard English grammar conventions, brand name should be capitalized. Also the convention used within the pharmaceutical industry is lower case for non-proprietary names and capitalized for proprietary brand names. Finally the difference in capitalization provides a quick visual clue to help distinguish between non-proprietary and brand names. Boghog (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry mis typed. I meant should not be bolded. They should definitely be capitalized. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to have a consensus for including brand names. Thank you for the feedback, everyone! Nimptsch3 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Is this drug notable? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We have articles on all manner of substances that are not (yet) in clinical use. There are secondary sources that support its potential use but I can't find any trials (even phase 1/2). The content could be merged into Platinum-based antineoplastic. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lists of side effects by User:Fuse809[edit]

See for example Imatinib, Axitinib, Nilotinib, Doxepin. In my opinion, such lists are practically unusable. They also are against WP:PHARMMOS ("Extract the pertinent information rather than just dumping low-level facts in a big list.") What do others think? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I pruned Imatinib since it had way too many extremely low incidence symptoms listed. Still could use a little work cutting down the size of uncommon. Otherwise, I don't think the approach is necessarily bad; it just needs to be limited to what's useful to the reader. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Many of these side effects are very low incidence. Need to focus on the common ones and delete the rest. Boghog (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of these pages that I edited were poorly referenced and written, for that matter, prior to when I edited them. The reason why I edited them the way I did was because I don't know about you's but I find it easier to find side effects in lists than in prose. The other reason is that to write about every single side effect in prose would take forever. If you want to change the adverse effects sections without reducing them to the couple of sentences they were before I edited these pages feel free. The WP:PHARMMOS mostly referred to the layout of the articles. Fuse809 (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and, btw, have a peakaboo at this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazopanib) where I've left a little adverse effect summary section. Fuse809 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just want to state that I'm not going to do anything about these (meanwhile dozens of) articles because if I would I'd just be rude and delete most of the side effects. These lists seem to contain any side effect down to and below 0.1% frequency. Not to mention the standard "Contraindicated in patients with hypersensitivity to the substance X or any of its excipients" which is not only a lawyers' claim without a scientific basis, it is also simply wrong when we are writing about, say, paricalcitol as opposed to Zemplar. Please think before copypasting. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose we move these lists to a page call "List of side effects of X". Per the MOS large lists should not be within articles. We can than put a "see also" tag at the top of the section. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have made these changes to trazodone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Maybe we should use a columns layout, but that's a minor question. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Also support. Boghog (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
What are the guidelines that would make it clear that we shouldn't have long lists of adverse effects? What are the guidelines that would make it clear that we shouldn't have wholesale copying of side effects from the product label? What's the resolution process if someone keeps reverting and putting them back in? Nbauman (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that this sort of thing belongs in a summary article, as we are not taking the time and space to explain the nuances of how to interpret these data dumps. For example, in the Fluoxetine article, Fuse has listed the following side effect incidences:
  • Headache: > 10%. The incidence of headache per the label was 22% in the treatment arm and 19% in the placebo arm, so I would think that the atrributable rate of headache was 3%.
  • Anxiety: > 10%, but its 12% in the treatment arm and 6% in the placebo arm
  • Diarrhea: > 10%, but the incidence in the treatment group was 11% and that in the placebo arm was 7%.
  • There are 24 side effects listed for which an incidence of 0.1 to 1% is given. With only 4000 or so patients in the safety database, it is not statistically possible to even determine for most of these whether the prevalence in treated patients is really greater than that in placebo treated patients. (I have no idea where this data even came from, the article contains AEs that aren't even listed in the U.S. Prescribing Information). There are an additional 32 side effects listed that have even lower or unknown incidence.
However well intention this may be, I don't think it is helpful to our readers, and in fact, it is to some extent misleading. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Explanation in prose is best IMO. These lists can go in a list article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm trying to find WP guidelines to support that position in case of disputes with well-intentioned editors. What are the links to WP guidelines that make it clear that these data dumps don't belong in the article? Can you cite a guideline and text? If not, should we rewrite the guideline to make it clear? --Nbauman (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I created an article List of Adverse Effects of Olanzapine and submitted it via the review process. I got a message saying it would likely not be reviewed for months, and resubmitted it by the regular pathway. Meanwhile the reviewed submission was immediately rejected. Would appreciate it if someone could go by and remove the "unreviewed new article" tag from the existing copy. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Lenalidomide[edit]

A bunch of IP-based editors is adding the same bunch of primary research studies as references, despite attempts to engage. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks peaceful now, but have watched that page and will chime in, RL permitting. -- Scray (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

New transclusion template[edit]

Just putting this notice here due to this being too much work for just myself.

I made a new wikilink-annotated metabolic pathway transclusion template {{phenylalanine biosynthesis}} which is applicable to a lot of articles, including several (groups) not in the template itself (e.g., trace amine, catecholamine, tyrosine hydroxylase, phenylalanine hydroxylase). It's too much work for me to customize a caption for all relevant articles that this template could be used on, so I'm just putting it here in the event anyone has any editing interest in a relevant article and cares to add it.
For technical reference, the cofactor information on all enzymes except COMT is in Dopamine#Biochemical mechanisms, the citations for the image pathways are in the commons page description, and the compounds that are off the typical "catecholamine pathway" are phenethylaminergic trace amines (TAAR1 agonists).

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks amazing. Clever tricks - using a bitmap for the pathway and annotations for the text/links. How much time did that take you? JFW | T@lk 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I spent about 2-3 hours creating and double-checking/verifying the pathway info the image and about another 2 hours making the annotation template. Making {{Annotated image 4}} took me somewhere between like 12-20 hours though - I did lots of intermittent work on it.Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit:That includes the time I spent making the documentation.Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

complexes[edit]

I came across the term complex in article Gintonin but could find no obvious place to point it. Complex is a disambiguation page which lists several specific types of complex, none of which seem to fit the bill, but there is no single article that explains in more general terms what a complex is in a chemical sense. From a layman's perspective I think that this term, or probably Complex (chemistry) needs an article of its own. I made this suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Complex and it was suggested that I include pharmacology experts too. --Derek Andrews (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SkinPro[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article SkinPro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

all the sources seem to be press releases or otherwise from this cosmeceutical company itself. There is nothing that indicates that the company is notable. I couldn't find anything independent or reliable in web searches either. See WP:CORP

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Matrixyl skin care active ingredient belong in the encyclopedia?[edit]

There was a recent addition to peptide that I and another editor reverted. However conversation with the original editor made be me read this popular press article that made me think there may be some notability to this product.

Should we instead write about Matrixyl in its own article, or as a part of skin care or cosmeceutical?

Conversation at Talk:Peptide#Beauty_products.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Paroxetine article misinterprets research, article seems to be getting hijacked by anti-paxil activists[edit]

Hi, I am not a wiki or psychopharm expert, but when reading the wikipedia page on Paroxetine, I spotted a few red flags compared to other references. Looking further I believe false statements have made their way into the page with dishonest footnote attribution. I don't know what the right response is so I'm bringing it to your attention. Again, I am not an expert so please check that I'm interpreting these papers correctly!

The second paragraph of the article on Paxil includes the following statement:

"In both adults and children the efficacy of paroxetine for depression is comparable to that of placebo."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211353

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/2004-4065b1-10-TAB08-Hammads-Review.pdf (p30)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001%2Farchpsyc.63.3.332

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/drugsafetymessage/con019472.pdf

This is a very strong claim and followed by 4 footnotes to make it look like it is well supported. But the footnotes certainly do not support this claim. Furthermore, 3 of the 4 footnotes are side-effect studies that do not measure efficacy at all, but rather suicidal behavior. Their inclusion as footnotes is dishonest, since the casual reader will assume all 4 studies back up the quote.

  1. The first footnote is a meta-study that actually shows the the drug is more effective than placebo (see the efficacy graph, all but one of the tests have paxil beating placebo) but the researchers' opinion in the conclusion suggests the major side effects may outweigh the minor benefits. It's certainly worthwhile to include this conclusion and the study is legitimate, but it's been misinterpreted - the results actually prove the opposite, the opinion in the conclusion has been mislabeled as a proven result.
  2. The second study only concerns side effects and not efficacy.
  3. The 3rd and 4th studies only cover side effects in pediatric patients and have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the medication, and nothing to do with adult testing.
  4. "

I conclude that these four references certainly do not support such an extreme claim sitting at the head of the article.

When I looked at Talk:Paroxetine, it is extremely contentious with editors accusing each other of being "shills" or promoting "spin". FWIW, there is a large anti-paxil community online which may explain why this talk page is so opinionated. This is a science article and if someone has a contrary opinion they need to accurately cite a peer-reviewed article.

Check my reading of those footnotes, it seems to me that this page needs to be locked and reviewed by an expert, the quote has been there for a while. Thank you!

50.46.158.65 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The first ref is a systematic review of both published and unpublished literature ( a key in this topic area as half of the studies go unpublished and it is typically all the negative studies which full into this group ).
This 2008 review states "Among adults with moderate to severe major depression in the clinical trials we reviewed, paroxetine was not superior to placebo in terms of overall treatment effectiveness and acceptability. These results were not biased by selective inclusion of published studies." [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! You have quoted from the result text of the abstract. I would encourage you to look at the result text of the paper's conclusion -- the abstract conclusion oddly conflates leaving the test early with failure. Here is the full conclusion:

In this systematic review of published and unpublished studies comparing paroxetine with placebo in adults with major depression, we found that the drug was not superior to placebo in terms of the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment for any reason. However, when we examined the results using specific measures of depression, we found that paroxetine was significantly superior to placebo.

The key point is that their Primary Outcome is leaving the trial early. That is the first sentence of the conclusion. Those results are in Figure 2. You can see that they are indistinguishable from placebo. The Secondary Outcome is actual change in depression scores on two psychological tests. Those results are in Figures 3 and 4 and, as noted, significantly favor paroxetine.
In the interpretation following, they note that the side effects may outweigh the benefits. But the paper does not show that the efficacy on psychological tests is equivalent between placebo and paroxetine, it shows the opposite. While the assertion that "all antidepressants are no more effective than placebo" as popularized by Irving Kirsch got a lot of mass media attention, it is not the dominant opinion of psychiatry at this point:

American Psychiatric Association President-elect Nada Stotland, MD, maintained that studies like those reviewed by Kirsch and colleagues, which compare a single drug to placebo, do not accurately reflect the way doctors prescribe antidepressants. "We know that many people who are depressed do not respond to the first antidepressant they try," she says. "It can take up to an average of three different antidepressants until we find the one that works for a particular individual. Therefore, testing any single antidepressant on a group of depressed individuals will show that many of them do not improve."

50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
With respect to "no evidence in children" we have "Ten publications, comprising a total of 2,046 patients, evaluated the efficacy of four SSRIs (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline and citalopram) in child and adolescent depression. It is noted that an additional 6 trials (with a total of 1,234 patients) were not reported by the industry because of a lack of efficacy or problematic side effects, including suicidal behaviors. Meta-analyses revealed no data supporting the use of SSRIs, except for fluoxetine." [2] Have looked at a lot of the available review articles for children and all of them are hesitant like this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This new paper looks better. The FDA currently does not recommend the use of paroxetine in adolescents. Thank you! 50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree in adults whether or not SSRIs are effective in mild to severe depression is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The overall efficacy also needs to take into account adverse effects thus "For continuous measures, the effect of paroxetine was small. However, it could be argued that concluding that paroxetine is not effective on the basis of a small mean difference may be erroneous, given that a small difference may have an important impact on a substantial number of patients.26 For dichotomous measures, we found that, for every 100 adults with depression who received treatment with paroxetine, 53 experienced a favourable response; of these, however, 42 would have had a favourable response to placebo, such that the response was attributable to paroxetine in only 11 cases. This means that physicians would need to expose 100 patients to paroxetine to provide benefit to 11. This modest effect was offset by tolerability problems, as indicated by patients who left studies because of adverse effects and by patients who reported adverse effects (even though they remained in the study)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Have clarified with "In adults while there is a small improvement in depression symptoms this appears to be balanced by an increase in adverse effects" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes look good and correctly reflect the paper, thank you. 50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Many of the pharmacology articles on Wikipedia get very little attention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sertraline[edit]

Have nominated for FAR. It is mostly supported by primary sources. This concern was brought up by Anthony months ago and has not been addressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oleptro[edit]

I just wondered if we really need an article for every pharmaceutical brand name... What is general consensus? SelfishSeahorse (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Redirected back to trazodone. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
User:SelfishSeahorse Thanks for picking this up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Resveratrol article[edit]

More eyes on the Resveratrol (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) article are needed. New editor Local4554 is repeatedly blanking material at the article without justifying his edits, and despite warnings not to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen an article this bad for a long time. It is a mess of primary research whose use is attempting to promote medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Norepinephrine[edit]

This article should have a drug box rather than a chem box IMO. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My two cents worth is that yeah, a drugbox is appropriate. Frankly I think a drugbox should be used for any compound that is either used in medicine or as a recreational drug. Fuse809 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I've converted it to a drugbox and updated the revid here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Index. That said, it needs these fields filled out (I added licence_US):
<!--Clinical data-->
| tradename = 
| Drugs.com = 
| pregnancy_US = 
| legal_AU = 
| legal_CA = 
| legal_UK = 
| legal_US = 
| licence_US = Norepinephrine
| legal_status = 
| dependency_liability = 
| routes_of_administration= 

<!--Pharmacokinetic data-->
| bioavailability =
| protein_bound =
| metabolism =
| elimination_half-life = 
| excretion = 
Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

SVG image replacement[edit]

This is my first real attempt at an svg diagram (AADC is annotated/wikilinked). Anyone have any feedback or suggestions? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A nicely improved improved diagram. I like the improved annotations. I would make directed paths a bit thicker, as they tend to disappear when the image is shrunk to thumbnail size. "Efflux" is the proper technical term, but "release" may be easier to understand for the general reader. --Mark viking (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I updated the wording and made the paths 60% thicker. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 02:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth nominating this image for WP:FP? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

NM - I ended up nominating it anyway. Wish me luck. :) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TAAR1-Dopamine neuron Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Manual of style discussion[edit]

WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMMOS do not align; a discussion is here regarding aligning them (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Ordering). --LT910001 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Following Recent changes in the WP Pharmacology pages[edit]

Rx symbol border.svg
Pharmacology recent changes
List overview · Updated: 2014-02-23 · This box: view · talk

Please see the box on the right, and risk a click. You can put the box on a page by adding

{{Pharmacology recent changes}}

See the template's page for documentation. Talks at the Template talkpage please, the development continues. Suggested for PHARM by Anthonyhcole. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones nominated for deletion[edit]

Reasoning explained at the nomination page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones Formerly 98 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

NOACs[edit]

I've been seeing the changes made by Truebreath to the articles on new anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban). So far I've not tried to interfere, but I have some worries about excessive detail, weak sourcing, and other content issues. Anyone interested in having a look? JFW | T@lk 00:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 05/03[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bemitil aka Metaprot. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the combination of copyright violation and manifest lack of notability, I don't think that it is salvageable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeking agreement about disambiguation[edit]

There is a recent article about a U.S. Navy aircraft squadron called VP-16, which at this moment is named VP-16 (U.S. Navy). It is one of about 20 articles on squadrons named "VP-nn", and the only one that isn't named just "VP-nn". I would love to be able to rename the Navy article as plain "VP-16", and include in it a disambiguation link to Etoposide. Right now, VP-16 is a disambiguation link to Etoposide, which has a disambiguation link to VP-16 (U.S. Navy). I think that doing it the other way would be what's best for all concerned, but I don't know if Etoposide people would agree. Lou Sander (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, so long as there is a hatnote to both Etoposide and to the Herpes viral protein. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 13/03[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titanocene Y. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This one has potential conflict of interest and notability problems. I have left comments there. Boghog (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Methandrostenolone[edit]

This is a pretty popular illicit steroid and is listed as high importance but the article reads like a dodgy advert. I'm gonna give it a rewrite but don't have good knowledge to improve the content. Could someone help? Testem (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Xasodfuih:

AfC submission - 20/03[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drug2Gene. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 24/03[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/N-Methylacetamide Salvinorin. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ketoprofen[edit]

Hello. Having consulted the Ketoprofen "Efficacy" section yesterday [3], I decided to rewrite it [4]. However, I see PHARMMOS does not actually contemplate this section. Maybe this sort of information should be comprised in "Medical uses"? Or maybe the project has good reason to avoid it? Some clean up needed perhaps... Cheers, 86.169.210.196 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Drug-emerging[edit]

I just discovered {{Drug-emerging}}. I'm not sure how helpful this is (we've got about 0.9 bazillion articles about experimental drugs), but maybe someone wants to use it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is already being misused. I just removed it from articles about marketed pharmaceutical drugs in which a "lack of published research" should not be an issue. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm concerned about any use of this template now. Based on the template's documentation and the way that it is currently used, I think it contradicts some of Wikipedia's core policies. It is used on articles for which there are no WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in order to justify keeping content that is based only on anonymous posts on recreational drug discussion forums. For example, this edit recently showed up on my watchlist. If an article about a new designer drug has content that cannot be referenced to reliable sources, that content should be removed based on WP:V and/or WP:RS. If "sources may fail to meet Wikipedia standards due to insufficient published research" as the template states, then no content based on those sources should be included in the article. And if there are no sources at all that meet Wikipedia standards, then the article should be deleted per WP:GNG and/or WP:V. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Nominated for deletion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Problems with Nootropic & Template:Antihyperkinetics[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#Nootropic_-_the_opposite_of_WP:MEDRS. I could use some help or even just some feedback on fixing this. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Due to two new users reverting my edits from May/June, I'd appreciate feedback on my attempts to fix the WP:MEDRS problems in this article in the Talk:Nootropic#The recent content revision and WP:MEDRS thread. Thanks - Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

endorphin and beta-endorphin[edit]

Seems like endorphin was written by a lot of lay-people who don't realize that they're writing about one particular type of endorphin instead of the group. Almost all the refs fail MEDRS. The lead called these compounds neurotransmitters before I edited it as well. I think any salvageable parts of this article should just be merged into beta-endorphin and the "endorphins" article should be converted to a {{set index}} article of endorphins. Any objections/thoughts? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 08:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Template:Neuropeptides, in the section about endorphins, we have several pages about specific, individual types of endorphins, as we should. As such, I don't really see merging Endorphin into Beta-endorphin, even though beta is certainly the most prominent type. I'd rather see the Endorphin page be rewritten according to WP:Summary style. But I very much agree with you that we have a problem with different endorphins being mixed up, page-by-page. Indeed, there is no good reason to have an infobox about POMC at the top of the beta-e page. The general endorphin page should be about the peptides as a group, without the pharmacology of individual members, and each individual page should focus only on that particular peptide (with links to the others). --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  YesY Merger complete I followed your suggested approach and moved all the beta-endorphin specific content to that page. I cut some of the sources that failed MEDRS on the page and marked some of the remaining text with appropriate templates ([medical citation needed] or [non-primary source needed]). Also listed the group of endorphins in the lead to clarify the article scope. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

FDA Approval Summaries[edit]

Example of finding FDA approval summaries using Zyvox.jpg

FDA approval summaries for new drugs can be found as described below (apologies if this is common knowledge).

I've found these useful because they typically contain varying amounts of detail not present in published accounts of the trials, because the sponsor is required to include all existing clinical data in the NDA whether published or not, and because they contain some independent analysis/criticism of the trial design and sponsor's interpretation of the data. Though the quality of this analysis varies, it typically includes at least an independent statistical analysis with some sensitivity analysis and a detailed discussion of the more serious AEs. These are mostly available for drugs approved post 1990 or so.

