Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Drug box 'us-license=' parameter

Just to make you aware, that apparently FDA seems to have changed the URL for searching NDA's or so. Clicking onto the us-license link in drug boxes does seem to not to work properly ... Wowbagger2 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that link has unfortunately been broken since around January or February 2017 (special:diff/764891086/765098473). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Could not find any wisdom at the FDA site. (help)-DePiep (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I could. It would however need an update of how WP is accessing drug information at drugs@fda: at least with the NDA number, you can link to their website
Copanlisib - https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&applno=209936
Acalabrutinib -

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&applno=210259 I will try to explore if this can be done more general (e.g. using inn or tradename) in the next weeks. However, it might definitely need an update of the implementation of the drug box use of 'us-license' parameter. And of course - you need to be happy with accessing the pretty expert-like drug overview pages, by clicking on 'us-license'. (In contrast, the 'daily med' link can provide consumer information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowbagger2 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. Do other people here think DailyMed is better/enough? IMO, we'd want a list by INN (one can get that manually, through page [1]). Note that our EMA link (Europe) works with INN (sometimes rewritten...). -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: Didn't you contact the USFDA about this issue earlier and get no response? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
If I'm wrong about them having been contacted, I wouldn't mind sending them an email explaining the issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
No I have not (ever). Infobox drug/licence shows no hints either, a new issue. What I did was switch off Canada because it does not work.
Yes contact FDA please. IMO we could use the automated link (URL) to INN-licence info, so if that is "expert-like drug overview pages", that be so (re Wowbagger2). Code change no issue; did so recently with EMA licence (which goes by INN + per-article exception possible).
To consider asking: if we can download complete lists (like in spreadsheet), we can put that in Wikidata! -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Just to add a little, at FDA, drugs (e.g. Idelalisib), can have multiple NDA's (Idelalisib: 206545 AND 205858). this leads to two different pages (for same product), and while the latest label is identical, the review report and the letter (containing post marketing requirements) are not! Conclusion: INN for Usfda is not enough, compared to EMA, a list of NDA's would be more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowbagger2 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Garzfoth: After re-reading the thread I unarchived at Template talk:Infobox drug#licence_US parameter no longer works, I realized it was you that sent an email to the FDA about the non-functional drug search links. Did you ever receive a response from them about this? If so, what did they say? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Seppi333: The FDA essentially never replied to the specific concern (the below message is the only response I ever got from them):

Thank you for writing the FDA. Please accept this response from the Small Business and Industry Assistance, Division of Drug Information, in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. We have had some recent changes to our Drugs@FDA website. Your inquiry has been forwarded to experts within the Agency for input and assistance. When we receive a response we will forward it to you, or they may contact you directly. Please understand that response times may vary. Thank you in advance for your patience.

Health Canada responded specifically to the issue I highlighted (unlike the FDA), but they essentially said that the behavior was intentional and they weren't going to change it, so no luck there either. Garzfoth (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wowbagger2: The USFDA link used to link to the USFDA search page results for the |licence_US= parameter input. E.g., the USFDA link for amphetamine used to bring up the search page with the list of 37 results that you would see if you searched the term "amphetamine" on this FDA drug search page. Some of those results are grouped under the same NDA/ANDA numbers, but a few of those results (specifically, the generic drug names), when clicked, display a large sub-list of different amphetamine pharmaceuticals with different ANDA numbers. Restoring that functionality would be ideal since any pharmaceutical drug that (1) has been in use for a long time, (2) is currently commonly prescribed in the United States, and (3) is no longer patented will have a similarly large number of search results as those for amphetamine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree! Wowbagger2 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from trade names has been nominated for discussion

Category:Redirects from trade names, which you created, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Redirects from trade names of drugs. 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.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See also Template talk:R from trade_name#Requested_move_18_January_2018. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Clinical pharmacologists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Clinical pharmacologists, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merge. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

information Note:The CFD was closed Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

4th WP:FAC nomination of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

Resolved

Now that this article is a GA, I intend to re-nominate this article at FAC sometime within the next 2 weeks. When the following is no longer a red link – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive4 – it would be very helpful and very much appreciated if other editors from this WikiProject would comment/review the article against the WP:Featured article criteria. It is incredibly difficult to get a pharmacology article promoted at FAC, and unless editors who are familiar with the subject matter (i.e., editors from WP:MED/WP:PHARM/WP:MCB) review and comment on a pharmacology nomination at FAC, it very likely will not be promoted. For instance, amphetamine required 5 consecutive featured article nominations before being promoted in WP:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive5 for that very reason.

So, if you're an active editor at WT:PHARM and edit drug articles on a fairly regular basis, your input at the next nomination would be invaluable. Moreover, if any of you intends to nominate a drug article at FAC at some point in the future, reviewing another pharmacology nomination as well as reading the reviews by other editors at that nomination will give you a good idea of what to expect and prepare for at your own FAC nomination(s). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I re-nominated this article at FAC today: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive4. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
For those who haven't reviewed an article at FAC before, this is the "FAQ" page for reviewing articles at FAC. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for article inclusion in templates

Are there some clearly defined criteria for which articles should be linked in pharmacology templates, and which should be excluded?

For example, Template:Laxatives links Linseed, despite no mention of pharmacological action in that article; but does not link Jalap or similar older drugs. --pmj (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there are clearly defined criteria - it is mostly a judgement call. I would certainly exclude from listing in this template any article that does not discuss a laxative effect. Therefore, I have removed the link to linseed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

3D model (JSmol)

The drugbox has an external link to generate and display a 3D model using JSmol. The 3D image fails to be generated properly for larger chemical structures - they render completely planar. Smaller chemical structures seem OK. See for example erythromicin (MW 733) which fails and simvastatin (MW 418) which looks fine. Has this been discussed before? Am I correct in thinking that it fails above a certain molecular weight? Would it be possible to disable the link for drugs with molecular weights above the cutoff? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Background. Here is some background on this; I have worked on this parameter.
In {{Drugbox}}, the JSmol external link uses the |SMILES= input. JSmol then renders this SMILES string.
In the 6500 {{Drugbox}} articles, 5400 have |SMILES= set, and so have the JSmol link.
{{Chembox}} has the same setup: use |SMILES= (in the Identifiers section) for the link to JSmol. In 10300 {{Chembox}} articles, 9800 have |SMILES= set.
Parameter |Jmol=. There also exists |Jmol= (not |JSmol= btw). This can be set to |Jmol=none to suppress (hide) the JSmol link. Example: Mipomersen [2] (edited by Jytdog@). Or used as |Jmol=<SMILES-form string>, This way it overwrites the original |SMILES= input for this JSmol image. Example: see Ferrocene, {{Chembox}}. The regular SMILES as shown is never changed. Category:Chemical articles having Jmol set (37).
Options. Already today, one can edit using |Jmol= (set to "none" or "alternative SMILES" value). To automatically hide the JSmol link, based on molar mass as is proposed, I'd like to read opinions; I can not judge that by myself. HTH.
  • TL;DR: The JSmol external link uses |SMILES= input. Parameter |Jmol=none hides the external link (example), and |Jmol=<SMILES-form string> overwrites the SMILES input for JSmol (example). {{Chembox}} has the same setup; together in their 17k articles, some 90% have SMILES input used this way. Automatic suppression (by molar weight) to be considered. - DePiep (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks DePiep. So it does fail for all larger molecules? Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I can not judge if JSmol produces nonsense/incorrect modules (ferrocerene had, I remember; erythromicin too apparently). Of course, if JSmol breaks that would be visible to me. But I'm not happy to check 15k external links ;-). At least, when an image is knowingly wrong, "we" should tag it with |Jmol=none for tracking.
Given the small ferrocerene example, being big is not the only reason. Maybe someone contact the site maintainers? - DePiep (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Let me rewrite this comment. 1. We have no example of a broken JSmol rendering. 2. We have three examples of a wrong model showing (one could be improved by using a different SMILE string). 3. Since the Ferrocene example is about a small molecule, it does not seem to be related to molecule size. 4. We should gather more examples of bad rendering. (Please do so by entering the SMILES string to |Jmol=, that will categorise the article). - DePiep (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Adding for completeness: 5. Any |Jmol= input lists the article in Category:Chemical articles having Jmol set (37). 6. both {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}} (aka {{Drugbox}}) work this way. - DePiep (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep:, thanks for the info. It looks like size isn't the entire reason the rendering fails. I'll start using |Jmol=none for now as I encounter problems. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

420 Collaboration

The 420 Collaboration to create and improve cannabis-related content runs through the month of April. WikiProject members are invited to participate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Dementia with Lewy bodies

I have completely rewritten DLB; might someone check all of my usage of meds, as well as the wikilinks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look this weekend – possibly sooner if I have time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 Pending action. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Excluding one typo that I fixed, nothing seemed amiss. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks (that was quite a typo ... by me!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
As a suggestion, that section – in addition to other very long level 3 sections in the article – would look less congested if level 4 section headers and {{TOC limit|3}} were used instead of bold article text to separate material on different subtopics (e.g., medications for different symptoms clusters). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Radiopharmaceutical article/list overhaul

Radiopharmaceutical was never tagged for WP:PHARM and a year-old merge request (from List of radiopharmaceuticals, that is tagged) never got any response until I noticed it today and added yet a different option. I'd appreciate others' comments at Talk:Radiopharmaceutical#March 2017 Proposed merge so it can get resolved one way or another (and also whatever assessment/tagging the project feels is appropriate). DMacks (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've replied there, and it looks to me to involve a couple of complexities, so it would be helpful if more editors would check on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Pharmacology Enthusiasts

Hi, I am a current student in the pharmacy field, and I am currently researching the completeness of drug Wikipedia articles. I stumbled upon your project page and was wondering how long this group has been going. Also the credentials of your main editors. I am new to Wikipedia editing and am trying to get a general idea of what the standards of your group are. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosalindPK (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! As for credentials and standards, anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia constructively. You should free to WP:BEBOLD. I suggest getting familiar with WP:PHARMMOS and WP:MEDRS as a way to get familiar with writing standards. And feel free to ask questions! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@RosalindPK: As Tryptofish said, the only "standards" are those that apply to the project as a whole. The two standards cited are must-reads, and will definitely make contributing easier. If you have any questions, feel free to drop by here or on my talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Intend this with the upmost respect, but realize it might be impossible to say without sounding a bit rude, I really don't mean it to be. I think the question above needs to be re-addressed, because the question was what the credentials of the main editors of this group are, not whether or not one needs credentials to edit Wikipedia. All due respect, but that question remains unanswered. I point this out because I've started to notice a fairly substantial number of errors on pages related to pharmacology, and because there appear to be restrictions on who can edit that content. How is consideration given as to the best way to balance good quality information, against obstructing corrections where there are errors on these articles? Cheers CanisLupisArctus (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever been surveyed. That said, the number of people who edit pharmacology articles on Wikipedia is FAR larger than the number of people in this WikiProject. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@CanisLupisArctus: No worries, that's a fair question to ask. Simply put, there are no "credentials" required; anyone is free to edit these articles. If you notice errors, feel free to be WP:BOLD and fix them yourself, point them out on the talk page, or ask for assistance here. The "quality" of information should never be in much dispute, as long as reliable sources are being used, but we employ consensus when disagreements occur. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It occurs to me to add another point. The way that Wikipedia is set up, the concept of editors needing to have "credentials" does not apply at all. A big part of this is that everyone has the right to edit anonymously, and that is something that the community cares about a lot. As far as I'm concerned, if a Nobel Laureate makes an error in an edit, I'm going to fix it, and if a young child makes a good edit, I'm going to support it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Participants Activity Updates

Per the policies outlined in this page, I have taken the liberty of updating the participant list. However, after bringing up the topic with Beetstra (as part of an activity update), Beetstra noted that "this was started years ago, and has been totally unmaintained." Before I proceed further with maintaining an old policy, I wanted to get an idea of what the other members of the project thought! Do you see a benefit to updating the list and posting on inactive user's talk pages? If we are to update them, how should we do it? Should the definitions for active/inactive be changed, or eliminated altogether? The template I've used is the following:

==[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology|WikiProject Pharmacology]] User Activity Update==
Hi there! I've noticed that you haven't been active on WikiProject Pharmacology. Per our policies, your status has been moved from Active to Inactive, which you can view here. Don't be discouraged, though--we'd love to see you come back and contribute to the project! Let me know if you need any help! ~~~~

A possible pro to maintaining the old standard includes that it may help otherwise inactive members remember that our project exists, and perhaps spur them to make a contribution to a WikiProject Pharmacology article. On the other hand, as Beetstra pointed out on their talk page, it may be discouraging to editors to see their status change from active to inactive, possibly having the opposite of the intended effect.

Let me know what your thoughts are! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I have yet to see a discussion that initiated that ‘policy’. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Support the implementation of the existing policy, clearly listed above the participants list, and think that adding a notice to their talk pages is helpful. Such is likely to encourage some people to start contributing to the project again. Perhaps add "If you plan to contribute, please return your name to the active list." (or similar) Klbrain (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Klbrain: I think that's a good suggestion!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: That's a fair question; I think historical context is worth looking at too. I did a little digging, and the earliest mention I can find is a post by Skittleys (that you can find here), whose intention it was to "upgrade the project" by creating the activity differences, and maintaining them. The suggestion appeared to have passed without much discussion of the specifics at the time. I hope that helps!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Biochemistry&Love: that is indeed the post I was looking for. Not much more than a fleeting mention though. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose current wording and methods but no opinion on the whole idea. Why not retitle the categories "participants" and "highly active participants", with a "thank you for being so active" message upon promotion (reward) and just a "we notice you have not been highly active lately" (rather than feeling like demotion/exclusion just not the positive). Compare to WP:MED's annual roundup of "top contributors" notices. DMacks (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I also oppose the current criteria as giving more leeway to those who wander away from WP as a whole for many months still being "active" whereas those who are highly active on the site have a higher activity requirement in the field. I think either one is highly active in the field or one isn't. Do we have data about editor retention for how long we (Wikiproject, or WP as a whole) waits before trying to lure back? DMacks (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@DMacks: Hmm. I suppose that proposal would change the emphasis to providing positive feedback (carrot) as opposed to negative feedback (stick). What about doing both--i.e., adding a third category for "high active participants?"
My guess behind the intention there was that retention efforts should be especially focused on high-output users; i.e., users that are already spending a lot of time on Wikipedia. After all, if you can retain a high-output editor, you get more bang for the buck. I'm not aware of any data on how long other projects wait before making efforts to re-engage "inactive" users, or if other cut-offs or categorizations exist.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I second DMacks here. As I said elsewhere, I can see advantages in moving generally inactive users, but this stick method is certainly not encouraging .. moreover, this list is not maintained for 9 odd years, and now you ‘demote’ active editors who did not edit in the field (by whatever measure) for a month. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with other editors that a carrot, not stick, approach is the way to go. But frankly, nobody should care about making sure that active lists are purged of anyone who is inactive (I'm saying that in general, not just here). There are things – like articles! – on Wikipedia that need to be kept current, but this isn't one of them. The greatest good would come from simply encouraging more editors to contribute actively. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Just to be clear, the "demotion" from active to inactive is 6 months for no contributions, 3 months if reasonably active, and 1 month if extremely active (>1000 edits). You don't think that there are some users that may be motivated by the "stick" method, as Klbrain commented? I.e., the internal dialogue of, "I want to be an active contributor, and my status will move to inactive if I don't do something. Therefore, I will make a contribution." It seems reasonable to me, but that's only my personal viewpoint.
@Tryptofish: I don't think the point ever was for the sake of the list itself; rather, the list was a means to an ends of providing motivation for the purposes of editor retention. Do you think we should remove the "active" and "inactive" categories entirely, and simply have a list of members? DMacks suggested the category of "highly active participants," with the removal of the "inactive" category. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 01:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don't have a strong opinion about that, either way. Just that the approach should be "carrot". Probably, that means doing away with "inactive" in favor of a more positive name, but what the name or location should be doesn't matter to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: That seems to be the position of DMacks as well (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious: why do you (or others) think that the "stick" method of having an "inactive" categorization isn't a good strategy for promoting retention? Beetstra thought it may be discouraging. Notably, I believe that WP:MED also has an inactive list (albeit, managed by a bot), but does not post on talk pages. In contrast, WP:CHEM has a list without active/inactive categorization. Perhaps we could gain some insight on what WP:PHARM should do by asking members of these groups for their input, on how their participant lists are working out for them. Thoughts on that as well?―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that if an editor previously put themselves on the active list, having someone else move them to inactive is sort of like saying that we don't think you're doing enough any more. That sounds negative. But I'm aware that active/inactive is very common at many WikiProjects. And it's an incredibly unimportant detail for me. I don't think it's worth doing research at other projects, but if it's you and not me doing it, that's up to you. I think the best place to ask about it would actually be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI, WP:MED does what I think is about the max one should do - move editors who have not edited AT ALL for some time (they have a month). Anything else says ‘you are not doing enough for us). (Did someone now locate a proper discussion regarding these rules?). —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:MED posts a thanks/note to editors who are highly active within the past year, unrelated to whether they sign onto the project. A "pure carrot". WP:PHARM could tighten the wording of its carrot (or reduce the pain of the stick) by identifying the list as "highly active within the past month" (or "active within the past 3 months") to clarify what the scope is (goes back to my dislike of differential thresholds). DMacks (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: It does sound "negative" to suggest that someone is being inactive, but isn't there an implied sense of duty to be counted as an active member of a group? At some point, we have to call a spade a spade: is anyone arguing that the current inactivity criteria doesn't actually represent inactivity, or just that it can be demotivational to be told that you're inactive? Thank you for the suggestion of reaching out to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council; I've started a discussion here. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Since you asked me, no. I think we are all volunteers here, and nobody has an obligation to do more than what they feel like doing. I think we should always be appreciative of whatever we can get. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree whatsoever--we should be appreciative. I don't think that means that we shouldn't encourage people to contribute, however. And if everyone is counted as "active," then activity loses its utility. A participant list that doesn't list actual participants is meaningless. If I volunteer once with the Red Cross, and never again, am I still an "active participant?" Is there no utility to having a list of active and inactive participants of a project?―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
That raises the underlying question "what is the actual use of publicly listing those that are active?". DMacks (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Good question. In my opinion, it ranks very, very low among the ways that Wikipedia does anything to be of service to our readers. Kind of not even worth having as much discussion as we are having here. But I think the one good that it does is to provide a bit of acknowledgement among editors for those who have been interested in a project, along with providing a way for editors to communicate with one another within the project. But I continue to feel strongly that it should have nothing to do with giving thumbs up or thumbs down on any one editor's contributions. If anyone were to tell me something like "In my opinion, you need to be making more edits in such-and-such a topic area", my reaction would be "I'm a volunteer, so fuck you!". I try as best as I can to avoid saying divisive things out loud on-wiki, but that is what would go through my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
It is also worth considering the utility of listing "inactive" users. Perhaps these are people we can reach out to and remind them about the project, as per my suggestion above. I think that Tryptofish's response to a request for volunteerism is a bit extreme; I mean, when I get calls from blood donation centers, my first thought isn't "fuck you for asking for my help, vampires," even if I know I can't find time to come in at the moment. And, as a result, I don't pretend to be an "active" blood donor if I haven't given in a long while. It just feels extreme to have a powerfully negative, emotional reaction to a simple, kindly-put reminder that the project exists, and I don't understand how it can be offensive to be moved to "inactive" when you're not, well, active. I don't think that the majority of users notified of their inactivity would react that way. Is there really not a kind way to do it? I disagree that this is akin to giving a "thumbs up or thumbs down" to an editor's contributions; rather, we're discussing the frequency of an editor's activity. And, how else (but an editor's activity) should we discuss how active they actually are?
On a related note, I've received a link to a bot-maintained list of "active" participants (defined differently than the current participant page; it is even more stringent than the current "active" criteria, only listing users with 5 or more edits within 30 days!), which you can find here. Is this definition of "activity" preferable to the more lenient guidelines we already have? For people that don't edit at all, the current criteria give 6 months for a user to make an edit (just one!) to still be counted as "active." Even for "reasonably active" users, we allow a 3 month period for a user to make an edit. A every 30 day requirement for "active" status currently only applies to users with over 1,000 edits/month, and is still more lenient by requiring only 1 edit instead of 5.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I hope nobody at this project asks for my blood. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, this is awkward.. I'll uhh.. just go ahead and delete this then.. 😅―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that Biochemistry & Love is on the right track with the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Pharmacology. If you need something that's truly up to date, then that page does it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for abandoning this discussion for a while, but how do people feel about simply blanking the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Participants page, and redirecting to the bot-maintained list located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Pharmacology? Unless we can transform the page into a sort of pure carrot? I don't know how WP:MED identifies highly active users.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Experts needed... maybe

There are 22 articles at Category:Pharmacology articles needing expert attention. It's been my experience that many pages with this tag (perhaps even most) don't actually need attention from an expert, and especially if it's been tagged for years, the problem may have been solved. Please consider looking through the tagged articles, removing stale/inexplicable tags, and bringing a short list of the ones that need particular attention back to this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed a few irrelevant tags. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thank you for bringing this up! In the process of going through some of these articles and removing tags as well. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You all are awesome. Just three and a half hours later, and more than half the articles have already been looked at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Just 8 in the category now. I'm amazed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dose titration

User:Natureium has very kindly taken up my request to write about Drug titration. It looks like it's easy to find sources about drug titration in specific instances, but information about the general concept seems to be harder to identify. Can anyone help out with a good source or two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Found at least one. Boghog (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Natureium (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Pharmacology}} |class= rating parameter

FYI: I just extended the range of acceptable inputs for the "class" parameter in {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} to include category-, disambig-, draft-, file-, portal-, project-, template-, and redirect-class ratings for pharmacology-related pages and created the corresponding categories. So, in a nutshell, our project's article/page rating template now includes categorization for those subject page types. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigDraftFilePortalProjectRedirectTemplateNA???
110496241,3784,3317,20514341,173132744023942388161 

Zaleplon Page

The Zaleplon article states "Zaleplon, like zolpidem, zopiclone, or eszopiclone, are all specific agonists at the benzodiazepine GABAA α1 sub-receptor site.". There is no citation, and I am uncertain about use of the term 'specific agonist'. Can someone please educate me as to the use of this term? At first I presumed this was meant to say 'selective agonist', as I haven't often heard the former term being used. But upon searching I found an article published in Nature that uses the term in its title, and I can't imagine it's very likely that the editors of Nature wouldn't have corrected a terminological error in a publications title. Either way, I am fairly certain that the content of the statement is not correct, in that Zopiclone, for example, acts indiscriminately, as a full agonist, at four of the five alpha subunits of the GABAA receptor - https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB01198 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanisLupisArctus (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@CanisLupisArctus: Thank you for bringing up your concern about the zaleplon article. To answer your question, my guess is that the writer meant to convey that the agonism is "selective," as in "affecting some things and not others," of which the term "specific" (meaning "belonging or relating uniquely to a particular subject") is an improper approximation of. I've corrected the area you've mentioned, and made a few more edits to the article, which could still use a lot of work! For the future, when you have a concern about an article, you can bring it up on the article's talk page; for the zaleplon article, that is here.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 04:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure why it wasn't working earlier I had assumed only some could edit the talk page. My mistake. Cheers! CanisLupisArctus (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Pharmacy law

I've noticed that there don't appear to be any pages pertaining to pharmacy law in US states (or at the national level). There's a lot of work on gun laws and LGBT rights by state, and I'm not sure if this would be better suited to the purview of Wikipedia:Law, but I was wondering if anyone wanted to collaborate on anything.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Biochemistry&Love: How close is Regulation of therapeutic goods to what you want? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply! I think that's a great page, but I'm thinking about pages more narrow in scope, along the lines of Pharmacy laws in Michigan, Pharmacy laws in Indiana, etc. (analogous to Gun laws in Michigan, Gun laws in New York, Gun laws in New Mexico, etc.). Something that reflects the nature of pharmacy practice in these states, and eventually abroad.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
There are frequently pages for the relevant legislative acts; some of them are listed at Drug control law and elsewhere. Klbrain (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
All good things! However, I don't think these pages reflect pharmacy practice.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Biochemistry&Love: I think this is overly ambitious. I tried to make User:Bluerasberry/Healthcare in Washington (state) a few years ago but felt stumped for sources. With some other states in Category:Healthcare in the United States by state I was more successful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
For US the pattern that I see is some but not all states have "healthcare" articles. More states have "list of hospital" articles. Some states have "department of health" articles. I am not opposed to pharmacy law articles but I have my doubts that these can stand when the regional "healthcare" articles are so shabby. The most developed regional healthcare articles are Category:Cannabis in the United States by state. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Never had an account on wikipedia before

I find pharmacology and biochem super interesting, cool to see a community of people who do too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemotron (talk • contribs) 07:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and to WikiProject Pharmacology! Let me know if you ever need any assistance with anything! There's tons of work to do, so feel free to be WP:BOLD and dive in! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Is there anything I can help with? --Chemotron (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology#How to help; there's plenty to do on the cleanup list! Klbrain (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Level of reading for pharmacology content

Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Level_of_reading_dispute; input very welcome. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Featured article review for Antioxidant

The scope of the problems with this article's comprehensiveness pertains more to WP:MCB; however, synthetic antioxidants are within this project's scope, so I'm liking this here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Antioxidant/archive1. There's currently a total of 7 sentences relevant to drugs in this article under Antioxidant#Drug candidates. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Feedback request

I'm requesting feedback on article content in nootropic. The issue is described at Talk:Nootropic#Coverage of CNS stimulants. Another editor and I are engaged in an edit war, so we need unbiased third-party feedback on the disputed content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Vaccines

