Talk:Tramadol

Tramadol as a SNRI in the first place

The effect of tramadol is mostly due to its ability to inhibit the reuptake of norepinefrine and serotonin. In addition one of its isomers is a serotonin releasing agent. The effect on the opioid receptors is just a minor effect. Hence the first statement should be that tramadol is a SNRI and serotonin releasing substance with additional minor opioid agonistic effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 10:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Controlled Status

Tramadol is not currently a Controlled Substance in WV or Mo .173.80.31.68 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Atypical Opioids

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

(Psychonaut25 - 13375p34k / C0n7r1b5 04:43 AM EST, 15 October 2013 (UTC))

I so agree! That not only deserves mention I think it deserves its own paragraph in the lead. Fuse809 (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation style

In this edit:

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

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

This is being discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1#What's the point?. This article didn't use the Vancouver system, it used a hybrid system that used some features from Citation Style 1 (quote marks around journal article titles, italics for books and journal titles) and some from Vancouver (separating author names with commas, writing author names as "Jones J" rather than "Jones, J.". The documentation for {{tl}cite journal}} mentions the Vancouver system, but does not describe it correctly. None of the other cite xxx templates that I can find mention Vancouver. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• This article didn't use the Vancouver system – an earlier version did and according to WP:CITEVAR, the originally established citation style does matter.
• None of the other cite xxx templates that I can find mention Vancouver – irrelevant. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• but does not describe it correctly – Fixed in this edit. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The earlier version mentioned by Boghog did not use the Vancouver system. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It did use an Vancouver system author style. Boghog (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

It is not your journal either. Are you suggesting that we repeal WP:CITEVAR? And why is "Jones, H.B.; Smith, T.E.; Garcia, X.J." necessarily better than "Jones HB, Smith TE, Garcia XJ"? The later is much cleaner and easier to read. Boghog (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the author format, the WP:specialist style fallacy, does not apply. IMHO, the Vancouver author format is more readable for both specialist and non-specialists. It is also easier for non-specialist editors. Hence I believe that the KISS principle is far more relevant in this context. Boghog (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally the journal name abbreviations is a side issue. I have restored the full journal names in this edit. Boghog (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The coauthor parameter is deprecated while a single author parameter is not. Why use verbose "first1, last1, first2, last2" parameters? To generate metadata that no one uses? The use of verbose author parameters overwhelms the wikitext making it harder for editors to locate and edit the text. The purpose of the citations is to support the prose, not the other way around. Boghog (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the 'author=' parameter is intended mainly for cases (such as corporate or group authorship) where 'first/last' is not appropriate. To use it as a replacement for 'coauthors=' is just a way of getting around the ban on the latter. If reducing verbosity is the highest priority, then why bother using templates at all? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The templates save space by providing doi, pmc, and pmid links and also insure consistent formatting. Hence using a single author parameter (especially if there a large number of authors) within a cite template IMHO represents a good compromise between functionality, consistency, and compactness. Boghog (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, as I have stated above, the use of a single author parameter to store multiple authors in the {{cite journal}} template has long been accepted and has not been deprecated. Boghog (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

this needs to be rephrased at least bc Tramadol is a trade name not scientific name. 74.60.161.158 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)