Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Naming standards question[edit]

Many drug articles are titled according to a pattern such as WAY-nnnnnn or A-nnnnn or SB-nnnnnn - i.e. a 1-to-3-character alphabetic prefix, followed by a 1-to-6-digit number. In a significant minority of them, the number part is broken up with a comma - e.g. A-412,997 or SKF-38,393, although mostly the sources don't seem to use the comma. Is there an agreed standard for these titles? With or without the comma? Colonies Chris (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I usually don't see commas in the literature as well, or from the manufacturers. The commas should be removed. ―Biochemistry🙴 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the commas should be removed. For example, at A-412,997 every reference that mentions the code name uses "A-412997", not "A-412,997". It can get confusing as you dig deeper, if I recall correctly with some companies using a hyphen, some using a space, and some using nothing between the letters and the numbers. Best to stick with what published sources use, with priority given to the method used by authors employed by the company that discovered/developed it. ChemNerd (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Are pharmaceutical drugs inventions?[edit]

I noticed an anonymous editor has been removing pharmaceutical drugs from being categorized as inventions. See the edits of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) such as this example. Since drugs are universally patented with individuals listed as inventors, these category removals seem inappropriate to me. I started by reverting a few, but since there are so many, I decided to seek input here before continuing. Any thoughts? ChemNerd (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Since haloperidol didn't exist before someone first synthesised it, and since new chemical compounds can be patented, I don't know how they could be seen as anything else but inventions. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The category is appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I suppose they could be characterized as discoveries rather than inventions. Wikidata avoids this issue by having a single field "Inventor or discoverer" field. Sizeofint (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This is splitting hairs, but I guess that endogenous substances that are used as drugs are discovered, and compounds that are synthesized and which do not occur endogenously are invented. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I certainly agree that "invention" is appropriate, for lack of a better (?) or narrower category, e.g., "Drugs developed in <COUNTRY>". I am quite concerned that this anon is depopulating Category:Belgian inventions across a broad swath of articles, not only drug ones. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Category:Belgian inventions is a reasonable category for these drugs. The unknown editor gives in the edit summary the explanation "It's not an invention, but a development". However, when filing a patent, one requires a "statement of invention". Even if the molecule isn't designed, the use or application is still an invention. So, patent law suggests that drugs (which are patentable) are indeed invented. Given the consensus above, I'll start reverting the non-hormone drug category edits performed by over the last few days. Klbrain (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Isavuconazonium (a marketed antifungal) is a prodrug of isavuconazole (the active moiety -- not marketed). I moved " isavuconazole" to Isavuconazonium and did what you see there, adding an additional drugbox for the prodrug. Does this make sense to folks? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the INN is isavuconazonium sulfate, in analogy to other compounds with an N⁺, such as tiotropium bromide. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The INN is the chloride salt, actually. Rec INN List 58. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Isavuconazole is also an INN in its own right, BTW. To me, it does make sense to have the article at the prodrug. I don't think we should have separate articles for prodrug and active ingredient unless both are marketed (e.g., fosaprepitant and aprepitant). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Complex question re serotonergic activity of a drug[edit]

I find the binding activity sections of articles about drugs a nightmare generallly and we allow primary sources to be used in generating them.

We have an interesting question that goes to the heart of how this drug is classified on the talk page of Mirtazapine‎ that someone who likes dealing with this, could perhaps deal with?

Talk:Mirtazapine#Does_Mirtazapine_really_posses_serotonergic_action.3F Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Generally speaking, binding data should come from IUPHAR (best source IMO), bindingDB, Human Metabolome Database (HMDB), DrugBank, and/or similar databases because they aggregate binding data. Medical reviews are also reasonable sources to use for this, but based upon the compound articles I've worked on, they're typically not as comprehensive as these databases. A primary source is probably adequate for stating that a compound is a receptor ligand with a particular mechanism of action (e.g., agonist, neutral antagonist, inverse agonist, etc.) though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I commented there and covered the entries for mirtazapine in the 4 databases I mentioned above. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with a source for the Components of Opium Template?[edit]


We are submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, about the use of metabolomics in opioid addiction research, and when I was researching opium components, I found a terrific table here: Unfortunately, the table has no source or references but the Wikipedia Information Team provided me with a link to your talk page.

This is my statement, based on the Template: "Opium contains many chemical constituents, which can be grouped by meconic acid, α-naphthaphenanthridines, tetrahydroprotoberberines, isoquinolones, phtalide isoquinolines, aporphines, protopines, alkaloids, and phenanthrenes."

I need a reference that will make it past peer review when we submit to the journal for publication. Unfortunately, a reference to an unsourced Wikipedia table won't be accepted.

Can you help me? Do any of you have a source that would work for the statement I am making? If you don't, I will have to take it out of the paper, but I thought I would check with you, just in case.

Thank you so much for any help you can provide.

WildIrish (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:WildIrish these navigation templates are created by Wikipedians. You can see the others here[1].
Unlikely to be a single reference. While we reference most stuff here we do not ref these templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There should be references for each of the drugs listed under Category:Natural opium alkaloids. For a peer-reviewed review article on the composition of opium see the first section of Kalant (1999).[1]


I just want to add that when 1 or more relevant article(s) for the content in a template exist and the content in the template is cited in the relevant article(s), it IS okay to indicate where references for the compounds in a template are located. For example, in the template footer of {{TAAR ligands}} (see below), the footer text indicates which articles contain references for any given compound that is included in that template. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodman and Gilman has a reasonably good description of the components, but not all. Here is a Pub med search that seems to include some genetic analyses and may include some chemical ones if you look through it, so you may be able to use a combination of multiple sources, but I doubt that there will be a single source that is all-inclusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Expect sources in each of the blue-linked articles in that template. Sourcing quality may vary. -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Example template: Template:TAAR ligands[edit]

Tables presenting clinical effects of a drug[edit]

Pls see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Detailed_presentation_of_clinical_effects_of_a_drug Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke, has been nominated for possible deletion, A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Change to each of MEDMOS and PHARMMOS re leads[edit]

Please see discussion at WT:MED. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

USAN etc in drugbox[edit]

There appears to be some history I don't understand here. But PHARMMOS is really negative about USAN, BAN, etc, and there is no parameter in the infobox to include national names.

User:DePiep raised a question about this at the talk page of the drugbox template in Dec 2015, here.

Is there some big ugly can of worms that gets opened if we have a parameter in the drugbox for these national names? Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Dec 2015 discussion has lead to the current drugbox title options (Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title (248), see TOC for various logical options). That covers INN (PHARMMOS unchanged: title preferably be INN).
The other names are local (by country) names. I don't see the use to add these to the infobox. Saying 'interesting' is not enough. We're not a dictionary. The can of worms is: that would be indiscriminate addition of facts to the infobox. Time to create a systematic datasheet section? -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is where to put names like USAN etc. They are clutter in the first sentence. since there is no place to put them in the infobox i have been putting them in the history or chemistry section. these kinds of alt names are perfect infobox stuff. Just data bits. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Just found the de-clutter lede discussion. Good background. I can understand they should not be in the lede (an exception may exist, maybe two even).
I also would like to know: is it important enough for the article/lede/infobox? "Just data bits" says it all: data =/= information. Note that these xxxN names are not info by themselves, but are useful in external context only (e.g., in a US database). Adding these to help search engines: not a good reason because not aimed at our Reader. (Better: Redirects or, telling, DAB pages). IOW, it is external info only. This is why I say: not really infobox stuff.
Shortcut idea: I see that per xxxN, a few or a dozen max names are affected. Could a solution be: "When the xxxN name differs from INN, it may be added" (it will show in the identifiers section, or near the synonyms, or best: near the bottom for being a misfunction of infobox). Then: when the infobox does not mention "BAN: ...", BAN=INN implicitly — is that acceptable (BTW, same as INN-title now)? -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There is also this (consider minor wrt the question): INN names may differ. Here Libby EMAcomm (a functionary I understand; EMA=European Medicines Agency i.e. the "EU-FDA") states: "Maybe another error could arise because the INN and the active substance are not always exactly the same (the INN doesnt have the salt in the name but the active substance does)". EMA lists ~600 INNs, with 20% redlinks (EMA-INN does not have an article by straight matching; celanup todo e.g. DAB page names). Variant INN names relevant? -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
A field in the infobox where we could put alt INNs and any XXN names would be lovely. An alternative could be to put them in the "brand names" section that often appears under Society and culture. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to skip the alt-INN issue for now & here. Also, to handle (control) these names, I'd prefer |BAN= so that the template can format them and add 'BAN' etc. You agree with the "omit when the same as INN" policy, i.e. implicit? -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, do we agree that their info-level of importance is way below that of synonyms, brand names, chemical names and RL common names? They are local only, possibly outdated (replaced by INN, possibly even in that local literature), and only serve to passively identify. IOW, they could be at the bottom of the infobox (and possibly elsewhere outside of it). -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • With the considerations (rules) mentioned, I've made this demo. Labeled: "local INN variants" (INN page could be expanded for this). Left out JAN (Japanese) for being not an English language. Comments? -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The way to include USAN, BAN, AAN, and JAN as well as other types of alternate names (slang names, the prototype brand names, notable alternative chemical names, etc.) in the introduction of a drug article shouldn't be via the infobox or by cluttering the lead itself; I agree with DePiep that adding all that stuff to a drugbox is bad. It just creates unnecessary clutter in the drugbox itself and potentially impacts article formatting when the drugbox extends (further) into article sections as a result of the vertical space required to list those.
The only practical solution that allows one to (1) include alternate names in the article's introduction, (2) not clutter the lead, AND (3) not clutter the drugbox is: shown in this link next to the very first word in the article.
I don't know why other editors have not opted to adopt the practice of adding the alternate names (and optionally bolding the important ones) to a note next to the first word/use of the drug name in the first lead sentence, given the issues it avoids and the flexibility it allows. It's currently used in TWO featured pharmacology articles (amphetamine and psilocybin) and it was used in those articles at the time that each were promoted to featured status, so there's clearly already two consensuses for this practice. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Seppi333 links to Amphetamine, which has this opening line: "Amphetamine[note 1] (contracted from alpha‑methylphenethylamine) is ..." (also shows this way in mobile view!). The note lists lots of synonyms, and apparently still a bracketed name clarifier is needed. That's what I call cluttering the lede, twice even. It also mixes name places: both in the note and in the infobox. That looks bad to me. Should we consider a regular section in the article that deals with all naming issues? (Still some could show up in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Articles on a number of drugs that are no longer under patent protection will likely require multi-table formatting for trade names, chemical names, nonproprietary names, and the like, if a names section is included. One example of a drug article with a large amount of trade names listed is Metoclopramide#Brand names. It became so unwieldy that in order to make it even read coherently (as opposed to leave it as a paragraph-length run-on sentence / blob of text), it needed to be organized in a table with brands listed by letter. Of course, this generated a lot of vertical space for a section which is almost trivially insignificant, so the table was collapsed in a manner that still allows those terms to be found in a search on Wikipedia.
Also, a drug can have multiple USANs if there are drug products with different inactive moieties; in other words, listing the USAN isn't as straightforward as listing the INN because the USAN doesn't have an equivalent to INNM (modified INN). "Dextroamphetamine" and "dextroamphetamine sulfate" are both USANs for dextroamphetamine formulations, whereas dexamfetamine (no pharmaceuticals) and dexamfetamine sulfate (most common pharmaceutical form) are the INN and INNM, respectively, for those USANs. The amphetamine article actually has multiple USANs listed in the 1st table in Amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products. Hence, USAN may be confusing for the drugbox of articles with drug products that contain different inactive moieties. I suppose that it could be indicated in the LHS field of the drugbox USAN parameter that the USAN refers only to the active moiety though. For comparison, BAN has BANM, so what BAN refers specifically to the active moiety. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
re Seppi333: Metoclopramide#Brand names is a good example of solving this (>12 names). Those names cannot be in the infobox.
re USAN variants: too complicated for me now. For example: should we even think about an inactive moietie here? What about this approach: "A drug article (=INN name) can have |USAN=". Would we miss or error something? (IMO, it is not wiki's task to explain all USAN in each article). -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm two-faced in this. I don't think these secondary, local xxN names should be in the WP:INFOBOX. But also, I understand the Jytdog reasoning: where else? (sure not in the lede). So I offer this demo with tough restrictions (to be in /doc): only when different from INN, expected only 12 per xxN, suppress prominence, etcetera.
But no way here I claim any statement over all variant names: IUPAC, brand, commercial, development code, INN, AAN/BAN/USAN, street, ... names. No way. That should be discussed wider.
My statement re all possible names wrt chemical infoboxes: an other practical solution is to add a section to the article ==Data sheet==. Cold have a good template. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
that looks ok to me! Thanks for drafting it up. i wonder how others think. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We already have "| synonyms = " for the drugbox. I typically put these there if they are uncommon. But often the INN and the USAN are the most commonly used in the English literature so I also put them in the first sentence. We can have "Name 1 (USAN), Name 2 (JAP), Name 3 (BAN)" in the infobox but that level of detail does not belong IMO in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly that is the lede-cluttering we are working against. For USAN, BAN, AAN there is this proposal. Into the infobox (for now, no better option), and heavily restricted. BTW, can someone explain why enwiki should have Japanese ids? -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, Doc James did you even read the thread? You know: OP question, considerations, links, demo? Did you? All you write here is "We already have ..." and "I typically put ...". How is that a response? Didn't you understand a question was put up? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am explaining what I typically do. Is this a big ugly can of worms? Meh not really. Alt names are some of the more useful stuff in the infoboxes IMO. Decluttering the infoboxes is a different discussioni than de cluttering the leads.
I also often put these names in a section for "names" under the "society and culture" heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's what you (and maybe others) do currently lacking formal options, standards & guidelines. Now this new Jytdog proposal comes up (to add the xxN's systematically and consistently to the infobox, + a demo available within 12 hrs), and we still don't know what you think of that. Support? Reject? Tweaks needed? I've put up strong rules with it, are they OK with you?
Note: This being about the infobox, "Decluttering the infoboxes", or to keep them decluttered, is the topic. -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am supportive of keeping them in the infobox under synonyms. Happy to look at what Jytdog drafts and may change my mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
re: Doc James: and [I, Doc James] may change my mind: thanks, Doc James, but not really. Here you say you cannot be trusted. Better not spend another hour on this, with you around. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
re, LOL, Happy to look at what Jytdog drafts: as you could have read, Jytdog already supports my draft. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah missed that. Does not look unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You missed more, lots of. For example, just a few lines above: and [I, Doc James] may change my mind. Now that you have had to agree, all you can say is Does not look unreasonable (while we must expect: you always may change my [Doc James's] mind). So far, you have not contributed iota to the discussion. Arrogance. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, let's all focus on content and not the contributor, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Also: let the contributor focus on content. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


