Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Old comment

Hello dear members, I'm very pleased that this WikiProject is taking off, and I intend to participate quite a lot. My previous "drug" additions include thiazolidinedione and subpages, imatinib, metformin and the statins. All need more work...

Some articles, especially the ones by User:Ksheka, have grown a nice box that might actually provide to be of some use in other drug-related articles. Examples can be seen on amiodarone and the recently featured article acetaminophen. JFW | T@lk 11:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hi, I notice the request for chemical structures. I'd like to put a vote in for using PPCHTeX since if all goes well it will be integrated into mediawiki some time in the future (see WikiTeX). I have been making lots of drug structures using PPCHTeX (see User:Rkundalini for instructions, and User:Rkundalini/images for the ones I've done so far), and would be happy do to a whole lot more, but will likely be too busy for the next month or so. Rkundalini 12:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The images created by PPCHTeX don't look as nice as those created by XyMTeX. There's a lot of aliasing (even in horizontal and vertical lines!), and the font is inconsistent with other TeX used by Wikipedia. --Eequor 13:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The aliasing problems are my own, both PPCHTeX and XyMTeX produce dvi output, and clearly the maker of the image in the XyMTeX page used a better procedure that I have used to rasterize it. Hopefully if/when PPCHTeX gets incorporated into wikimedia, it will use the same nice-looking rendering as it presently does for the math : see the WikiTeX entry for an example confirming this. Re the fonts, again that was my choice, without the \sf everywhere it would look the same, but personally, I think serifs in chemical structures create unwanted visual clutter (but see the WikiTeX entry for an example with a serif font). I take it you'd prefer serifs though? Rkundalini 11:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
For example, see meta:Help:Formula. Sans-serif would be inconsistent. --Eequor 15:15, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now that wikisophia [1] is back up, I have made some examples to show how nice the output is, see User:Rkundalini. What do you (and others) think? Rkundalini 03:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hello. I have drawn or corrected structural formulae of some drugs using open-source drawing program bkchem (the advantage of interactive drawing programs over scripts is clear) and edited in GIMP. I draw the formulae approximately three times bigger; then I scale them down to have them antialised. I produce grayscale PNG images with transparency, which may cause problems with older web browsers, so please let me know if you notice some strange rendering of them. Settings of the formulae (bond width, font size) evolved during the time, so the style of the my most recent structure images will be probably used in future. Please let me know if it's OK. I use sans-serif font because it is very usual in chemistry. Mykhal 10:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Your structures look nice. One point is that if you were to use PPCHTeX instead, one day (hopefully soon) it will be incorporated into the wiki software. This means that instead of having to run bkchem, then GIMP, then upload, then add comments, all you have to do is put the code describing the structure directly in the text of the entry, and the wiki software will automatically generate a nice image (see WikiTeX). This fits in better with the wiki philosophy since it can be trivially edited by anyone, without needing special software. All that said, you're making structures where before there were none, and that's great. If you don't feel inclined to switch to PPCHTeX, never mind! Rkundalini 00:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To frame or not to frame? Do you think it is better to place the formulas into the frame? Me thinks it is OK to place the structure formula without frame and also without caption - in the case if the page is on one single compund ant it does not have the infobox yet. Mykhal 14:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Photos anybody?

gedday all, I've just added a few happy snaps from work to the propofol, metoclopramide, and acetaminophen. I can get more... especially intravenous ICU/critical care stuff if people are interested... adds a bit of colour... let me know and keep up the great work! Erich 08:09, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've adjusted the colors in Image:Propofol.jpg some to try to make it less washed-out. Does this look okay?
Image:Metoclopramide_ampule.jpg is hard to see, and the label becomes a purple blur when it's resized. It'd be better to find an example that was larger and not transparent.
These would probably look better in better lighting, but, as I'm not a photographer, I couldn't really say what to do differently. --Eequor 15:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Gedday, I agree the lighting is not great... the flash is incompatible with macro mode so it limits the options... I could try under the theatre lights I guess... re the propofol touch up... unfortunately propofol really is very white... like milk. (We tell the kids we'll give them a "special milkshake". ) Any way I can keep trying if you think they add something to pages. Erich 00:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I think we should really decide upon a standard infobox, because there are lot of drug infoboxes about, all good, but all slightly different. The on sample one here's really nice, but I think the side-effects section should be removed, just for simplicity's sake. I also suggest adding the drug's ATC code to the table, as it is an international and simple way of categorising drugs. Daevatgl 16:38, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

The side effects section is mostly just a skeleton. Probably most articles would leave out sections of that. Side effects will be mentioned somewhere in each article; it seems like the best standard location for those would be the infobox.
Should ATC codes and CAS numbers both be included? --Eequor 00:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the current infobox is skewed towards medical use of drugs. It seems fairly inappropriate for drugs that are predominantly of interest for their non-medical usage. I don't have any suggestions for how to improve the situation (yet). Also, I have been adding INNs to drug pages whenever possible. This can be found using ChemID (see CAS number) but this seems to be incomplete. I have obtained access to the official UN INN site but I'm yet to see how easy it is to look these things up. Also I think it is worth including the IUPAC name in each entry. Rkundalini 12:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're right. The Indicated for: section should probably be expanded. Contraindications: is still useful for recreational drugs; for example, depressants with stimulants and vice versa. Side effects: is relevant too. --Eequor 13:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. But I don't think the term "recreational drugs" should be used since it does not encompass non-recreational, non-medical use of drugs, for example entheogens. Rkundalini 14:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you can do a search on the INN site, but is a pdf containing a list of INNs (and I think CAS no.s). It might not be a comprehensive list, but it's a good start. Also I use often, it gives a list of synonyms (but doesn't say which is the INN) and the chemical structure (they ask for registration after 10 searches or so). Keep in mind that a drug may have several different ATC codes. Matt 16:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes you can search for INNs at , but you (stupidly) have to apply for access (which I did, successfully). Perhaps if we flood them with requests they will realise it is a silly policy. Rkundalini 14:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There's another WHO site,, where you can do a name search on the ATC index. If you get a hit, it should be INN. Not very practical either, but you can check whether a name's INN or not. Daevatgl 17:02, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

How does methamphetamine look? --Eequor 01:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, but see my comment on "recreational" vs "non-medical" above. Also, what is meant by "miscellaneous"? Are these actually indications or side-effects? Probably a link to anorectic should go there somewhere too. Rkundalini 15:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The miscellaneous section is for side effects that don't fit in the other categories. --Eequor 16:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Found an interesting reference site, Psychotropics by the Lundbeck Institute. Includes manufacturer ID numbers, chemistry, pharmacology, lots of half-life info, studies, commercial names, dosages and available forms. Foobar 03:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the Taxobox automated template, the WikiProject_Tree_of_Life folks have created something extremely useful. A live example is at fungus; edit it to see. Instead of cloning and hacking a static template layout each time, you just pass parameters to the dynamic template's code sections (e.g. {{drugbox_chemical_formula | color = "lightblue" | formula = "C6H12O6"}}). If we need to change or add things to the infobox in future, we just change the global template source, rather than the large and numerous static tables on each of our pages! If we can adapt this system to our project and create our own auto-infobox, things would be fantastically smooth :O I think I'll start experimenting. Foobar 15:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So what's the story with the infobox on the project page, is it parameterized like Foobar mentions above, or not? I would like to change the word "Recreational" to "Non-medical", however if it's just a copy n paste thing then it probably already appears in a zillion places, pretty annoying... Rkundalini 00:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Separation of chemical and pharmacological data

IMHO the substance infobox should be split into two sections or boxes: into a chemical data box (including the molecular structure image) and a pharmacology data box (including the ATC code). This would allow to stay compatible with the widely used non-drug chemical data boxes and it would make sense to separate the chemical data from unrelated human pharmacological data. Compare DMT (drug boxes) and 5-MeO-DMT (chemical data box only as of now). Cacycle 19:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. There are two, very large, quite disparate corpi of drug data: organic chemistry-type (synthesis, physical properties, [Beilstein index]) and pharmacological type (bioavailability, clearance times, LD50). I think these data could be most readily incorporated with two types of info boxes. rmbh 21:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Subtle changes to infobox

I subtly edited the infobox template just then. The half-life link points to my new elimination half-life article (solves the problem of the half-life article being very physics/chem oriented. The legal status link now points to Regulation of therapeutic goods, since the previous link to Controlled Substances Act was too American-centric (though someone should probably update the American info on the new article, since I know almost nothing about how drugs are regulated in the U.S.). I also changed "Delivery" to "Routes of Administration" to make the meaning more explicit. Hope everyone's okay with the changes. Techelf 11:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The LD50 is a popular pharmacological statistic, and it's a quantitative measure of toxicity. Shouldn't LD50s be added to the pharmacological info? rmbh 21:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. LD50 is a quantitative measurement of the dosage that is lethal to 50% of whatever organism is taking the drug. For instance, in rats, morphine's LD50 is 461 mg/kg when taken orally. It is 600 mg/kg in mice. This is a very useful way to measure the toxicity of drugs. --Alberrosidus 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Subst vs. Transclusion

I very briefly tried to adjust the mechanics of {{Drugbox}} to provide the option for transclusion with content filled by passing parameters, but was not successful and reverted myself. Is there a way to alter the infobox template to provide the option for transclusion? Courtland 01:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've succeeded (after climbing up the learning curve) in revising the mechanics of {{Drugbox}} to allow transclusion and have transcluded into Atorvastatin. The revised template preserves all functionality of the old version and substantially reduces the complexity of pages into which it is placed. Courtland 12:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Infobox additions

I currently miss the following items in the infobox:

Is it possible to add these to the pharmacological info? --WS 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject main page, templates

I've taken the liberty of adding {{Drugbox}} to the listing of general templates on the main page for this WikiProject. It is not a pretty addition ... I will work to make it so later. Courtland 12:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

May 2006 update

I updated the drugbox for aesthetics and readability. Probably the only issue I can think of is abbreviation/contraction of entry names: molecular weight, chemical formula, pregnancy category and routes of administration. I found that it was necessary to fit these entries on a single line. I think that if people are in doubt they can always click on the name. As a bonus, the new format seems to partially alleviate the printing problem discussed a few months ago. Let me know if you have any problems with the new box. -Techelf 11:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki and templates

The wiki engine seems to be barfing when given pages containing more than five templates. After the fifth template (including subtemplates), edit links on later ones no longer point to the correct location. Whether this is a bug or feature remains to be debated, but it's making the editing of templates (especially on this project's subpages) a bit annoying. Foobar 04:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's so irritating! They did that intentionally, too. It's a terrible idea; the problem's been visible in lots of places. I'm hoping the developers will realize it's a bad idea soon, so they'll turn it off. --Eequor 05:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Systematic chemical names

I propose the systematic chemical names (when they are not very short, like N,N-dimethylaniline) to be written in <small> tag, e.g. 2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane, because they mostly do not contain spaces and therefore are not wrapped, so they can overflow the page width. We should also use the proper nomenclature and typesetting rules. So instead of
(3E)-4-[(3aR,4R,6aS)-1,3-dimethyl-2-oxo-hexahydro-1H-thieno[3,4-d]imidazol-4-yl]-3-butenoic acid
we should write
(3E)-4-[(3aR,4R,6aS)-1,3-dimethyl-2-oxohexahydro-1H-thieno[3,4-d]imidazol-4-yl]but-3-enoic acid.
What do you think about it? Mykhal 15:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

shouldn't the names wrap at the hyphen marks? I hadn't noticed that they don't wrap. I find the teeny font to be tricky to read, but I don't like it when a page is forced to be wider because of a single "word". Are there other solutions to this? Matt 02:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was trying to look for some special html character (like &nbsp;) which would be invisible, but would turn into newline char in case of need. But I was unsuccesful. Mykhal 10:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I use IE, it breaks at a hyphen (-) if needed. Do other browsers not break at the hyphen? Matt 21:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) ... It also breaks between at the start and end of (parentheses) and [brackets]. For me, this is expected behaviour.
It seems that Mozilla browser does not wrap these names neither at hyphens nor parentheses.. So sometimes the chemical name is twice as longer than page width. I'll consider sending them a behavior change proposal. Mykhal 17:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's a character in the ISO-8859-1 specification (&#130 - see Control character), that is defined as "Break permitted here", which could be used to solve the problem. If only Mozilla/Firefox would support it...(it doesn't, I checked)--Aramgutang 05:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Heh, you can't break with &nbsp; because this is exactly what it does - "non-breaking space". And it is not invisible either - it creates a space. -- Boris 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thus far I've been strategically leaving spaces in the IUPAC names, since Gecko-browsers (e.g. Mozilla) will linebreak at the spaces if necessary. However, since someone labelled these spaces "spurious", the less-than-elegant solution I've used for imatinib is to simply put <br> tags where linebreaks were needed - and it seems to work for both MSIE and Gecko browsers. Techelf 07:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I initially write the whole name and then open the article with Opera (I have Dumbxplorer too, but obviously i don't use it for "Wiki" work). Then i put <br /> (i use it with " /") tags where Opera has "broken" the name. -- Boris 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

List of drugs

The initial List of drugs pages are finally up. When you are working on a particular drug, it would be helpful if you checked it's entries on the list to ensure that they're correct and complete. School has just started again for me now, so I don't know how much I'll be contributing in the near future. I wish you all the best of luck. Matt 22:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MSIE fixing

I have edited most of the templates to display properly under MSIE. I'm surprised the project has gone for so long without anyone fixing any of the numerous problems, I mean, didn't the main project place look like this for anyone else? (I'm using IE 6.0sp1 under Win2000 with a 1280x960 resolution if you're wondering)

Apparently, the <div> tags around the tables were the reason for the messy appearance. Since they surved no useful purpose anyway, I removed them, putting align="center" into the table header istead. The orange footer had problems with display that were slightly different (only the bottom half of the table backgound and border would show), but were still fixed by removing the div tags.

The infobox was the most messed up template of all. Firstly, who's idea was it to write colours in #fff format? I changed all the colours to their 6 hex digit equivalents (ie. #def -> #ddeeff), so they work under IE. Also, a big problem was the fact that the Wiki engine would sometimes randomly add <p><br /></p> between the two tables in the infobox for no apparent reason. This messed considerably with page layout, as all space to the left of the first table would be made blank by this. I changed the code between the tables from:

 {| border="0" blah blah...


 </table><table border="0" blah blah...

This ensures that nothing ever gets put between the tables. I hope the changes didn't mess up the layout for other browsers (I only checked with IE and Firefox).--Aramgutang 05:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Legal/moral disclaimers?

Anybody else agree that we should most probably include a message at the top of all drug pages?

I mean if we are going to be writing patient/clinical information about a drug, it would probably be best to warn them about the risks of wikipedia information.

If not for legal reasons, then at least for moral reasons?

Something along the lines of:

Caution: This page on wikipedia contains both clinical and patient information on a drug. Remember that any page on wikipedia can be edited by anybody at any time. The information below is not to be considered a reliable source, and should all be checked against reliable references before it is put to use.

--Jaguar2k 07:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea. I think there is already a standard medical disclaimer somwhere (?)) -- Rkundalini
I have seen one for chemicals that warns against making use of hazchem info, and the Template:DrugsNotice does something similar however it doesn't warn against using the info. --Jaguar2k 01:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)... Actually see Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer for what you are referring to.
There is already a Disclaimers link on every page. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 22:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There should be a statement, not a link. The probability that everyone will click a link for a disclaimer is very low. Although a link is a legal disclaimer, there should be a real disclaimer for the sake of safety and to really get the warning about drugs accross. - SuperLazyAss


How about we come to an agreement on the wording and then have a vote as to whether it should be implemented?

Template for a disclaimer Template:DrugWarning:

Caution: This page contains drug information that may NOT be accurate, valid, or peer reviewed. Please read and acknowledge both the General disclaimer and the Medical Disclaimer before reading this page.

