Talk:Oxycodone/paracetamol

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Citation on Pain management

The fact that it is more often prescribed makes it more abusable just based on it being more readily available. No citation is needed, amirite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.61.175 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Percocet is one of many brand names of oxycodone/acetamminophen formulation, which is already covered in oxycodone page. I don't think it's necessary for each brand name of the formulation to have its own page. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you that there is no need for a separate page for each brand name of this combination of two very basic pain relievers. Pechmerle (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: the brand name is notable in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that the page should not be merged. Percocet has it's own unique formulation, history, manufacturer, etc.--Tea with toast (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against merge percocet and and oxycodone are different both chemically and brand wise. I closed the discussion after two months of consensus being against merge.Valoem ^talk 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture" section

I suggest the formulation of some criteria for inclusion in Percocet#In_popular_culture. What level of referencing should be required? Is the present practice of using (implicit, and somewhat vague) citations to primary sources acceptable, or is secondary coverage needed? Does any mention of the drug in any widely distributed film or television series qualify? Ideally, I would suggest that the "popular culture" section be based on secondary sources which provide a holistic treatment of the subject, not a large number of examples without analysis. Emily Jensen (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture references should be referenced with secondary sources. Otherwise you have a trivia section, and that is not encyclopedic. When important references made in notable works are noticed by secondary sources, they should be included. MiRroar (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content & Wikipedia:Trivia sections can be informative here...The current pop culture section is entirely unreferenced, and that's not good. Basically, to justify a pop culture reference to Percocet, the relationship of Percocet to another topic must be specifically noted by secondary sources as a relevant subject of note. Maybe a news article has discussed the Nurse Jackie title character's use of Percocet and its broader implications? If not, it's a trivia item that should go. — Scientizzle 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the US

I only came across this from searching for percocet (having no idea what it was). The article doesn't mention anything about how this has ended up being just a US thing (or even if it IS just a US thing - it doesn't seem to be used in the UK]) - is it to do with Oxycodone being class A?

Is it used in Europe?