OP Jytdog and Doc James reconsidering their opinion after noting that existing |synonyms= could be used. See demo /testcases10. The opinion by Sepi333, above, is still in play. (-DePiep (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC))
  • sorry about this, i didn't realize that Template:Infobox drug had a "synonyms" parameter. It is not with the "name" and "INN" parameters in the topmost section, but rather down at the bottom of the "Identifiers" section. Ack, my mistake. Depiep I am grateful for your assistance and I am still fine with adding the "XAN" stuff but now that I know there is actually another place to put this, i don't see it as necessary. A "nice to have", not a "this would be really, really great to have". Again my apologies for asking for something new, when something use-able already existed. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • IMO we should move "synonyms" up to beside "brandname". Yes I initially missed its existence aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Glad we're together here again. All existing name parameters now are demo'ed in the demo BTW. See also /Archive_10#Alternative_names (Mar 2016). I learned there are two name groups: drug product (like trade names), and working substance (chemical) (and possible third: popular/street name?). Sepi333 input here is not discarded btw.
  • My new suggestion: add XAN to synonyms OK, but only when different from INN, and then add the XAN linked, like for the Paracetamol drugbox:
"Synonyms: acetaminophen (USAN), APAP"
This keeps the relevant info in view, not just listing another synonym. (The template can add the link, using dedicated new parameters like |USAN=. I will put this in the demo, one of these days).
re moving synonyms data row up, to right below |tradenames=: OK, as long as we maintain (with MOS-like power, eg per documentation) that product names and substance names may not be mixed. -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