  • Go to the Drugs@FDA website and type the drug name into the search box (example I'll use here is linezolid). You can use either the brand name or the generic name here.
  • If, as in the present example, you get a list containing both brand names and USAN (generic) names, click on the brand name. (The USAN link will be for an ANDA, and will not contain an approval summary).
  • Click on Zyvox. This gets you to a table of different formulations of the drug. Each has an associated NDA number.
  • Click on the lowest NDA number (earliest application). This brings up a page which gives you a number of choices including "Label Information", "Approval history....." and "Other important information...."
  • Click on "Approval history, letters, reviews and related documents. This takes you to a historical list of regulatory actions, including the original approval and the history of changes to the drug label.
  • Going to the earliest date, for more recently approved drugs (post-1990), one will usually find an approval summary. Clicking takes you here where you will find a bunch of PDF documents. Clinical data review is found in the one entitled "Medical Review", preclinical data, typically including animal and in vitro carcinogenicity, toxicology, reproductive toxicololgy, and the like is usually in the Pharmacology Review.

Leaflet For Wikiproject Pharmacology At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Isotretinoin[edit]

There has been some disagreement regarding some edits to the Isotretinoin article, some of which is MEDRS related. I was wondering if we could get some more eyes on this and some input on the article Talk page. The discussion to date on the article talk page begins with the section entitled Edits of "May 10-17 2014" Many thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 03/06[edit]

Draft:U-47700 (drug). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Propose to merge two Salvinorin articles[edit]

…that are virtually identical (EOM- and MOM- derivatives). Please have a look here, [5], and pardon formatting. This is my first hosting of a merger discussion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Robitussin DAC[edit]

It appears that someone merged Robitussin with Robitussin DAC over a year ago. I completely support the merger of the information from both articles; however, the final article should eventually get moved back to Robitussin. Granted most of the content currently in the article refers to the codeine preparations, we should add more info (besides pop culture) about the more common and available dextromethorphan preparations. Once the article includes plenty of facts about all of Robitussin's well-known drug varieties and the company in general instead of their codeine syrups and DXM's media presence, we can fittingly rename it Robitussin.

We can move this discussion to Talk:Robitussin DAC as well if you guys want; I just posted in WikiProject Pharmacology to gain some publicity for my cause.

Forgive me if I didn't follow the standard procedure here; I haven't been editing as much as I used to and I'm a little rusty on Wikipedia etiquette. —Reelcheeper (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Improve readability and information on Desiccated thyroid extract wikipedia page[edit]

I would like to make improvements to the desiccated thyroid extract wikipedia page Desiccated_thyroid_extract. From using the product and surface level research, I would like to work on the following: 1) restructuring the page 2) adding additional information, 3) adding/finding citations to support new and existing information and 4) rewriting content for readability and clarification. Since I am new to making these types of edits, I would appreciate any assistance with any of the above. Would anyone be willing to collaborate with the research? Thank you!

Presto808 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic routes in drug articles - style guide?[edit]

I've posted a proposal over at the Medicine project talk page suggesting a modification to the pharmacology and medicine style guides discouraging the addition of detailed chemical synthetic routes to articles. I don't believe these are of interest to the average reader. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Pharmacology at Wikimania 2014 (updated version)[edit]

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding FDA[edit]

here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking for updated drug monographs from an international/intergovernmental source[edit]

At the moment, the only source for current drug safety information that I'm aware of is prescribing information approved by the USFDA, since these monographs are maintained via label revisions. As far as international and/or non-governmental references for drug safety, I've found that PubChem (NCBI-published) extensively references HSDB-TOXNET (a comprehensive toxicology database; NLM-published), which in turn primarily references drug monographs published by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) (comprised of the WHO + other UN bodies). The IPCS is intergovernmental, but unfortunately they don't seem to update their monographs regularly, if at all. Consequently, I'm still looking for a good international source for comprehensive drug information.

Examples of the amphetamine and methamphetamine monographs:

So, does anyone happen to know of an international or non-governmental organization that publishes and updates comprehensive data sheets on pharmaceuticals? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 01:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you can try searching the database of the European Heads of Medicines Agencies. Generally you’ll get the history of the market authorization (including public assessment reports) and – if you are lucky – the approved SPC (Summary of Product Characteristics = EMA’s term for FDA’s “label”). Hope that helps. Alfie↑↓© 17:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Alfie, I'll look into that. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit question over whether seco-, nor-, and homosteroid classes should appear in steroids[edit]

A discussion has been started at the Wikiprojects Chemistry Talk page, over whether the steroids article should be moved away from IUPAC and NLM Mesh inclusion of secosteroids, to a different definition. (The Steroid article currently does include seco-, nor-, homo-, and is planned to include heterocyclic steroids.) The article cannot both proceed with, and without the the coverage of these non-6-6-6-5 tetracyclic variants, and the argument seems to be that despite MESH and IUPAC inclusion, that only classic tetracyclic structures should be covered (despite nomenclature and biosynthetic relationships between all of these). If you have an opinion, please chime in at the Wikiproject Chemistry talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been suggestion that the discussion take place fully at the Secosteroid Talk page, and I do not disagree. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Psychostimulant (technically amphetamine) addiction cascade - feedback[edit]

Signaling cascade in the nucleus accumbens that results in psychostimulant addiction

Insert witty caption here.

I'm still undecided on whether or not to use this image outside ΔFosB, but if anyone has any feedback - technical, cosmetic or otherwise - for improving this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks Face-smile.svgSeppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is it's an excellent job, I know I tend to disagree with your opinion but on this I think it's a beautiful diagram. You should be proud of yourself. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


FDA drug safety updates[edit]

As previously noted here, Wikipedia has been criticized for not quickly updating drug safety information released by the FDA:

Hwang TJ, Bourgeois FT, Seeger JD (2014). "Drug safety in the digital age". N. Engl. J. Med. 370 (26): 2460–2. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1401767. PMID 24963564. Lay summaryMinnPost. 

