Talk:Caffeine
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caffeine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Caffeine is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 16, 2006. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toolbox |
---|
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Hair/baldness
Shampoos add caffeine to overcome genetic male pattern baldness. There is a research article that finds out it helps. Kindly add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E9:3F1A:420:BC79:54A9:6F6F:FC99 (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- There are adverts on TV for shampoos and hair treatements with caffeine, but no explanations for why. There doesn't seem to be anything on this page about hair, shampoo or scalp treatment. Does anyone have any sources?
213.31.95.80 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Natural Occurences: unsupported claim
Hello,
I was interested in temperate climate plants that contain caffeine, and this article states in it's Section "Natural occurence":
"Temperate climates around the world have produced unrelated caffeine-containing plants."
However, no listing of such plants or a citation showing one. Other citations provided in the same section may list different plants containing caffeine, but none of them are from temperate areas but rather sub-tropical zones at best. I think since this is the "Natural Occurence" section, it should provide this information more in detail or be removed or changed if it can't be verified or proven.
Cheers
BusterTheBusta (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Caffeine (data page) for deletion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
DePiep (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Link to data page
@DePiep: The link to the data page was removed in this edit with the justification not needed, the data page is fully redundant
. It is only redundant if the result of the AFD is to delete. If the result is to keep, then Caffeine#Chemical_data section will be deleted, and the data page will no longer be redundant. Please leave the data page link in place while the AFD discussion is proceeding so editors can compare the two solutions side by side. Boghog (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. The data is redundant. No harm is done when this links is not present, the article is OK. Obviously, you are editing an article to make a point in an AfD ie, off-mainspace. Quite a bad base for a mainspace edit. Anyway, you are editwarring. -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. We are having a AFD and you delete the data page is under discussion before that discussion has completed which is completely unacceptable. You have also deleted a link to that data page. It is essential that link remain in place for the AFD discussion. How can we possibly have a discussion about material that you have deleted? Boghog (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert this edit. It introduced a typo ("promiment") and removed the connection the previous sentence ("several known mechanisms") had to the rest of the paragraph, making the paragraph no longer make as much sense. 130.208.182.103 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. It also didn't even form a complete sentence itself. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Is Caffeine regulated in any parts of the world
3rd sentence:
"Unlike many other psychoactive substances, it is legal and unregulated in nearly all parts of the world."
Is there a source? Why "nearly"? Only because the author was not 100% sure. I vote to delete this sentence.
Alternatively we add the countries that regulate caffeine but again, I couldn´t find any.
178.13.24.90 (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)bb
An unclear sentence?
In section "Chemistry", there is the following sentence: "The pyrimidinedione in turn contains two amide functional groups that exist predominantly in a zwitterionic resonance the location from which the nitrogen atoms are double bonded to their adjacent amide carbons atoms". In my opinion, it is not clear. Perhaps, it should be rewritten.Ekisbares (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
ICDM should be ICD
ICDM is mentioned three times: twice as ICDM-9 and once as ICDM 9. The first mention of ICDM links to [[1]], which has no ctrl-f instances of ICDM. A quick google search also redirects to ICD. Would like a second opinion on if this should be ICD in all cases. rex (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
“Darker roasts have more caffeine”
A quick search shows otherwise: A dark-roasted bean contains more caffeine than a light-roasted bean due to its stronger flavor. Not true. – Et0zl Talk☻ 13:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mis-spellings in the text. "Judgement" should be "Judgment". Peterdkukla (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Narcolepsy treatment
This revert was justified because the source did not evaluate caffeine effects on narcolepsy specifically, but rather only included it in the discussion. The one source used here is primary research, too preliminary to justify including it in the article. Best to wait for a WP:MEDRS review on possible use of caffeine for treating narcolepsy, which a PubMed search shows is not available as of 2015, here. Zefr (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi all, so I am trying to add the following sentence : "Caffeine has shown tentative evidence for narcolepsy" in the "Research" category of the article providing the following secondary and reliable reference: https://doi.org/10.2147%2Ftcrm.s244714 . User Zefr does not agree citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) and the fact the evidence is weak and that a wikipedia article is not a news article. I would like to add that we can usually find the same type of claims being made in high ranked wikipedia bio-medical articles (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=tentative+evidence&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1) What are your toughts on this disagreement ? Thanks to you all! Medhekp (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Zefr; this research, based on a pilot study with only sixteen participants, is not suitable for use in Wikipedia. That other such stuff may be included in other articles is not a relevant argument. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Contradiction (of sorts): Under Adverse Effects - Psychological and Adverse Effects - Risk of Other Diseases
In the Adverse Effects - Psychological section, the quote is "Increased consumption of coffee and caffeine is associated with a decreased risk of depression" In the Adverse Effects - Risk of Other Diseases section, the quote is "Caffeine consumption may be associated with reduced risk of depression, although conflicting results have been reported." Both quotes cite references 99 and 100. I myself have not looked into the sources. These two sentences are contradictory. Migy007 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class pharmacology articles
- High-importance pharmacology articles
- WikiProject Pharmacology articles
- B-Class chemicals articles
- Mid-importance chemicals articles
- B-Class WPChem worklist articles
- B-Class neuroscience articles
- High-importance neuroscience articles
- B-Class Food and drink articles
- High-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles