Talk:Adrenaline/Archive 4

The new Adrenaline article

I thought by now that Ronk01 would have posted a link to it here by now, but since that hasn't happened, and we haven't even began the article yet, the link to the new Adrenaline article agreed upon in the mediation is here. --WikiDonn (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologize for the delay in everything, but real life has kept me very busy. Ronk01 talk 02:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Agreed upon"? A local consensus of two or three editors is not going to justify a content fork. Adrenaline and epinephrine are the same thing. Fences&Windows 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's where the local consensus to split was reached among three editors. Well, I cry foul. Splitting a page because you can't agree on the name is very strange - shall we split petrol from gasoline too? No split without a proper consensus, please. No real attempt was made to discuss this more widely. Fences&Windows 00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is precedent for this type of action in chemistry/pharmacology articles. Please take note of the split articles Nitroglycerin and Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology). The same compound, but split because one is used to refer to the drug more often, but the other is used to refer to the chemical more often. With regards to Local Consensus, there is precedent there too, many local discussions go on to affect the encyclopedia at large without further review. I would also remind you of WP: IAR, invoked here to avoid long, tedious arguments that draw attention for more productive work. Ronk01 talk 05:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief.

That "local consensus" was mediated by an admin and was achieved only after examining the history of both article and talkpage. The original question was do we call the article one or the other, as there is precedent for both, but in the end what was blindingly obvious (to anyone who looked) was that the real world treats adrenaline and epinephrine as different things, one natural and one an artificial replacement used in medicine.

Calling it only adrenaline offends many who point to the standardized medical name being epinephrine.

Calling it only epinephrine alienates half the planet since the name in common use is adrenaline.

The only sensible solution is to have a general article on adrenaline and a more specific article on epinephrine. You want to know about the drug and how many component parts it has, how it is administered etc., then go to epinephrine. You want to read about adrenaline junkies, the discovery of natural adrenaline, and the many uses of the term in society, then go to the adrenaline article.

The problem has been that no matter if you choose only epinephrine as a title, or only adrenaline, you will have continual renaming battles, because no matter how many doctors call it epinephrine the real world mostly uses adrenaline to mean non-synthetic epinephrine.

The more immediate problem is that, even despite all this, there will always be some fool who comes along after the fact and says

"What do you mean you got consensus?! You didn't ask me... and I object!"

but really we don't care, because we have gone about this in the right way. Feel free to complain at the appropriate venue after the article has been split won't you. Weakopedia (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalization

There's a section called Adrenaline Junkie which was either created or replaced - it's current contents are joking in nature. Just a heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.60.114 (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this might explain things. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "Adrenaline Junkie" and "Adrenaline Addiction" should both be deleted unless they can cite peer reviewed research (rather than an article in Psychology Today). Woood (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Consistency

Now I have my own opinions on what this article should be called but it would appear that epinephrine has 'won', therefore can this article be cleaned up to make usage consistent? "Epinephrine acts by binding to a variety of adrenergic receptors. Adrenaline is a nonselective agonist of all adrenergic receptors, including α1, α2, β1, β2, and β3 receptors." 94.171.59.53 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, since a separate Adrenaline article (covering physiological function, not drug and chemical function) is in the works. Ronk01 talk 18:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has come and changed all the citations of "epinephrine" to "adrenaline". Perhaps we should put up some notification to avoid these frequent back and forth edits in the future. Ideas? --Tea with toast (話) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture?

Referenced in many popular films, notably Crank_(film). Should this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.142.133 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad Image.

I think someone forgot to scale the lead image correctly. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"adrenaline rush" endorphins, reference needed

In the section on "adrenaline junkie", the references provided (What Is An Adrenaline Junkie? What Can You Do If You Are One?by Elizabeth Scott, M.S. (updated: November 1, 2007), and Fight-or-flight reaction - Explanations - Brain-ChangingMinds.org) provide a good general introduction to the topic of "adrenaline junkies", but neither of them are clear on the endorphin issue. The first does not mention the word "endorphin" at all", and the second mentions it only once. Delving into the reference of the second article ([url=http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/content/33/2/356.full.pdf "THE EMERGENCY FUNCTION OF THE ADRENAL MEDULLA IN PAIN AND THE MAJOR EMOTIONS" BY W. B. CANNON]) reveals that the reference itself does not mention "endorphin" at all. So I have moved the citations up to the sentence preceding the endorphin sentence, and I have added a {{citation needed}} on the endorphin sentence. flaming () 05:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)