--Jaguar2k 01:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DrugsNotice template

Does Template:DrugsNotice really belong at the bottom of the drug articles themselves? It seems to violate the self-reference rules, and seems out of place. It might be better off at the top of the talk pages, like it is for some articles. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 01:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree and have moved some of them to the talk page. - SimonP 01:17, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Added Hallucinogens/Sedatives/Dissociatives

Hi, I'm new to this wiki project, but I decided to add Hallucinogens, Sedatives and Dissociatives (I spelled the template wrong i think). Someone (thank you :-) ) broke up hallucinogens into categories. Since Benzodiazepines and Barbiturates fall into many categories (anticovulsants, antianxiety , sedative) I decided to put them under sedative. If anyone finds anything wrong please tell me or email me :-D thanks Cocoapunk

New templates for 'hallucinogenic compounds'

I have added the following pharmacological templates:

  • {{Hallucinogens}} main category for the following subclasses of psychedelic hallucinogens
    • {{Hallucinogenic tryptamines}} only psychedelic hallucinogens of the tryptamine class, there is a {{Tryptamines}} template for tryptamines as a chemical class
    • {{Hallucinogenic phenethylamines}} only psychedelic hallucinogens of the phenethylamines class, there is a {{Phenethylamines}} template for phenethylamines as a chemical class
    • {{Hallucinogenic lysergamides}} only psychedelic hallucinogens of the lysergamide class
  • {{Dissociative hallucinogens}} replaces {{Disassociatives}} (wrong spelling)
  • {{Entactogens}}
  • {{Deliriants}} Anticholinergic deliriants
  • {{Cannabinoids}}

Cacycle 20:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Specific and General Criticisms

I think that it should be noted that dissociative anaesthetics such as ketomine, dxm, pcp, and nitrous oxide should probably not be classified as a subset of hallucinogens, due to neurological differences. In general, however, the Hallucinogenic Drug Templates are poorly organized and worded and need an organizational overhaul. I am not particularly up to this challenge, as I would find it more suitable for someone with a large measure of expertise to do this. If you are out there reading this message, please take some time to think of an organizational heirarchy to present on this talk page that you think would parallel the standards of current medical thought. I will help when I have the time. The reason why I brought up this general criticism, though, is that I think that linking drugs via Hallucinogens rather than by their technical classes is a poor choice, since there is great subjectivity in what makes something a hallucinogen. For instance, many people regard certain cannabinoids as being halluniogenic, and others not. (And some as being stimulants and depressants as well.) It would be more suitable to either just note on each page that there may be hallucinogenic properties, or to create one seperate notice, placed on each page of a drug that has been considered hallucinogenic. Flying Hamster 20:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added Proton Pump Inhibitors

Added proton pump inhibitors ... I will try to find some way to fix the hallucinogen mess when i get time Cocoapunk 22:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 Thanks. Flying Hamster 22:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hallucinogen Classification

Ok now I have done some research (predominantly on erowid) and I do believe that Disociatives are their own class of drugs, as most use is quite different from the standard measure for a hallucinogen (The Mescaline Scale). Here is how I believe we can break up the Hallucinogen Categories:

-Disociatives (Own Category) - Create a category for Anticholingergic drugs and put the delirant drugs there (all the drugs, while used recreationally, have clinical applications as anticholingerics and they should stay like that) - I believe that the separation between different hallucinogens should be regarded in the clinical sense, because while the US gvmt. considers almost all hallucinogenic drugs illegal and of no use, most are useful psychiatric tools. However the only real blanket term i can think of is hallucinogens so unless anyone else can suggest a better way to separate regular phenethylamines and hallucinogenic phenethylamines with out this disorganization it swould help - THC should be considered a Cannabinoid because if we look at this from a clinical aspect THC and other cannabinoids have clinical actions related to the CB receptors, and all characteristics of this binding are not hallucinogen-like - Enactogens are fine as they are - While most of the time Dextromethorphan is considered a disociative, it is a mu-opioid receptor agonist and that is its clinical method of action so I am unsure of its classification

If everyone can agree with certain thoughts on hallucinogens I will create the categories and organize it. Thanks for the suggestions Cocoapunk 01:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dextromethorphan is an opioid and used clinically for cough suppression; since the opioids are listed under analgesics (and this is not their only use) maybe a new category for the cough suppressant opioids would be appropriate. The fact that they have some abuse potential can be noted in the article but hallucinogenesis is not the principle use of dextromethorphan, pholcodeine etc. and I don't think that listing them as hallucinogens really is appropriate. ben 10:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"hallucinogen" is not a category. dxm is categorized as a dissociative, which it is, as well as a number of other things. non-clinical/medical use of dextromethorphan has its own article, Non-medical use of dextromethorphan, because of the point you bring up about its principle use. due to this project not coming to any decisions about how to deal with hallucinogens, the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants was set up; for categorization, see Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants Categorization. --Heah (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I would argue heavily in favor of eliminating hallucinogen as a organizational category and using the respective drugs' Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System categories. This is what is recommended on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/Categorization. Those that do not have entries in the ATCCS such as tryptamines and phenethylamines would just be classified as tryptamines and phenethylamines as opposed to subsets of hallucinogens, for clarity, and because not all tryptomines or phenethylamines have hallucinogenic qualities. A seperate template could be made to designate that a particular drug is a hallucinogen, or that a particular drug has hallucinogenic qualities, or both templates could be made and used when most appropriate (my preference). This way, THC could be classified as a cannabinoid, but have a template:hallucinogenic properties, where DMT could be considered a tryptomine, but have a template:hallucinogen on the page as well. These templates could be categorical lists or just notices... I believe that notices would be more appropriate because I think that both categories are extremely broad and the boxes would be very large. Also, I do not see the need to seperate "hallucinogenic" and "non-hallucinogenic" phenethylamines. Subcategorizations of phenethylamines are available that are more suitable. For instance, amphetamines are a subcategory of phenethylamines. I will look to see if I can't find a thorough subcategorization of phenethylamines. Flying Hamster 02:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Drugs/Categorization. --Rkundalini 06:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Flying hamster i think that is a good suggestion...does anyone have a problem with it? Cocoapunk 02:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I have a problem with rigidly using ATCCS (a scheme for therepeutic drugs) for all drugs, many of which are primarily used for non-medical / "recreational" purposes. However later in the above entry s/he seems to come round to keeping non-ATCCS classifications, I agree with everything s/he says there. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Drugs/Categorization --Rkundalini 03:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just want to say that as a feminist, I love the use of s/he as opposed to "he or she"... :) Flying Hamster 05:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hallucinogen Classification (2)

Please could we continue discussing this topic in one place, i.e. here? And please could you try to structure your replies a bit so that non-native speakers can follow more easily :-)

"Hallucinogens" are not listed in the american ATCCS system for different mostly non-scientific reasons. But as you have stated above, several classes of "hallucinogens" are used and have been used therapeutically. Even if they were without therapeutic use we had to add them somewhere into OUR categorization scheme, simply because they are, obviously, pharmacologically acting drugs. They should be inserted somewhere under 'psychoactive compounds'.

We should follow the existing and widely accepted scientific nomenclature, based on the pharmacological mechanisms and the distinct subjective effects caused by these compounds. A chemically main classification does not make sense if the mechanism and the effects are identical. However, a chemical subcategorization makes sense to me if there are only a few main classes with many entries. There should be (and there is! See Template:Tryptamines, Template:Phenethylamines) a chemical categorization of Wikipedia entries, but that is out of the scope of this Drug project.

It must also be possible to list compounds into different categories if they are used in different contexts. Many compounds have multiple unrelated pharmacological mechanisms (e.g. dextromethorphan, anticholinergic antihistaminics) and/or have different effect depending on the dose they are used at (e.g. ketamine).

On the Wikipedia hallucinogenic drug page there are a many different classes of compounds listed as "hallucinogens". That might be confusing, but in this WikiProject on Drugs we should follow the current scientific terminology instead. This widely accepted scientific nomenclature is as follows:

  • Hallucinogens for a psychedelic hallucinogenic drug or, pharmacologically speaking, 5-HT2A receptor agonists. Because there are three chemical main classes sharing the same mechanism and having identical effects we should subcategorize them into Hallucinogenic tryptamines, Hallucinogenic phenethylamines, and Hallucinogenic lysergamides, simply for a better overview.

All other classes are not hallucinogens following the current scientific system:

  • Entactogens are compounds with effects similar to MDMA.
  • Deliriants are centrally acting anticholinergic drugs at higher concentrations, causing 'real' hallucinations beside their peripherally mediated effects. Several anthihistaminics have anticholinergic side-effects at higher dosages. These effects (or this use) are (probably) not identical to an existing 'Anticholinergic' entry.
  • Dissociatives (or 'Dissociative hallucinogens') (this is the correct spelling). Again, the compounds from this category might also be listed somewhere else, but for clearly different uses (e.g. as anesthetics).
  • Cannabinoids

I have already added new templates the last weekend according to this scheme. Cacycle 14:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This looks good in general. I do agree that the proposed "non-hallucinogens that cause hallucinations" category is confusing and could be done away with (given suitable cross-referencing in the category-level entries). However, I'm with Flying Hamster (or at least, I think this is what s/he's advocating). The double-banger categories like Hallucinogenic tryptamines seem unnecessary for me. It seems to me more logical to put these substances in both Hallucinogens and Tryptamines. Most drugs will fit into two or more (sometimes many more) categories, are we going to construct categories for every possible combination of them? --Rkundalini 04:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Right on. I am for seperate trees for the sake of organization, although I agree with some of Cacycle's analysis. The need for this becomes more evident when you look at the significant overlap between the categories... let's see here... Most Entactogens are considered Hallucinogens. Even MDMA is a hallucinogenic drug. I am positive that dissociative anesthetics is a more accurate term than dissociative hallucinogens, because although both 'anesthetic' and 'hallucinogen' are derived from their usage, in the context of their hallucinogenic use, they are often considered 'dissociative anesthetics' or even 'hallucinogenic dissociative anesthetics'. Flying Hamster 06:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rkundalini: 'Hallucinogenic tryptamines', 'Hallucinogenic phenethylamines', and 'Hallucinogenic lysergamides' were meant as SUB-categories under the main category 'Hallucinogens'. Some subcaregorization has to be done if we don't want templates filling a whole browser window with several hundred Wikipedia links. Subcategorization by chemical classes is done in all other ATCCS categories, just check out the antibiotics sections. Hallucinogens have always been separated into the mentioned classes, so it would make sense if we would use the same scheme.
Flying Hamster: Entactogens are NOT considered hallucinogens from a scientific standpoint, forget about the Wikipedia hallucinogenic drug page. MDMA does indeed have a 5-HT2A agonistic SIDE activity, but it has been shown in a study that this is not essential for the unique effects of this class of compounds. Only MDA would have to be categorized as a hallucinogen as well as an entactogen because this compound is really promiscous.
I think it is not that important if we call the category 'dissociatives' or 'dissociative hallucinogens', but 'dissociative anesthetics' might be misleading. These compounds are clearly not used as anesthetics in this context, even if most of them COULD be used as anesthetics.
Cacycle 13:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cacycle: I am not sure where you are getting your facts, but I have several contentions regarding what you have just mentioned that may serve to indicate the extreme difference in our standpoints. First, however, I suggest moving this conversation back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/Categorization because this page is nearing 32KB as the notice indicates. Flying Hamster 16:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arguements for and against drug prohbition

I added to the Arguements for on all 3 sections, I wrote 2 of them myself. I feel both of the ones I began could be expanded but should not be expanded into the dominion of the Prohibition (drugs article. The point-counterpoint section seems long and repititive(sp?). I'm considering printing out all the points and there counterpoints on individual sheets of paper then going to work grouping all of the similiar ones and trying to eliminate the redundant ones and some seem to be more facts than points. Some could be reworded to a more NPOV and I suppose they could be categorized based on for/against and the main concept why they argue for or against drug prohibition(like "victimless crimes" or "immorallity"). Do you think this would be the right direction to take with that page? Eric Urban 22:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed on Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition. btw spelling: argument, repetitive. Rkundalini 02:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If you need photos, there are lots on the DEA website (PD, as works of US government employees). David.Monniaux 08:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Text of template

I'd like to ask you to consider changing the text of your template. The current text:

If you are interested in editing this article, please see its talk page and ensure your edits are consistent with the goals of the project.

implies that an editor should not edit the article unless they are working on this project. That is not a very wiki attitude. It also doesn't make a lot of sense, as some materials used as drugs also have significant unrelated uses. Securiger 10:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hallucinogens, etc. Descendant Project

Hi everyone- I haven't been around here all too long, but have been doing some work on all of the hallucinogen and associated articles, trying to stick to the general outline of this project, using your templates and whatnot. I just now stumbled across all the heated talk page discussion, debating exactly what i've been working on. I had come here to talk to you guys about a possible descendant project, which seems imho an even better idea after seeing all the controversy here. I'm sure this will meet with some resistance, as will much of the editing i've already been doing (which i apologize for . . .)

The problem, as I see it, is that hallucinogens and their associates tend to step outside the boundaries of normal drug classification. There is Category:Entheogens, for instance, which has to do with much more than the potential effects of a drug and virtually nothing to do with chemical classification of drugs, yet seems like an important part of drug classifications. Given the history, mythology, and divergent uses of hallucinogenic drugs, more is involved than most drug pages. There are religious and spiritual factors, historical factors, philosophical factors, and so on and so forth; not that these things don't always come into play, but they seem much more pronounced in this area. Many hallucinogens demand to be categorized in several divergent ways, seeming to surpass the stated scope of this particular project. It doesn't seem like the project came to any real conclusions, or did anything further after the discussion (though of course i may be wrong); imho, the more rigidly limited scope of the drug project is a factor in the inability to resolve these issues.

So, before i get into all the terrible things i've already done, i'd like to propose a descendant of this wikiproject. i don't think a project on hallucinogens is big enough to be all its own; more to the point, it deals with an area already covered here, and it would seem to make more sense to make it a descendant project- to facilitate an understanding and dialogue on the goals of the two projects, to keep anyone's toes from being stepped on and to avoid the disputes and chaos that would result from that, and to make sure that all of you already working on the drug project are aware of and have a voice in the project.

The project would encompass hallucinogens and their associates, under the general heading of "hallucinogens". This would include not just tryptamines and LSD, but also deliriants and dissociatives, and associating itself with drugs like tobacco and cannabis. The plants, fungi, and concoctions made from these (e.g. ayahuasca) would be included (probably the most important extension beyond the scope of project:drugs). The main category would be hallucinogens, under psychoactive drugs; under this, there would essentially be three parallel schemes of classification- the standard Chemical class and effects, herbal & fungal hallucinogens, and entactogens-entheogens-etc.

So, for the part you really aren't going to like, I've gone ahead and reorganized alot of the hallucinogen categories, not having seen the controversy here. I apologize, and consent to reverts and edits while humbly requesting that they (and this project) are discussed first. I didn't mean to do anything controversial or step on your toes, and seeing the talk pages here, I figure i should probably confess to all that i've done. A slightly more detailed outline of the proposed project is also given here, in a rather convoluted form.

  • All of the particular drug articles in Category:Hallucinogens have been removed and placed in sub-categories. The main article of each should still be in there, (eg, Phenethylamine), although they are not at the moment.
  • Classification.
    • Effects and Chemical class. Drugs (of course) still retain their chemical classifications as a category. Sub-categories have been created under these: eg, Category:Tryptamines now includes Category:Hallucinogenic tryptamines and Category:Hallucinogenic tryptamine carriers. (sorry.) "hallucinogenic tryptamines" and " . . . tryptamine carriers" are sub-categories of Hallucinogens, while "tryptamines" is not (ie, seratonin, among others, is not hallucinogenic). A notice is at the top of each chemical class category page explaining that little is known about some of these drugs, and those not classed as hallucinogenic may actually be so. the "carriers" category provides classification according to chemical for plants, etc., which was previously lacking- eg, Psilocybe Cubensis is not a tryptamine, but it is a tryptamine carrier and should be categorized as such.
    • Herbal & fungals. Category:Herbal & fungal drugs/medicines, not something covered by you guys (i don't think), has been given two subcategories; Category:Herbal & fungal hallucinogens is a subcategory of herbal drugs/medicines as well as hallucinogens. Many plants and fungi are hallucinogenic, and this should be noted. This is somewhat redundant with categories such as " . . . tryptamine carriers", but with a different purpose and lacking psychoactive toads or Pharmahuasca, for instance; it provides a general category for hallucinogenic plants and fungi, certainly something useful.
    • Entheogens and so on. some useful and widely used classification schemes for hallucinogens do not have a rigid, scientific basis. "Entheogens" refers to hallucinogens with a long history of religious/spiritual use, for instance, and the category should reflect that (see Category talk:Entheogens.) It doesn't have a whole lot to with chemical composition, easily encompassing ibogaine, datura, and ayahuasca. The empathogens and entactogens categories have been combined into Category:Entactogens and Empathogens, as both terms denote the same thing and are in wide use; again, this isn't something addressed by a category like phenethylamines, which includes drugs such as methamphetamine, and there seem to be some tryptamines considered to be entactogens/empathogens.
  • I have also made the tobacco and cannabis categories into subcategories of Hallucinogens (without changing other categories they may be in.) As i'm sure is apparent, i've used "hallucinogen" in the wide sense, as it is described on Hallucinogenic drug; accordingly, deliriants, dissociatives, tobacco and etc have a place here. again, this project would go beyond simple chemical class, and encompasses hallucinogens outside the limited range of the psychedelics. I'm aware that this makes some of you unhappy, but in the name of consistency and utility I think its a good idea. The Deliriants and the dissociatives and the lysergamides should all be right near each other when it comes to categorization. I breifly considered placing the tabacco, deleriants and etc categories under the "entheogens" category, but this doesn't work when dissociatives are taken into account; imo a wide denotation of hallucinogen is the most useful way to categorize these.

