|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pharmacopoeia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Pharmacology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
this article is a mess, too much of that 1911 encylopaedia remains. GraemeLeggett 14:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- 1 The topic of Pharmacopoeia of Tibetan Medicine has been added based on....
- 2 JP used to be present at this site......
- 3 Since WHO is this world's government,....
- 4 FYI
- 5 A redlink is created ....
- 6 Preperations
- 7 Suggested merge w Materia medica
- 8 Another collection of monographes.....???
- 9 Ibn-al-Baytar: dates
- 10 Alternative spelling
The topic of Pharmacopoeia of Tibetan Medicine has been added based on....
the citation below
JP used to be present at this site......
Don't know why it disappeared. Anyway, it is added again based on the following refs.
http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Pharmacopeia-Pharmacopoeia-Japan-Yakuji/dp/4840809747 --126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Since WHO is this world's government,....
oooops, the monographs look more like specifications than pharmacopoeia, as the directions in the books are not fully cleared. Anyway, I leave it here for further discussions.
If the books are classified as specifications, please mean it in the title of the books. Otherwise using the term of Monographs may confuse the people of the pharmaceutical industry where Monographs have always been referred to the ones in Pharmacopoeia which contains full directions and guidances, unless the term of monographs is explained in the books
The who's monographs are linked as follows http://books.google.com/books?id=qWP4aG-wXAQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Who+Monographs+on+Selected+Medicinal+Plants#PPP3,M1
http://www.amazon.com/WHO-Monographs-Selected-Medicinal-Plants/dp/9241545372 --188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
more links have been added today for validation purposes http://books.google.com/books?id=4p9nYZZnJVUC&dq=Who+Monographs+on+Selected+Medicinal+Plants&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=do0XSvesIIzY7AORrc2vDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPP6,M1
I found these clues via amazon bookshop
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241546271.pdf --184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%96%AC%E5%B1%80%E6%96%B9 --220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
based on the following http://www.amazon.com/International-Cosmetic-Ingredient-Dictionary-Handbook/dp/1882621433/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246954916&sr=1-1 --18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This seems extremely dated, the BPC it mentions was discontinued in the 1970's, and the drug "verona" (presumably meant to be Veronal) dates from about 1905 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggested merge w Materia medica
Not recommended : "a pharmacopoeia" is an authorised or other compilation of remedies e.g. London Pharmacopoeia; British Pharmacopoeia; British Pharmateutical Codex; etc.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed that a merge is not a good idea. The tags have been there since 2009, I am going to go ahead and remove them. --Elonka 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that these are different, although related, topics. David Spector (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Another collection of monographes.....???
The article says he was from the 14th century, but in http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?articleID=525 his dates are listed from c. 1188 (or 1197) to 1248, which is not the 14th century. Small point, but... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Many old book titles use the spelling Pharmacopoea (an example is already on the page). Could someone else please handle the addition as I'm not familiar with wikipedia policy about the American English spelling that is already on the page. Thanks. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Uhm I dont understand. You want to add that there is an alternate spelling for the term " pharmacopoeia". You can add it at the beginning of the article, it happens in many articles, in certain topics you could even mention it in different languages if it would be of some importance. My opinion is that it just can enrich the text.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)