I've been done some work recently on combination vaccines, and many of the pages I have been working on are not listed under Wikiprojects:Pharmacology. Can I nominate these pages for review somehow? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@T0mpr1c3: Absolutely! On the Talk page of the article, add the term {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} to the top of the page. Someone will be by (eventually) to look the page over. If you'd like a more thorough (and expeditious?) review, consider contacting a WP:Pharm editor directly or paste the page here. I hope that helps!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. OK, I did that. Thanks. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger of 4 pages concerning Covalent inhibitors

A page titled "Covalent (enzyme) inhibitors" needs to exist. A small section exists under Enzyme_inhibitor#Irreversible_inhibitors and this could lead to the new/combined page. The chemistry of this will be detailed and a recent paper titled "The taxonomy of Covalent Inhibitors" does a good job of reviewing the subject and does not mention suicide inhibitors as it is currently referred to on wiki and is the current best review of this subject from a perspective of medicinal chemistry. I propose a new page to combine stubs Irreversible agonist, Irreversible antagonist, and articles Suicide inhibition and Targeted covalent inhibitors. These are all based on covalent inhibition yet there is no page for this. I will be working on this in sandbox first as I am new at this and am using WP:Merging as a guide. Jlf3756 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC) Jlf3756 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest #1 and #2 would be OK but I would be opposed to #3:
  1. Enzyme_inhibitor#Irreversible_inhibitors → expanded Irreversible enyzyme inhibitors. At the same time, I think an extensive summary should be left behind in the Enzyme inhibitor article since the the subject of enzyme kinetics depends on it.
  2. Irreversible agonists + Irreversible antagonists → Irreversible receptor ligands
  3. Irreversible agonists + Irreversible antagonists → Irreversible enyzyme inhibitors (mixing apples and oranges, enzymes and receptors are different beasts).
Boghog (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the Enzyme inhibitor article does not need much on that page but the classifications of types of covalent inhibitors are left out and would fit better on its own page. I would advise looking at the first figure in the referenced paper "The taxonomy of Covalent Inhibitors" that classifies different types of covalent inhibitors. There are at least 8 different classifications of "suicide inhibitors" but they are more accurately classified as irreversible inhibitors. This term is not widely used as when you search with quotes "irreversible inhibitor" and "suicide inhibitor" in pubmed you get 2203 and 275 results, respectively. I think changing the name as previously mentioned and adding "suicide inhibitor redirects here" would be appropriate. The agonist and antagonist pages are not as relevant to the discussionJlf3756 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the Enzyme inhibitor article does not need much on that page – Just to reiterate, I think it is important that a reasonably complete discussion of irreversible inhibitors be retained in the parent article. Boghog (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Club drug, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Styrene

An apparent styrene leak in India has killed 13 people and injured many more. As such, there's been a surge in editing on the 'Health effects' section of that page, not all of it to our usual standards. I normally try to keep away from health sections as I leave WP:MEDRS stuff to the experts. I'd appreciate any help available. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A few questions

Hello all. I've just axed the redirect from lente insulin to the glossary of insulin terms and made a stub at that link in line with what ultralente had already. Yay? I think?

But I noticed now that the redirect (lente insulin) is different from the format of the stub name that already existed for the similar type (just "ultralente"). Which is preferable - basically, should one or the other be moved, or it doesn't particularly matter? If neither needs moved, should a redirect be created from lente to lente insulin (or vice versa), and from ultralente insulin to ultralente (or vice versa)?

Furthermore, I'm really interested in expanding the articles on both to include the historical significance/data/uses/discovery/etc. but I'm not really sure where to start - it seems really daunting turning a stub into a full fledged article. Are there any examples of "intermediate" articles that are more than a stub, but not as long as, say, NPH insulin that I could look at to keep making baby step improvements?

Apologies if this isn't the best place to ask these questions - but thanks in advance for your help! Berchanhimez (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps have a look at the Class C list on the pharmacology project list here; you'll see some articles just a little further along. The pharmacology Pharmacology Style guide might be helpful too. Klbrain (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
That's basically exactly what I needed - I'll keep the style guide up and try to follow it when expanding the two articles, and I've moved them in accordance with the guide. The list of "C articles" is also helpful for some guidance on what to shoot for when expanding. Thanks again! bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (say hi!) 08:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on the ATC code lists

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATC code A07 --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Company codes