Thats all the stuff i've done so far, (although not much work has been done with the entheogens or the empath/entactogens categories). I apologize again. I hope you can see how dealing with the subject of hallucinogens goes beyond the scope of the drugs project; in addition to chemical classes and the effects of those chemicals, it must take things such as plants and fungi into account, and it must take into account the cultural/religious uses of hallucinogens. The drug project doesn't really deal with these sorts of issues, but when it comes to hallucinogens, they are very important.

In addition to the categorization, the project would entail expanding and enriching the present articles on hallucinogens and adding new articles as necessary, as well as some new templates- eg, a tryptamine carriers template might be very useful for browsing in addition to the tryptamines/hallucinogenic tryptamines templates- looking at one psilocybe species, you can see the related plants/fungi, etc.

I hope you aren't all too pissed at me to give this serious thought. imho its a worthy project that can deal with some of the impasses reached here by expanding the scope of its criteria and categorization.

thoughts? opinions? if needed i can give a more detailed description of what i've already done; most of it should be fairly apparent if you look at Category:Hallucinogens.

--Heah 02:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this descendant project is a good idea, as information concerning hallucinogens as entheogens certainly has a much broader scope than most other drugs. I would however like to see what others think about it.
--Goldbot 03:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll second Goldbot's sentiments. It seems like it's big enough to warrant its own project, and doing so would relieve the burden on the folks focused more on the chemical side.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking from the chemical aspect; I fully support this potential WikiProject. Entheogenic substances are so chemically unique, they deserve their own unique attention. This idea is well thought out, and holds it's water to the max (in all chemical senses). I hope to see this grow into something big. I have contributed quite a bit to entheogenic and related articles, and would love to see this idea take off. It would certainly help clear up much of the confusion that many people have on virtually all aspects of these chemicals (or brews, whatever). I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes. --Ddhix 2002 03:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support creating this new project, as long as we are careful not to make the project overlap with this project. I'm not quite sure what the scope of the new project would be, but perhaps this could be discussed after creating the project. What should be the name of the project? "Hallucinogens and Entheogens"? Aenar 12:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the interest! i've been waiting for more input from the people working on this project before actually starting to set up a project page; i think that some overlap with this project is unavoidable, which is why i wanted to bring it up here- to get input from the people here and make sure that there was dialogue between the two projects, that they each know what is going on with the other so overlap, chaos, confusion, and etc can be avoided. If some more contribs here could share their thoughts it would help with all of that. i'll start working on the page tonight and probably put it up tomorrow, but it's finals time, so i really should be writing those plato papers . . . --Heah 02:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that hallucinogens (psychedelics, entheogens, empathagens, dissociatives, etc) certainly make up a complete project of their own apart from drugs in general. Sure there is some overlap, but the entheogenic use of coca and tobacco is so far removed from cigarettes and cocaine, that it is unthinkable to associate them together. The bigger problem is with coming up with proper terminology. I'm going to MindStates VI near the end of the month, so hopefully I'll get a chance to chat up some experts in the field and get some opinions from them. We essentially need two new terms -- one to replace hallucinogen such as to refer to any drug which alters consciousness in a mind manifesting way be it dissociative, or "empathetic", and also one to replace psychedelic such as to refer to the non-dissociatives such as LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc. Unfortunately entheogen tends to exclude semi-synthetics such as LSD, MDMA, DOM, etc, and refers to traditional spiritual use of naturally occuring psychedelics. There has been some suggestion to revert back to a term proposed by Aldous Huxley -- phanerothyme. This was the term that lost out to Humphry Osmond's psychedelic... so maybe it's time to make the switch to a word free from stereotypes (as proposed by Lisa Bieberman in 1968 [2]). --Thoric 20:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i've put up the project- see Wikipedia:WikiProject Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics. EVERYTHING up is subject to debate and discussion, including the name of the project if decided it should be changed. --Heah 22:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


Pardon, but is this WikiProject on Drugs, or what? --Abdull 02:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the wikipedia article on cocaine reads like american drug war propaganda. Not only are there factual errors (cocaine physically addictive? hah!), which are presented as not-disputed facts and later justified (as in real life) with such intelectual pearls as “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain.”. If you're gonna argue that drugs are evil mmmkay then at least make a consistent case for it, not against it. Please do not remove this entry without a little tought into the matter. There is already too much misinformation about drugs doing the rounds.

Interface with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals

Hi, I'm involved with this "sister" Wikiproject, which has become very active lately (it was dormant for a long time prior to that). We are trying to upgrade a range of pages on specific chemical substances to our standards. Some of those pages include some simple drugs, but I want to make sure that we don't have any conflicts of standards. We use a standard data table at the right hand side of each page, and we look for a balance of information on chemical properties, preparation, uses, safety information, etc. We keep track of how we are doing on the worklist page. Please can you let us know if you foresee any problems, before we start making lots of changes. Hopefully you will mainly see it as upgrading the chemistry content of these pages. Thanks a lot, Walkerma 15:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The need for chemistry information on drug pages. I think every drug article ought to have a section on the chemical properties of a drug (e.g. pK, synthesis, and hopefully something about its history as well). I have tried gleaning historical information on drugs (e.g. cyclophosphamide and penicillamine), but this only applies when the history is quite clear-cut.
Drugbox. We need to step up our drugbox. The box on paracetamol is rather large, and I'm personally in favour of Template:Drugbox in its compact form. Templates have now grown up to the point that we can pass all the parameters as arguments, and the design of the box can be changed by editing the template (instead of manually having to touch all the pages).
Data sources. I am also looking for an authoratitive, easily accessible source for all that pharmacokinetics data (half-life etc.) If there are good articles (such as what I found on dantrolene) this is not a problem, but it should be possible to base this information on reliable studies that can be referenced. The Martindale is good, but I have no access to it, and somehow does not seem to be a solid reference. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For clarification purpose, I made a straightforward combination of the {{chembox}} and the {{drugbox}} infoboxes on the paracetamol and testosterone wikipages. Many drugs not only have a pharmaceutical effect, but are also interesting chemical compounds. As such, they need both the pharma as the chemical info, as FJW points out here. Especially the chemical infobox, pointed out by dr. Walker above, is a well balanced table of chemical data and after due peer-review and adaptation process now stable. In my humble opinion it combines nicely with the Pharmaceutical datablock inserted. If I look well, approximately 10 wikipages fall in both WikiProjects, with approx 400 in the Chemicals wikiproject, and an equal number (as yet mostly non-existant) articles in the Drugs wikiproject. So this is not about numbers. P.S. The infoboxes are not templates with arguments, so they're not changeable on the fly. That can only be done by laborious editing work.

So, I recommend that wikipages in both Wikiprojects use the/a combined infobox, and all the other wikipages only the infobox of their primary Wikiproject. Wim van Dorst 21:59, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC).

  • I have also made a "straightforward combination" of {{chembox}} and {{drugbox}} on the paracetamol article. Let us not forget
  1. that 4-(acetylamino)phenol is only really interesting as a chemical because it is an over-the-counter analgesic;
  2. that the interests of the general reader should be paramount in the ordering and the display of information.
I hope to get a short Preparation section together for paracetamol: not that the preparation in itself is that interesting, but it is a fairly common high-school/freshman organic chemistry practical.
Physchim62 19:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While actively looking at the changes that Martin did to the paracetamol table, all of a sudden I got PC's revert back to the drugsbox, but then significantly better. While hesitant, reading it well I now actually like what PC did. If this {{drugchembox}} can be made the standard for the overlapping chemicals/drugs, I'll second your proposal. And thus I'll agree that this will be good for an A-Class grade for the drugs-related wikipages in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist. (but only for those wikipages). Wim van Dorst 20:49, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC).

I (MAW) did a slimmed down version of the hybrid Chembox, but I think I like Physchim62's version best, and for the same reason he did it- paracetamol only has a page at this point because of its use as a drug. I think this helps crystallise the solution to this boundary problem- precedence for a given page should be given to the Wikiproject most related to the central themes of the page. Common sense, really, but I think this principle can guide us on this issue. I think therefore paracetamol is a drug first and a chemical (compound) second, so it should have a Drugbox. By contrast, chloroform is a chemical (compound) first and an anesthetic second, so it has a Chembox.

IMHO, we should come up with a hybrid (such as the paracetamol one) that is acceptable to both Wikiprojects. For "mainly drug" pages such as paracetamol, this should follow a "mainly drugbox format." What chemical aspects are most useful to such things? Is density important? Should pKa be included where relevant as in paracetamol? Should we have a supplement page for chemical info, as we do on the new Chembox (see toluene for an example of this- less important data are on a supplement page)? I would say not- I favour something simple, close to PC's paracetamol box.

JFW, with a simple table like PC's, can you pass all the parameters as arguments? If so, can you show us how? Cheers, Walkerma 21:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Mijn Gott, Wim & I agree on something ;) May I summarize the proposal:
  • Drugs-related articles should continue to use the {{drugbox}} template
  • Additions by "chemists" should generally go at the bottom, as of less interest to the general reader but still worthy of inclusion. The general format of the {{drugbox}} template should be retained for additions. I don't think we need to define {{drugbox chemical}}: for one the number of compounds concerened is very limited, so, it has to be said, is the accessible chemical information. The additions I made to the table in paracetamol were based on what Wim & I could find: I removed the R/S-phrases as supplier-POV (paracetamol is not a annex 1 substance), there is no pKa simply because we haven't found the value (yet)!
  • A supplemantary data page can be added if appropriate (i.e., if there's anything to go on there), with the following code
! align=center columnspan=2 | [[{{PAGENAME}}/Supplementary data page|Supplementary data]]
The same goes for adding sections to the articles: pharmacology should normally come first, pure chemistry afterwards. We might still end up with problems with articles such as nitrous oxide, but at least we know where to find each other! Physchim62 21:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Participation on the project

I was wondering if I can participate in the project without having to add my name? I'm interested to participate, but don't know if I will have much time to contribute. Fadix 19:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Terbinafine hydrochloride" or "Terbinafine"?

I just consulted this article for some personal information, & noticed the {{merge}} tag at the top, which was placed there over 6 months ago & never discussed. I have no opinion about the issue, but I think it's past time that someone act: either make the changes, or remove the tag. -- llywrch June 29, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

International drug control conventions

I have added statements to numerous articles, e.g. "Internationally, DOM is a Schedule I drug under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances". Should there be a template for this, due to the number of articles that contain similar wording as that? There are two treaties (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Convention on Psychotropic Substances) and four schedules under each. Nathan256 29 June 2005 16:53 (UTC)

Marketing logos

There have been a couple of recent additions of marketing logos added to drug articles and I wanted to bring up a discussion of that here. I don't have any problem with adding logos, the question is where to add them on the page and how prominent to make them in the article. The two articles that I've recently seen additions to are Atorvastatin and Simvastatin. In the first case, I edited the page to clean up the presentation of the logo, adding it to the {{Drugbox}} beneath the chemical structure; in the second case I've not done anything with the placement.

The problem as I see it is that (popular) drugs are often marketed under different names and (possibly) logos depending on the country in which the marketing is done. The placement question boils down to a couple of suggested options:

  • provide a place in the {{Drugbox}} for them
    I don't like this option much
  • encourage placement above {{Drugbox}}
  • encourage placement below {{Drugbox}}
  • encourage placement in a "marketing" section
    I've added such a section to a couple of articles; I've received no feedback on whether these have been good or bad additions
  • discourage addition to the drug page, but encourage addition to the manufacturer/marketer's page
    i.e. in the case of Atorvastatin, the logo-set would be found on the Pfizer Inc. article, or a child article related to the company's products

I'm just presenting these bullets as points for discussion, not really as a "please vote" request. Regards, Courtland 02:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Registered trademark

Is there a convention in Wikipedia regarding the use of the registered trademark symbol ®? I've seen it applied for various drug names. My personal bias is that the ® symbol "commercializes" the feel of the entries. My sense is that the only time I've seen the symbol used in the medical literaure is in advertisements! Andrew73 19:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been discussing this with Andrew on email. I think trademarking the first instance of a brandname is a good way of showing the difference between trade name and generic name. I make it a point to say in intros that drugs are marketed as followed by the brand name. Wikipedia should use generic names (an exception is combinations, such as Serevent). JFW | T@lk 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
They aren't used for other trademarks, so I wouldn't use them specifically for trademarked drug names. --WS 21:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
A common use in pharmacy texts and practice is to write the name of the trademarked drug in all caps. I'm not sure if that would go against the style rules for Wikipedia or not, but I do know it's common practice in school. Starbane 04:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I favor just capitalizing the trade name (which seems standard practice in medical journs)...all caps seems too much like shouting! Andrew73 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


G'day, I'm going about making a template for antiviral drugs but I'm not too great with syntax etc. Please help out by sanding down any rough edges if you notice them. Ben


An anti-vaccine editor thought he could freely hijack Polypharmacy for his agenda. I'm have a lot of fun there. Care to join? Invitations not required, but hard evidence is useful. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So this is your take on fostering the Wiki's collaborative approach? Simply deleting content that doesn't suit your pov seems to violate the spirit and intent of the Wiki. And please, kindly adopt a friendlier demeanor. Ombudsman 21:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dearie me! Deleting content that doesn't suit my POV? Let's start with your insertion of unsourced stuff that suits your agenda! Your demeanor (even your fake username) ceases being friendly the moment you are challenged. I wish you a pleasant day and hope you keep your biased rubbish out of subjects you know absolutely tiddly squat about. JFW | T@lk 01:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

BAY 59-7939

I've written BAY 59-7939. Does anyone know how to find the molecular structure of this serine protease inhibitor? It may well provide what ximelagatran could not. JFW | T@lk 09:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Antipsychotics template

Recommend adding cannabidiol to this template [3] [4] [5] --Thoric 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Weird template linking

I noticed your template linking style and was wondering if there was a reason to use it over the "tl" style. Is there? Thanx 01:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Unformatted and unverified additions

Some drug articles, such as trazodone and dantrolene, have been expanded by anons to include all sorts of material. Some of it sounds reasonable, but most of it is unsourced, uses odd spellings (frequently German contaminations and terminology) and may be unverifiable. I am slowly coming round to the view that such edits should be discouraged. What are your views on reverting these edits, or copying them to the talk page? Usually, the anon is not a fixed IP and cannot be invited to give sources for the material inserted. JFW | T@lk 12:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these edits should be discouraged, unless verifiable. I'll take a look at these articles and see if I can find suitable sources for the inserted material. --Uthbrian (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Drug therapy

Why have you people merged "Drug therapy" with "Pharmacology"? Now, about the therapy itself - when are the drug companies going to stop making single-drug prescriptions? How much more research (apperantly they have decided to ignore completely the common sence) that proves the better efficiancy of the multy-drug ones do they need? All this "lets do it in a way to make more money" approach makes me sick. -- Boris 23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't here when the merge happened, but apparently it was the result of vote for deletion. --Uthbrian (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I can only guess, judjing by the reactions of the voters, what the original "Drug therapy" article's content was. I think this article has to be written again even if it has to be a short definition. So, what's your "say"? And don't you guys think that any page that is the result of the work of any of the projects should be mentioned as such not only when it was a stub but even after it was completed? I had to make a bit of a search (tracking the editors) to find your project to drop the note because i didn't know which project(s) was/were taking care for it. -- Boris 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article "Drug therapy" should be revived. However, about labeling the pages with links to the project, I'm not sure what the standard is-- I don't think the Wikiproject:Clinical medicine does this. Anyways, I don't get the perception that there are many active collaborators in the Drugs Wikiproject, aside from me and User:Techelf. --Uthbrian (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I also help a bit, i have been adding images here and there check the "Synthetic" section. I know Jfdwolff is helping too. I'll talk to the members of the project i'm in to see what they have to say about this labeling thing. -- Boris 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice images, Boris! We probably need all the help we can get with chem structures. JFD has definitely been helping out too. I guess I underestimated the amount of participation there has been. However, there is still no active collaboration among us to really improve a given article. I've personally just been randomly browsing and fixing what I can here and there. --Uthbrian (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


  1. Can anyone help produce a copyright-free image of flucloxacillin, e.g. as per [6].
  2. Additonal information on metabolism would be helpful.
  3. Were does one look to research US Pregnancy risk categorisation ? David Ruben Talk 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Your wish is fulfilled. =) Though I don't know where to find US pregnancy categorisation data either. -Techelf 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice image, Techelf! About the US pregnancy category, I normally do a search at I also have access at Clinical Pharmacology - Gold Standard Multimedia. However, I couldn't find any mention of flucloxacillin or floxacillin in either database. Maybe it is not marketed in the US? I will check elsewhere later. --Uthbrian (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Combination drug nomenclature

When I was editing MRSA, it occurred to me that using the BANs for combination antibiotics/drugs isn't ideal, since most people outside the UK would really be aware of them (except co-trimoxazole). A quick look at Category:Combination antibiotics shows the use of hyphens (quinupristin-dalfopristin) and slashes (piperacillin/tazobactam). Another widely-used method in pharmacy is "+" (e.g. codeine+paracetamol).

I was hoping that perhaps we could standardise on a convention that makes combination preparations obvious to all readers, and that emphasises they are combinations. My own view is that we should use "+", and I propose that all pages on combination drugs, and all references to them in other articles, should be changed to that format (e.g. co-amoxiclav should be changed to amoxicillin+clavulanic acid) while retaining redirects and a mention of the BAN in the article. -Techelf 02:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. It encourages use of the generic names, which is really the best way to refer to drugs. --Uthbrian (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So serevent is out. Co-amilofruse, co-beneldopa and co-careldopa, cotrimoxazole... JFW | T@lk 21:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I'm really not sure about the plus sign. The slash is better. But if the INN is co-this or co-that then this is the preferred one (e.g. co-amoxiclav is better than Augmentin or amoxicillin-clavulinic acid). JFW | T@lk 21:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point-- I completely forgot about the INN standard. Techelf, what do you think about using the INN? --Uthbrian (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue makes me worry about the many antihypertensive drug combos involving hydrochlorothiazide. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is an INN for combinations is there? Co-amoxiclav, et al., are only BANs as far as I remember. But yes, either slashes or pluses seem to do the job all right. My preference for "+" is because slashes usually denote "or" whereas pluses denote "and". But I guess maybe it doesn't matter that much on Wikipedia, since we usually enclose alternative names in brackets rather than using slashes. -Techelf 08:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I signed up to the WHO's Mednet (The Medicines Information Service) which provides a search for INNs - indeed there are no drugs starting with 'Co-', and these must therefore be BANs. However, in the absence of an INN, then I would advocate using these non-propriety generic terms to describe the fixed standardised preparations.
    • I am never going to type in 'Flucloxacillin+Ampicillin' to find a description of Co-Fluampicil 250/250, and all UK doctors prescribing on the NHS are urged to prescribe generically using this term. One can of course in the UK prescribe as Flucoxacillin + Ampicillin, but each component needs to have a dose specified to make sense and safe prescribing. Co-fluampicil can only be one product, whereas a prescription for Flucloxacillin 500mg + Ampicillin 250mg is not a single combined capsule, but rather two capsules (one for each individual antibiotic).
    • These BAN combinations are standardised precisely because the combination is useful clinically. One can imagine a combination of Flucloxacillin and Clavulanic acid but there is no clinical need for such a combination, although any doctor is free to prescribe individually the two to their patients.
    • If we were to use the constituents as the article names, in what order? Co-fluampicil is very much thought of as Flucloxacillin for staph with additional Ampicillin to cover the lesser differential of strep infection, yet alphabetically 'a' comes before 'f'.
    • I do not advocate listing every combination preparation - only those where there is a non-proprietary generic term (hence the plethora of paracetamol/aspirin with either caffeine/Vitamin C, forming all the cold & 'flu' cures are excluded).David Ruben Talk 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I was referring to pages for standard drug combinations. Although I also like BANs (I started the co-amoxiclav stub), there's still the problem that BANs other than co-trimoxazole aren't used at all outside the UK. Some combinations also don't seem to have BANs, e.g. fluticasone+salmeterol (according to my BNF47). But you're right, deciding the order for certain combinations is tricky, e.g. I've seen both codeine+paracetamol and paracetamol+codeine in use. Where does everyone else think we should move from here? -Techelf 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we should go with JFW's suggestion of using slash. I've changed the BiDil article to isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine to start with. I think in most cases the order of drugs should be fairly obvious. Otherwise, go with the order listed in the BAN, or the manufacturer of the innovator brand. In this instance, since it's a specifically American combination (no BAN to follow), I went with what the manufacturer used. -Techelf 11:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Use box

Penicillin core.svg This user contributes to the
Pharmacology WikiProject.

I created this one for the gang. The small image is of penicillin. I wish it had better resolution. The background color is the same as the one on the right side of the info tables. Opinions plz. -- Boris 16:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical review and editing help needed

I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place to lodge this request. I'm a new Wiki person and someone from Boot Camp sent me on a path that led to here. I am working to improve the Tourette syndrome article, and just made a large number of edits to the treatment section there. (I'm not done -- still have to tackle stimulants to reflect new research showing they can be used in the presence of tic disorders, other treatment of ADHD comorbid with tics, SSRIs, and others.) Besides being new to Wikipedia, I registered after a controversy got going there over Marinol. I'm not a pharmaceutical person, just a layperson, and have no personal experience with medications for Tourette's. Further, I'm afraid of being too bold and deleting some stuff that was previously there, as I don't want to ruffle feathers when I'm completely new to Wiki and in the midst of some editing controversy there. Is there anyone here who would be willing to look over the treatment section of Tourette's and clean up any pharmaceutical gaffes I may have committed in the medication entries there? I also came across several medications that have no entries (inversine, mecamylamine and guanfacine come to mind). Is there another place I might make this request? Thanks in advance! Sandy 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow i got a day off, i'll try to make inversine, mecamylamine and guanfacine pages for ya with the structures. You can create the pages yoursel by just folowing the empty links. -- Boris 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help - I don't know enough about the medications to create the pages myself ... there may be others missing from the Tourette syndrome page, but those are the ones I recall. Thanks again! Sandy 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Boris 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Boris ... appreciated! If anyone has some time to kill and would like to have a look at the Treatment section of Tourette syndrome, I probably googed a lot of stuff, since I don't know meds that well. Thanks again Sandy 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
PS - I like what you wrote -- I could say a few things about those "research purposes," and the folks who hold the patents, but it wouldn't be Wiki-appropriate :-) Sandy 04:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I just "copy/paste"-ed it from a website. So, what about this "as research tool"? Tell us. -- Boris 14:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The concern is that inversine is possibly being used in ways that have been shown ineffective by controlled studies, and with attempts to extend its usefulness. I personally witnessed some very aggressive marketing of it to the Tourette's community via the internet. According to some sources, most of the original research on inversine/mecamylamine was done by a group in Southern Florida who have published disclaimers that they hold patents, that appear to be related. It appears that, in spite of controlled studies which have proven inversine ineffective as monotherapy for Tourette syndrome [7], it is prescribed in Florida for Tourette's. I have not read the full study myself, but I have seen reports that it contains the disclaimer "Financial Disclosure: A.A.S., R.D.S., and P.R.S. are inventors on a patent owned by the University of South Florida, which covers the use of nicotinic receptor antagonists for the treatment of nicotine-responsive neuropsychiatric disorders. A.A.S., R.D.S., P.R.S., and D.V.S. are also scientific consultants for Layton BioScience, Inc., who owns the trade name and marketing rights to mecamylamine." It is not clear if there is an effort to squeeze something meaningful out of the patent, but anecdotally, one encounters accounts of people from Florida who are being prescribed inversine today (almost five years since the publication of that study) for Tourette's. Please take careful note of all of the language I've chosen -- I don't think this is entirely Wiki appropriate.  :-)) Sandy 17:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Hydroxytropacocaine (created on 5 August 2005 by ??? I just can't find it in any major chemical database. Yet several websites either cite this article or point to it - a, b, c, d, e, etc. WOW. They should not deal with stubs, that's for sure. This guy, John Malpass, claims that he has synthesized 1-Hydroxytropacocaine but i just can't find the article - Malpass, J.R.; Wallis, A.L. Tetrahedron, 1998 , 54 , 3631-3644. Some "search results" for Hydroxytropacocaine are pages that cite Coca (a, b, c, etc) - there Hydroxytropacocaine is mentioned among the chemical found in the coca leaf, section 1.1. Pharmacological aspects. This part of the article was added by Ddhix_2002 on 12 November 2004, i would like to aks him/her about the source but i don't think i'll get a responce as soon as i would like to. It's amazing in this case how high the percentage of the "search results" related to "Wikipedia" is. Honestly, this worries me a bit. I just hope that Hydroxytropacocaine is not a hoax. Anyone who's got acces to the academic chemical databases plz help. -- Boris 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it doesn't appear to be a hoax. According to the Tetrahedron paper you cited, it is found in Erythroxylum coca. Here is a link to the abstract: [8]. --Uthbrian (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. File:Cheerz.gif -- Boris 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Glad to help! :-) --Uthbrian (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think that we should implement some sort of peer review process here, locally (that is, as part of the WikiProject Drugs), for any drug related pages that are nearing perfection. This way more featured article candidates can be produced. I don't recall ever seeing a drug related page on the Wikipedia front page as a FAC. Also, it would of course be helpful to get a wide range of input, in order to improve all articles supported by this project. Fuzzform 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I thought it worth pointing out that the template for anxiolytics only includes hydroxyzine. I recommend reclassifying it, because if we were to include all drugs that have anxiolytic properties, the template would be quite massive. Fuzzform 02:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