I've made a new propsal. See /testcases10. Setup:

1. Synonyms moved from Identifiers into Clinical data (more in top, right below Trade names).
2. XANs are added to the synonyms list. They have a link (like BAN) and are categorised.

Question for Seppi333: are there, at this infobox level, more specifications needed for the USAN/INN aspects you mentioned above? -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

My main point is that you will likely have multiple entries in the USAN parameter for a given drug in some drug articles. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
OK then: That's responsibility of the article editor then, and does not require adjustment of this proposal. -DePiep (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
... but there is no place for explaining texts. So it's name(s) only. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Sizeofint (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
May not have had anything to do with this convo up 'til now but I'll add my minor pedantic commentary. Shouldn't BAN come before JAN? Might as well have the synonyms listed alphabetically so it's AAN, BAN, JAN and USAN, in that order. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 18:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, be alphabetic. And no, you are not pedantic. Thx. -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Was ordered by country 'UK' not XAN like 'BAN'. Will be. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

YesY Consensus. Preparing the change. Tracking category is Category:Infobox drug with local INN variant (28). -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Photo Competition 2017[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#World_Science_Photo_Competition_2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin B3 complex article problems[edit]

I don't know why vitamin B3 complex is in project Pharmacology (according to its talk page) but it anyone could help out with the problem around article naming and redirects, please do. I'm afraid went to the Molecular and Cell Biology project for help first. Please see the history of Vitamin B3 and this talk section for centralised discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology#Vitamins - specifically B vitamins articles. Donama (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You might get the best help at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Unlike most B vitamins, niacin actually binds to a G protein-coupled receptor (i.e., NIACR1, and to a lesser extent, NIACR2); I imagine that's probably why it's categorized as such. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lysergic acid diethylamide to be moved to LSD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 03:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Dosage information mentioned in doxepin[edit]

Recently several edits have been made by Medgirl131 that have added dosage information to the doxepin article. WP:PHARMMOS says that:

Do not include dose or titration information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals

The dosage information added to the article seems to be mostly (if not totally) supported by secondary sources, but I have never seen dosage information added to other articles, especially to the extent that the doxepin article now mentions it, so I'm cautious, wondering whether this is what was meant by this sentence. I do not think dosage information is strictly necessary for the discussion of doxepin in this article but still I thought I'd seek your opinion on this. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 13:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The dosage information that Medgirl131 has added looks pretty important for the article; e.g., discussing how low doses (~3mg) of doxepin are used for the treatment of insomnia for doxepin's antihistamine activity, whereas higher (25-50mg) doses are used for the treatment of depression. I think that the WP:PHARMMOS passage that you quoted is more about cautioning users from simply listing all possible strengths and indication doses--Wikipedia isn't supposed to be Lexicomp.―Biochemistry🙴 16:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can see how dose specification could be helpful, but I think one could just say low dose to refer to <6 mg/day and standard dose to refer to >25 mg/day, without specifying actual doses. But dosage specification doesn't bother me per se, just thought it might contradict WP:PHARMMOS and sooner it was detected the easier it'd be to undo it. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 17:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)