One can sign up for e-mail updates to FDA "Recalls and Safety Alerts" and "MedWatch Safety Alerts" here. I have done so and I recently received this alert:

Based on the above alert, I updated itraconazole with this edit. I will try to go through the list myself, but this is a long list so I would appreciate some help. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

True but this is also true of updates by the TGA, MHRA and EMA, it's not just the FDA we're slow to update articles based on. Plus, we generally try to keep our articles neutral and avoid giving undue weight to particular regulatory administrations like the FDA, for instance, so if we keep up to date with the FDA I believe we should also try to keep up-to-date with the other regulatory administrations too. I will still try to help you with your endeavours when I find myself free as I do believe you are right, we are slow to updates, I just recommended we speed up with regard to other regulatory administrations and their updates too. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 17:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should include updates from other regulatory agencies [ TGA (Australia), MHRA (UK), EMA (Europe)]. Do these other agencies provide e-mail alerts like the FDA? Boghog (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know this so I used Google to find out, thank goodness for it as it gave me the answer in minutes. Yes two do provide free email updates. TGA: Australia; MHRA: UK and EMA does not, sadly. The great thing about the MHRA, however, is that I am yet to come across an update they make that isn't reflected by an update by the EMA. Hence if an update by the MHRA has been made a quick Google search should be able to tell us if the EMA started the safety update. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Spinning gifs on drug articles violate Wikipedia standards[edit]

Greetings. I'm not a member of this group but I've noticed an issue that I think this group should be aware of. Many of the articles about drugs violate Wikipedia style guidelines. Specifically they have gifs of the drug molecule that rotate and never stop. The latest one I just noticed is: Gabapentin For some people with disabilities (I personally know someone with epilepsy that this is true for) web design like this makes it virtually impossible for them to read the article. I don't have that problem but I do find the gifs extremely annoying. But this isn't about personal preference it's about violating Wikipedia accesibility standards. Here is the relevant policy: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#Animations.2C_videos_and_audio "To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either: not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element),[6] or be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play).[7]" I.e., either spin for 5 seconds or less than stop or provide a control so that users can stop the spinning if they want to. A while back I raised this issue on the talk page for Wellbutrin and it was eventually changed but I've noticed it on almost every other drug article that I've visited and don't have the energy to raise it on every talk page. BTW, I would make the change myself, I even looked at the code for the Wellbutrin article but I couldn't figure it out, I've done a lot of editing but I like to write not mess with graphics. IMO, this is fairly important. I would bet money that you are turning off a non-trivial number of users who come to those pages due to the inaccessible design. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree. There ought to be simple technical means to address this site-wide, with default behaviour being compliant. The problem isn't specific to drug articles alone. Of course, any decent web browser supports a setting disabling animation, but not everyone can access such controls. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree. These spinning gifs are very distracting, especially in infoboxes that have a prominent place in drug articles. There was a previous discussion here. Perhaps WP:PHARMOS should be amended to discourage the use of animated images. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your points, Mad, are very valid! I think you're almost prophetic, in this. I think you should pat yourself on the back or have beer, whatever you do to celebrate as you have changed my view and I will be arguing with you! Up 'til now I thought it was merely a preference thing, some like 'em some don't, I being their creator, obviously like 'em. But now you have made that point I am in agreement with you, I was coming here to direct you to the major conversation (which is here) and disagree with your points. But you know what I am now convinced you are right and I am amending my viewpoint. I do think, however, that we should include links to 3D models in the drugbox, for those that are interested! Thank you for making me see the error of my ways! Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 18:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Mad. Also agree, completely. I would also make the point that animations essentially always rely on three-dimensional representations, most often problematic ones. 3D representations are inherently informationally rich (in terms of cheminformatic content), and must be generated somehow—e.g., as a representative MM2-generated minimum energy structure, or as a representative of a minimum energy ensemble from MD. Despite this being so, they most-often appear without mention either of their manner of creation, or of the source of the 3D image (where manner of creation is covered by citation). Hence, those appearing can be WP:OR, or alternatively, plagiarised (if borrowed, with no citation appearing). At very least we should insist that the source of the 3D image be cited; and if editors are going to be allowed to compute their own 3D representations, they should be required to state how it was done. Here is one example, where I tried to address this ([6], see also Description of File:Strep1.png at Wikimedia Commons, [7]). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis[edit]

User:Deass and 86.23.68.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem similar and other socks are listed here [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just, for my own personal clarity, are you saying they're the same person, by calling them socks? Like as in "sock puppets"? Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 20:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes the other two IP are the same as Deass. Not sure about this third one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Have blocked account as a likely sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He continues. Are these images copyright infringment [9] or are they to simple? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Another 86.25.33.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) At least he has stopped plagarising. What do people wish to do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Tracking down graphics plagiarism is much more difficult than text plagiarism. At least one of the graphics appears to have been copied directly from a patent application, which is probably OK:

The following is probably not OK:

Others I am not sure about:

Boghog (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the image files linked by Boghog are hosted at Commons, rather than locally here at the English Wikipedia. It might be more productive to start deletion discussions for any that are improperly licensed there, at Commons. If the files satisfy Commons' licensing requirements, then they more than satisfy the local licensing requirements here. They can still be deleted from pages here as a matter of editorial judgment, but probably not on the basis of property rights. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
He has definitely copied them all from others. The question is, "is there enough originality" of these drawings to deserve copyright? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In uploading them to Commons, he has used the license that indicates that he is the author of the works. A discussion at Commons should be the way to determine whether the use of that license was in compliance with, or contrary to, Commons' policy. We cannot determine that here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
We however still can not include content which we feel is a copyright issue. I try to engage with commons as little as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried the copyvio noticeboard? --Tryptofish (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This will be a complicated discussion if it is to lead to resolution, and will need people both well versed in the WP copyvio side of the issue, as well as organic chemists familiar with multistep synthesis and chemical representation. Locally we have dealt with the issue thus:
  • to allow single chemical images that are redrawn from but otherwise identical to a published original (in type of representation, manner of sterochemical presentation, orientation/pose, etc.) if the representation is a common one (repeatedly appearing in a wide variety of sources), or if the source upon which it is based is given, i.e., akin to a cited text quotation;
  • to allow reproduction of schemes (multiple chemical images) only if significantly altered (shortened, altered vis-a-vis the representations/presentations mentioned), i.e., akin to a textual paraphrase, where citation is again required.
The aim/basis for this local copyvio interpretation for chemical structure/scheme use was to parallel requirements for fair use of text under copyright law (with the sort of implied parallels indicated). This was a long discussion here.
From my review of many images at Wikimedia Commons, there appears to be no uniformly implemented policy like this in place, there and so here, and so your discussion is timely (but without strong precedent at the Commons). There, much chemical graphic material that is copied or redrawn is novel/singular (not common and widely appearing), and is moreover without attribution, and so in our interpretation, plagiarised. This material appears throughout Wikipedia, and so is a substantial problem (as you seem to have noticed/concluded). Good luck with this effort to define the issue and address the problem here. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Leprof 7272: – Please keep this thread focused. Have you actually looked at the examples above? The graphics in question do have attribution. If the material has been attributed and has not been copyrighted/in the public domain, there is no problem. Boghog (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You have every right to state your opinions, here and elsewhere, but have no right to give others orders, even if you view them as polite ones. ("Please keep..." is an imperative, even if a veiled, polite one.) Note, it was Jmh that invited generalization of this thread ("Tracking down graphics plagiarism is much more difficult than text plagiarism.").
In re: your "Have you actually looked..." question, I invite you to AGF: yes, I did review. There is no reason not to start from the specific question and offer a more general, broader answer, given some of the content of the preceding discussion. Of course if the material has "not been copyrighted/[is] in the public domain, there is no problem". In this you state the obvious, and address very little of the broad problem of chemical representations in structures and schemes appearing in Wikipedia. Otherwise, congrats on another knee-jerk negative reaction to a fellow editor, finding no value whatsoever in their offering. Cheers to you despite the consistency. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
address very little of the broad problem of chemical representations in structures and schemes appearing in Wikipedia – that is not the question that Doc James asked.
Note, it was Jmh that invited generalization of this thread – look again. The words that you quoted were mine, not Doc James'. What I meant by Tracking down graphics plagiarism is much more difficult than text plagiarism is there is no equivalent of a Google text search for graphics. If you find a match in the cited source, then it is trivial to determine if it is an exact copy. The problem I was having is that many of the sources in question were behind paywalls and I didn't have access to them. Furthermore if the graphic is not in the cited source but was obtained elsewhere, it may be very difficult if not impossible to find. Boghog (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a google image search, but searching for the above mentioned images did not find the originals. Apparently the publishers have not provided Google the images and/or allowed Google to index them. Boghog (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The closest relevant discussions that I could find concerning of whether redrawn diagrams are copyright violations are here and here. It appears that as long as the diagram was not "traced", it is considered a new work rather than a derivative work and hence there should not be a copyright problem. However to be on the safe side, the new diagram should ideally deviate in some significant way from the original (e.g., simplified, rearranged, etc.). Boghog (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Also here 86.31.229.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The diagrams by 86.31.229.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appear to be redrawn, hence there should be no copyright issues concerning these particular diagrams. It is not immediately clear however if the syntheses are notable. Boghog (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The links "here and here" to Wikipedia discussions by Wikipedia editors that Boghog offers are interesting in some of its quoted content, ambiguous in formal conclusion, and so provide no clear and certainly no authoritative answer to the specific or broader matters at hand. I personally disagree, that if a chemical scheme's number of structures, selected poses, manner of stereochemical presentation, etc. all match the original, that such simple redrawing suffices to circumvent applicable standards protecting IP. This is (by the earlier discussion of experts on our end) still a matter of substantive copying of another's material (and this is the essential conclusion of at least one editor in the discussion of redrawing the vertebrae at one of Bh's links).
Redrawing in and of itself does not (by our experts view) constitute the chemical equivalent of a textual paraphrase. Do as you will here. I have no opinion on a specific question of a redrawn public domain drawing; on the matter of redrawn copyrighted material (essentailly all most relevant material in the chemical literature): others better trained to advise have come to a different general conclusions than offered above. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: Doc James asked a specific question about specific diagrams (are these copyright violations). The "answer" that you have provided is not helpful. In particular:
A redrawn diagram that is not traced is fair use. The information contained within a diagram (e.g., chemical synthesis itself) cannot be copyrighted nor patented. Of course, the use of that information to synthesize a compound for commercial purposes may be patented. Also to state the obvious, there is no need to redraw a diagram that is in the public domain. It can be used as is. Boghog (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Getting back to the original question that Doc James asked:

  • The question is, "is there enough originality" [in] these drawings to deserve a copyright?

Original or not, diagrams in copyrighted works carry an implied copyright. I think there is general agreement that exact copies of copyrighted diagrams (e.g., the ones uploaded by Deass (talk · contribs) and 86.23.68.198 (talk · contribs) with the exception of File:Gabapentinsynthesis.png which is copied from a patent specification) are not OK to use. The redrawn diagrams of 86.25.33.75 (talk · contribs) and 86.31.229.42 (talk · contribs) for the reasons I have stated directly above are probably OK to use. Boghog (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: To use a specific example, would you agree that File:Naphthoylindoles general strategy.png is a copyright violation whereas File:JWH-018 synthesis.svg is not? Boghog (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Graphic copyright infringement in one respect is very similar to obscenity. It is impossible to precisely define, but I know it when I see it ;-) Boghog (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As one of the handful of PhD chemists around here, I'll offer my opinion in the event that someone finds it helpful and worthwhile.
* I think the basic issue is that facts cannot be copyrighted. Thus synthetic schemes are largely exempt from copyright restrictions because you cannot communicate the content of a synthetic route without drawing out the intermediate structures. There almost no originality or choices involved in this other than choosing the size of the arrowheads that point from one intermediate to another, the font used for labeling, and the spacing of the structures. I cannot find the reference I used in the past for this, but I agree with those who say than anything short of scanning someone else's artwork is probably safe.
* Very few of our readers are capable of understanding or caring about the details of how these drugs are synthesized. I'm capable of understanding them, but if I really want to know, I'll look it up in a more comprehensive source. There are dozens of ways of making most of these compounds, and picking a route at random to include in the encyclopedia seems trite to me. The bulk synthesis of any given multi-source (generic) drug is undertaken using a different route or protocol at every company that makes it, as these companies patent their routes as a way of seeking economic advantage. So there is no unique "production route" for most drugs.
* One problem that I ran into when I raised this issue a while back is that the Chemistry project encourages adding these routes. This may require some cross-project discussion.
Good luck with this. I think its an important issue but I did not get any traction when I tried to look into it a few months back. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Formerly. You stated much more eloquently what I was trying to get across. Digging into this further, I found this discussion. The relevant part of copyright law is called the merger doctrine where the "expression is considered to be inextricably merged with the idea". As I have previously argued, I agree that many of these drug syntheses are arbitrarily chosen and hence may not be notable. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Clearly if you wanted to synthesize something, you would first do a thorough literature search and then consult the primary literature directly. On the other hand, there may be cases where a particular synthesis is notable (e.g., the way it was first synthesized, the method in a process patent from the innovator pharmaceutical company, a widely used route for its illicit synthesis, etc.). Boghog (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Continued copyright issues are turning up see phenytoin. This user is switching IPs faster now. I think we need a range block to deal with them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

General issue regarding herbal dose descriptions — where to raise this?[edit]

I recently went to the Equisetum page, to read a bit about the history of its herbal medicinal use. I found the section rife with copy edit errors and other issues, and did a quick edit; here is the current section, [10].

The point of this Talk entry is to raise a general question, for which this edited section can serve as ready example.

What is the WP policy on presenting actual dosing information
for pharmacologically active preparations/substances?  

I personally believe it very unwise to give anything approaching direct medical advise through Wikipedia, and specific recipes and dosages, such as appear here, run counter to that professional conviction.

