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.
Should this article be limited to the ingestion of substances? An editor has recently added the selection of nesting material which is not ingested. There are other examples of this non-ingestive type of behaviour, e.g. "anting" in birds. Should these be included in this article?__DrChrissy (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It can be moved back. I overlooked that. This article describes ingested medications, but its not really specified in the lead. - Sidelight12Talk 02:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am not not overly concerned about which way this goes because the breakdown of the term does not specify ingestion, although it is my beli efthat this is what most people would be expecting to read about. I agree with you that if it is to be limited to ingestion only, we need to make this clear in the lead. There is also an example in the article of a capuchin daubing herself and her infant with a medicinal substance, but not ingesting it.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at a few web-sites and definitions, most seem not to be limited to ingestion. Perhaps we could leave the lead as it is and have two major headings of "internal" and "external" in the article?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The mention of the capuchin monkey was a good example. Provided that zoopharmacology includes animals using medicines externally, if we don't include that here, there will be a need for a redundant article. - Sidelight12Talk 00:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
There are many ways to arrange the article, and splitting the article like that is not a bad idea. Whatever works. - Sidelight12Talk 00:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I'll give it a go. All comments welcome__DrChrissy (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)