It looks to me like the WikiProject Drugs page could use some wikification. The page has no intro and a section called Title that contains only the title of the page, which is already clear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it should be cleaned up a bit. --Alberrosidus 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

The board needs scientist from a lot of different projects maybe there is one from Drug Projectto join the group. --Stone 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just waving this under your noses

You may be interested in TGN1412 - the drug involved in the big clinical trial news story in the UK. We've got quite a lot of info but the more the merrier etc. Secretlondon 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Print problem with drug infoboxes


It's that time when my students are doing a poster project on organic chem. products, mostly pharmaceuticals, and I've noticed a serious problem with some of the drug pages that students have shown me. If you take a look at a page like Naloxone, it looks fine on my screen. However, when you go to "printable version" Firefox expands all of the external links and the table expands to match - this makes the table fill up the entire page. At WP:Chem we have a strict policy of not allowing external links in the tables for this reason; if necessary we have an inline reference that takes you to an endnote that has the link. Can you fix this problem? Cheers, Walkerma 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Since i don't want to mess {{drugbox}} up i "created" a new version, attached it to the name of an old template and tested it here. Right now all the rows with table cells that have lightblue background color are mandatory, but i can easily make them all but one (about the mass) optional. -- Boris 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think what it needs for a transclusional version is to change the variables for CAS number, ATC code, PubChem and DrugBank from external links into inline references. I'm not sure what you call it, but the style of inline refs used on Antarctica could work well, I think - that would give a list of URLs in the references section when printed. As for the other variables in the main blue section, they can stay transclusional as they don't use external links. So I think you can leave drugbox alone, and just fix the four small templates. Thanks again, Walkerma 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The whole point of infobox is to sumarise information - so, as in the example given by Boris for Abacavir, to have references to entries in a footnote section that then link externally to the index numbers is ungainly & awkward (and no editor will bother with the drug template if it makes adding information harder, rather than easier). The advantage of the existing template is that the linking is undertaken automatically on just providing the template with the relevant index numbers. So rather than the reference/citation approach, could any change to the template leave the editor just needing to providing the index number and let the template take care of what alternative type of in-line link is undertaken (I'm not sure how the template markup works, so I may be making a stupid request here - sorry). David Ruben Talk 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know it does not makes sence at first, but when we put the external links in the infoboxes (or anywhere in the main text) they screw up the printed version of the article b/c the whole address of the link (which sometimes can be few rows long) is inserted where the link is and that is very annoying. The same does not happen to the wiki links, so that's why i had to use this "redundancy" - i don't print the articles but some people do. I wish there was a better way but for now that is the only one i am aware off. -- Boris 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The second drug Info Box

I know that there is one more drug infobox, that includes the pharmacological info only, and when it is present it is positioned just under the main drug info box. I need this "secondary" infobox b/c i want to add its parameters to {{OrganicBox_complete}} but i can't find an article that has it (i just can't remember where i have seen it, it was few months ago). Anyone? -- Boris 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Drug Categories

There are several categories that drugs can be put into: Benzodiazepines, Sedatives, Hypnotics, Anticonvulsants, Muscle relaxants, Anxiolytics, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, etc. Some of these categories concern chemical groupings and some the function. I propose that we should clarify that drugs should only be put in a functional category if that is a current (or significant historical) indication. This indication would, of course, be mentioned in the article and supported by references. There are simply too many properties for each drug and it isn't useful to the reader to include them all. For example:

  • If a drug had a side effect of causing low blood pressure, but wasn't actually used for lowering high blood pressure, it shouldn't be included in the Antihypertensive agents category.
  • Many drugs have anticonvulsant properties but few are used as such. This may be because they would induce coma before being effective, are highly toxic in effective doses, are addictive, etc. As an extreme example, even aspirin could be considered an anticonvulsant (PMID 7705877, PMID 11883156, PMID 14671677).
  • One area of difficulty might be the off-label or (scientific) experimental usage of a drug. Where to draw the line?
  • Currently virtually all the benzodiazepines are in virtually all the possible categories, even though each is generally only indicated for one or two things. This has the effect of diluting the useful information.

The same rule should apply to the Categorization templates. However, I do wonder if they are actually useful at all. They are often very bulky and effectively just duplicate the standard category system.

Finally, I question whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/Categorization is serving any useful purpose. There are standard Wikipedia articles covering much of this information.

Colin°Talk 12:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Polypharmacy (again)

Hi, I was looking at this article and wondered if anyone thought it was a bit biased? Is polypharmacy by definition not just taking multiple drugs? It does mention "even when all prescribed medications are clinically indicated but there are too many pills to take" - I still think that is biased as the definition of 'too many pills' depends on the patient's views.

JFW made a comment on the talk page about this subject that polypharmacy is not always "too much" and I agree. With regards to the section on potential interactions, what about positive, synergistic effects? I agree polypharmacy is often negative but I think the tone of this article is a bit strong and doesn't mention any cases in which it may be desirable or necessary.

Does anyone agree with me and want to make it more balanced? If not then I'll change it myself sometime. I'm just new though so I'd be happier if someone more experienced gave it a go.

Hi Linberry, go ahead and make whatever changes you think are appropriate. I'm sure that at least a few of us have that page on our watchlists. By the way, you can sign and datestamp your posts with four tildes (~~~~). -Techelf 12:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I put my name on the members page, hope that is OK. Sorry about the lack of name, I forgot! Hope this is better! Berry 12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Interesting new drug. Have a look: ivabradine. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting drug indeed. JFW, would you like me to draw a high-resolution version of the structure in ChemDraw? -Techelf 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Read the article, v good, the one thing that confused me was the I(f) channel? Don't know much about cardiac stuff and can't find it on Google. What sort of ions does it conduct? Would be interested to know. Any chance of expanding on that in the article? Berry 21:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You might want to search for "funny channels" or "funny current"... there is some info about it in the article Cardiac pacemaker. --Steven Fruitsmaak 15:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I see someone has added some extra stuff to the article about this - that's a real improvement. Berry 18:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Pitavastatin. The world will not be running out of statins for a while. JFW | T@lk 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Lord, may rivaroxaban not suffer the fate of ximelagatran. As a hospital doctor I'm starting to hate warfarin. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

'R from brand name' template

I have created {{R from brand name}} and the accompanying category Category:Redirects from brand names. Information on the suggested scope and usage are found at Template talk:R from brand name. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Isotretinoin question

I have a question for an editor. The article on Isotretinoin contains a lot of unlinked side effects. Are these actually needed? I cleaned up the article here. Thoughts? -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick glance over the list and it seems to just list every single possible adverse effect associated with isotretinoin. So in that regard, no I don't find it a very useful box to have there since the adverse effect information in the main text seems to be more useful. -Techelf 07:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Page format

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine, there is a template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions used to help standardize the layout of the pages. Is there something similar for this project? If not, would anyone here be interested in collaborating to create one? A good place to start might be to identify articles which have most of the needed headers in a logical order, and work backwards from there. --Arcadian 14:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The LSD article would be a good candidate for having most of the needed headers in a logical order to create a template from. (BTW, we could also use a template for drug class articles... i.e. sedative, stimulant, etc) --Thoric 14:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ATC codes

Currently User:Prisonnet are discussing whether or not it is appropriate to include ATC codes in the navigation templates. Comment from interested parties is welcome at 2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates. --Arcadian 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychoactive drug page needs your help

The psychoactive drug article is a central hub to a fair number of drug articles (close to 100 now), and seeing as the chart itself was previously nominated as a featured picture candidate, and just recently someone nominated the article as a featured article candidate, I think the time has come to try to get the article polished and up to snuff. While I realize a lot of owness is on me to add more references for the chart itself, the rest of the article could use some work, and I could certainly use some feedback on item placement within the chart. --Thoric 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)