I did not wish to remove this specific dosing information, if doing so contravenes established WP policies. Please advise where to go to understand policies, and/or where to further raise this important issue. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I went and removed further material there, as Wikipedia actually does not permit medical how-to advice. The relevant policies and guidelines are at WP:NOTHOW and WP:MEDMOS. You can always get quick responses to this kind of issue at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Bravo, thanks Trypto. Massive redaction; let's see what the "locals" think/do. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Specific dosing info should generally be removed, general dosing info need not be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

SSRI discontinuation syndrome[edit]

Would appreciate input on the discussion on the talk page of SSRI discontinuation syndrome. Mainly sourcing issues. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There are new comments and sources and source 7 was incorrectly linked. The correct source is up. Thanks for the discussion!Alatari (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I will add that in general, in the course of working on that, i looked at bunch of psych drug articles, and every one was ugly, tons of inappropriate detail, primary sourcing, piled on negative content. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll chime in with Jytdog that the psychiatric drug articles are a train wreck. I realize that with respect to efficacy, side effects, and inappropriate marketing, these drugs are not my industry's finest hour. But they are recommended under at least some circumstances by NICE, the APA, CANMAT, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, and every other professional psychiatry medical organization in existence. And they are taken by close to 10% of the population. That makes these articles important.
While I and others (notably Doc James, who puts out a lot of effort here though he has a very negative opinion of the drugs) have put out a lot of effort to clean these up, as recently as a few months ago one could come to Wikipedia and walk away with the impression that these drugs had been proven without a shadow of doubt to lack any efficacy whatsoever. While one would not see any reference to the use of SSRIs to treat anxiety disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder, one would learn that becoming permanently impotent and spending the rest of one's life experiencing shock like sensations behind the eyes was a virtual certainty for anyone taking these drugs. Schizophrenia patients could learn that their likelihood of living a functional, happy life would probably improve if they stopped their meds.
I think that if we are not going to commit to maintain these articles in a form that is reflective of the mainstream medical opinion that we claim allegiance to, we should take them down. By keeping them up we implicitly endorse their contents, but they are not maintained. And the SSRI article alone is viewed over 1000 times a day. I try to clean them up but when I come to this and the Med board to ask for help in dealing with intransigent editors on fairly simple issues of MEDRS sourcing and the like, I don't consistently get any response at all.
There is a lot of outrage here when an article comes out questioning the factual accuracy of Wikipedia's medical articles. But here is the levofloxacin article from early 2012. Would you let your spouse or family member finish a course of the drug described in that article? I bet a lot of people didn't. And it may upset people that I say this, but I bet in some cases people died as a result.
I apologize to all the people I just pissed off. But please consider what I've said here to have been said with good intent. If we are going to keep this articles on the site, we need to maintain them. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
My opinion of medication is skeptical rather than negative. Where do you see primary sources being added? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd say its not just primary sources but also weight. This one SSRI discontinuation syndrome is fixed, but I'll use it as an example, both because I'm familiar with it having just worked on it, and also because I asked for help on both the med board and here dealing with an intransigent editor unfamiliar with MEDRS and for the most part got a big yawn from the community. It contained 36 references, of which 2 were broken links, 8 were MEDRS compliant, and 26 were case reports or primary research.
Here's a few quotes from the July 7 version of the SSRI discontinuation syndrome article.
  • A boxed quote citing the NYTimes for rate: "Jerrold Rosenbaum and Maurizio Fava, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital, found that among people getting off antidepressants, anywhere from 20 percent to 80 percent (depending on the drug) suffered what was being called antidepressant withdrawal (but which, after the symposium, was renamed “discontinuation syndrome”).|The New York Times, May 6, 2007[1]" The handful of placebo controlled trials that have been done suggest the rate is about 20% greater than placebo, but in some studies the rate is actually higher in those withdrawing from placebo. I'm not at all implying that this syndrome does not exist, I have first hand experience with it. Only pointing out the use of inappropriate sources that may be overestimating the incidence.
  • Long term side effects in 15% of users: The source is a primary research study in 20 patients with agoraphobia who were likely taking much larger doses than the average patient. "Most cases of discontinuation syndrome last between one and four weeks but a substantial minority, perhaps up to 15% of users, have persistent withdrawal symptoms evident months after withdrawal.[2] "
  • "Online help groups consistently mention withdrawal from venlafaxine as triggering dreams of a particularly distressing and hellish quality." There were references cited for this statement, but none of them actually said anything alone these lines.
  • There are also weight issues. The symptoms were listed out in 7 different places before I began editing the article,including many that most secondary sources refer to as uncommon, without any mention of this fact. Six of the 8 secondary sources used in the article contained some version of the phrase "Most reactions are mild and short-lived and require no treatment other than patient reassurance." within the abstract, but this phrase did not appear anywhere in the article. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Finally, I'll add that the 2 of the external links are to anti-Prozac books, even though most MEDRS compliant sources pretty much state outright that prozac rarely if ever causes this problem. The third is to an anecdotal account of having trouble with the syndrome. A fourth is a non-MEDRS compliant link to a How-to guide written by David Healy.
  1. ^ Stutz, Bruce (2007-05-06). "Self-Nonmedication". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 
  2. ^ Fava, G.A.; Bernardi, M.; Tomba, E.; Rafanelli, C. (December 2007). "Effects of gradual discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in panic disorder with agoraphobia". Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacology 10 (6): 835–838. doi:10.1017/S1461145706007462. PMID 17224089. 
Great having you here cleaning it up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Formerly 98, you are so right about the condition of those pages. Some time ago, I started watching one of the specific neuroleptic pages (a pretty old drug, at that), in response to a post here, and after a while, I stopped watching it because reverting all the fringe edits became too much of a time-sink for me, alas. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be possible simply to routinely semi-protect most of those pages. I can tell you the entire recent sureptitious re-posting of the deleted "Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction" article under a slightly different name was coordinated over on David Healy's blog. In fact, when I (the person who nominated it for deletion) put a note on my userpage that I was going to take a couple weeks off, the article was re-posted under a slightly different name literally within hours. Its a little creepy. I don't think a lot of these other edits are completely random contributions from disgruntled individuals either. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, semi-protection would have to go through WP:RFPP on a page-by-page basis. From time to time, there is discussion about extending the kinds of policies we have at WP:BLP to pages that involve medical information. Let me ask, in a very preliminary way, whether there is any interest here in pursuing such a policy initiative. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If it will help I'll put together some stats on number of one time editors, number of these edits reverted, etc and compare these to a couple benchmark atricles Formerly 98 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ketamine[edit]

The article on Ketamine could use some work by qualified editors. I have uniformly formatted the references, providing links to the free content I could find. There are some suggested references/content additions on talk. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Article about stable-isotope bioactive compounds?[edit]

We have lots of articles about radiologic agents, and articles about the chemistry and physics of isotopes in general. We have articles about the kinetic isotope effect from a chemistry (and physical-chemistry) perspective and extensive biological information about heavy water on the page for that chemical. Is there a general article about isotope effects on biological systems? My search arose from a recent discussion of ML377. DMacks (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As you point out, there is a section on the influence of heavy water on biological systems here. I am not aware of any other articles on the biological impact of the kinetic isotope effect.
Based on the observation that replacing hydrogen with deuterium can slow down the rate of metabolism and increases a drug's half-life, there are several deuterated drugs currently in clinical trials. This substitution can also lead to new patentable composition of matter which is Concert Pharmaceuticals' business model. It might therefore be worth creating a deuterated drug article. Boghog (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for setting up that stub! DMacks (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Designer_drug#Proposed_page_move[edit]

Your comments would be appreciated here. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I too would encourage editors to take a look. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ontology of pharmaceutical drugs[edit]

Would anybody be interested in helping out with the ontology of pharmaceutical drugs on Wikidata? The classification is almost nonexistent currently (See: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=12140&rp=279&lang=en). Just go to the Wikidata-page of your favourite substance and add the statement "subclass of = ???" to it. I can help out with any question about Wikidata. There is also still no WikiProject Pharmacology on Wikidata. In the mean time you can visit for additional information: d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine, d:Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry or d:Wikidata:WikiProject Molecular biology. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding property from Wikidata to drug articles[edit]

Hi, I'm with a team of researchers from the university of Pittsburgh and the medical university of Vienna, we want to develop an automated process for improving the medical content on Wikipedia. At the moment I'm writing a bot for Wikidata which imports drug-drug interactions and sets the statement drug action altered by on drug-items in Wikidata (see Warfarin (Q407431) for an example use). How can we display this information in Wikipedia drug articles? We think it would be best if this would be added to the {{Drugbox}} infobox, is this possible? --Alepfu (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Alepfu: Before changing the infobox I would recommend reading through: Signpost: Infoboxes: After the war. Many of the scientific infoboxes are at maximum capacity and especially the many identifiers might not be useful to the average reader. In depth data might be better presented on Wikidata itself. Please consider commenting at d:Wikidata:UI redesign input. Drug-drug interaction could be presented in its own block within the layout. And at some point we would like to have dynamic content presentation depending on your search query. For research topics you could also design your own Wikidata-interface similar to what Reasonator (http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=407431) does. -Tobias1984 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am also hesitant about this proposal because of my fear of feature creep. Another problem is the infoboxes getting so large that they start to overwhelm the rest of the article. A possible solution is to collapse part of the info box similar to the Gene ontology section of the {{GNF Protein box}}. However I should also note that collapsing part of inboxes is in itself controversial. It would really be helpful to see some examples of this type of data so that we can decide if and how it should be included. Boghog (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The type of data is simply a list of drugs, "drug action altered by: <drug1, drug2, ...>" --Alepfu (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Boghog, Alepfu: Warfarin has about 50 interactions on Drugbank (http://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00682). Even if only the 3 most important interactions would be shown, that is space the {{Drugbox}} doesn't have in my opinion. Space could be freed up, by removing the "Identifiers" section and putting that information into an end-of-article template. But even that is difficult, because e.g. Cocaine already has 10 end-of-article templates. I think the research of you (User:Alepfu) and others is extremely important in this regard. But there is not only a need for more accurate and relevant information, but also the need for information filtering. How can more relevant information be made more visible? Where should information be placed on the Wikipedia page? What information can be outsourced in Wikidata? Should Wikidata contain special views (e.g. a drug-drug interaction view that only shows the drug interactions)? - There was a somewhat similar debate in Austria about the de:Elektronische Gesundheitsakte (Österreich). Many physicians complained that they don't have time during their work to look through 50 pages of a patients medical history. And mechanisms how to filter that information have yet to be presented (as far as I know). -Tobias1984 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I also just noticed the number of interactions listed in Drugbank warfarin entry which makes me even more hesitant about adding this data. I would strongly oppose removing the identifier section of the drugbox (which by the way includes a link to Drugbank as well a number of other valuable links). It is questionable whether we should try to clone drug interaction data within Wikipedia which is already stored in external databases like Drugbank. Boghog (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Boghog, Tobias1984: to clear this up, we are only importing drug interactions which are marked as "high priority interactions for use in electronic health records", the whole dataset has about 250 interactions (taken from scientific publications). Things like "information overload" or "alert fatique" are key aspects of our research. --Alepfu (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Limiting the list to "high priority interactions" is essential and it is good to hear that you are already doing this. Even better, would be to further limit the list to those that are supported by WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Instead of adding this data to the drugbox, an alternative might be to add the interaction data in some structured way to the adverse effects/interaction section. Boghog (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I, too, would rather see the information in paragraph form in the main text. For what it's worth, the community is also expressing some concerns about Wikidata at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Persondata template be removed from articles?, albeit in a different context. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It might not be a good idea to sync with other databases, especially DrugBank. Drugbank doesn't list interactions with drug classes like we can do in our articles, they just list the compounds. It makes for pointlessly long lists, e.g., Drugbank's amphetamine entry for interactions - http://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00182#interactions - is unnecessarily repetitive as a result. I don't like using DrugBank as a pharmacology source as a result of the last update to their pharmacodynamics section on that page though. In spite of notifying them of the annotation issue in an email, they haven't done anything to fix the entries that state:

See ref MeSH Terms. Can you spot the problems here?

IUPHAR will at least reply to emails about entry errors/typos and eventually follow up; DrugBank just ignores you. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 22:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Detail[edit]

[11] Peoples thoughts on this edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Terrible edit. I'm a PhD chemist and i don't know what half those things are. What's the average reader going to do with the information? Added to my watchlist. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The cyclobenzaprine article is about an active ingredient whose structure is already well documented in the drug infobox. A list of brand specific inactive excipients has no place in a Wikipedia drug article. Boghog (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured article nomination reviewers needed... very badly[edit]

I cross posted this on WT:MED but it's more relevant to this project than any other.

Due to the overall lack of reviewers, the amphetamine FAC – now on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive4 – has been undergoing a review or (more often) waiting for reviewers for over 8 months now. There's only been 1 editor from WP:PHARM (Anypodetos) that has reviewed the article over that time. It would be a big help if someone else from the project could contribute their review, or even just a partial review on the pharmacology section, at the current FAC. I'd really appreciate the contribution! Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Seppi333 I'm sorry to hear this is taking so unbelievably long. I'm currently snowed under but could you drop me a talkpage message after the weekend and I will have a look! JFW | T@lk 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Will do, and thanks! I really appreciate it. Face-smile.svg Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture nominations for technical diagrams[edit]

Cross-posted on WT:MED, WT:PHARM, WT:MCB, and WT:NEURO

In the event anyone time/interest to contribute a review for the pharmacodynamics illustration in the article, I nominated the amphetamine pharmacodynamics diagram for featured picture.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)