Is there a standardized way for drugs that are only known by a company code? I've almost always seen it written as PREFIX-NUMBER (for example, AGN-2979). I've also occasionally seen it written as PREFIXNUMBER (GNF6702). But something I've only ever seen here on wiki is PREFIX-NUM,BER (like GR-196,429). I feel like it would be better to move those articles to PREFIX-NUMBER format. In other words, move GR-196,429 to GR-196429.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Support merge, which would also be consistent with similar drugs from GlaxoSmithKline like GR-127935. A simple move is technically possible. A quick scan through Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code shows that there is currently mixed use, and it might therefore be worthwhile having some consensus to do this systematically. Klbrain (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you think would be a good way of doing this? Occasionally, I come across a page that can't be moved over another redirect, such as SKF-81,297. It seems unnecessary to post at WP:RM#TM each time that happens.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose merge. While I've rarely seen commas in the company code names too, and in those cases, I wonder if they are errors (like in this scientific paper in reference to SKF-81,297), I'm not sure if we can paint a broad brush. Some drugs are named with a space instead of a hyphen (or without a space as all), as I just fixed for AMG 319. Lest we make a mistake, and to correct previous mistakes, this should probably be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. I went back and forth between weak support and weak oppose 3 times, for reference.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Taking that SKF-81,297 example, and pubmed searching, we have: SKF-81,297 with 2 references, SKF-81297 with 258 references. Taking other examples (the first unique company code name I could find in Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code
AR-231,453 with 1 reference; AR-231453 with 12 references
BRL-15,572 with 0 references; BRL-15572 with 14
CP-39,332 with 1 reference; CP-39332 with 0
EGIS-12,233 with 0 references; EGIS-12233 with 1
GSK-789,472 with 0 references; GSK-789,472 with 0 references (will tag that one for deletion ... one primary reference, and that does mention the drug but not that code name), no secondary sources.
L-368,899 with 45 references; L-368899 with 45 references
LY-487,379 with 5 references; LY-487379 with 19 references
then jumping a few to ...
SKF-81,297 with 2 references; SKF-81297 with 254 references
So, on balance, use in the primary and secondary sources varies, but with a tendency to use the no-comma form for the significant majority. My feeling, therefore, is that a global change or convention does more good than harm. Klbrain (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing drugs

While running a project-wide spell check, I happened to notice there are a bunch of red links on List of drugs subpages, indicating missing redirects and missing articles. I added a new section to the WikiProject's home page called "Create articles" which points to this. If anyone is interested in creating stubs or just pondering the statistics, here are the number of unrecognized words on each sublist, which approximates the number of missing pages. -- Beland (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Top million substances

Hello, I’m working with User:Egonw from Wikidata and others to compile a list of what we consider to be the one million most important chemicals. This list will be used to prioritize what we look at for both Wikidata and Wikipedia, and possibly other external groups that interact with us. These chemicals could include things like the elements and other basic substances you would encounter in your chemistry education, chemicals encountered in everyday life (e.g. in detergents, food additives or hair gel) as well as more niche substances such as pharmaceuticals, polymers, pollutants, biologically important materials, etc. Are there any specific collections of substances you would recommend us to look at? Please post any suggested lists or databases below. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed by this task!
Thanks a lot! These are very helpful. Walkerma (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Company codes

Is there a standardized way for drugs that are only known by a company code? I've almost always seen it written as PREFIX-NUMBER (for example, AGN-2979). I've also occasionally seen it written as PREFIXNUMBER (GNF6702). But something I've only ever seen here on wiki is PREFIX-NUM,BER (like GR-196,429). I feel like it would be better to move those articles to PREFIX-NUMBER format. In other words, move GR-196,429 to GR-196429.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Support merge, which would also be consistent with similar drugs from GlaxoSmithKline like GR-127935. A simple move is technically possible. A quick scan through Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code shows that there is currently mixed use, and it might therefore be worthwhile having some consensus to do this systematically. Klbrain (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you think would be a good way of doing this? Occasionally, I come across a page that can't be moved over another redirect, such as SKF-81,297. It seems unnecessary to post at WP:RM#TM each time that happens.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose merge. While I've rarely seen commas in the company code names too, and in those cases, I wonder if they are errors (like in this scientific paper in reference to SKF-81,297), I'm not sure if we can paint a broad brush. Some drugs are named with a space instead of a hyphen (or without a space as all), as I just fixed for AMG 319. Lest we make a mistake, and to correct previous mistakes, this should probably be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. I went back and forth between weak support and weak oppose 3 times, for reference.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Taking that SKF-81,297 example, and pubmed searching, we have: SKF-81,297 with 2 references, SKF-81297 with 258 references. Taking other examples (the first unique company code name I could find in Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code
AR-231,453 with 1 reference; AR-231453 with 12 references
BRL-15,572 with 0 references; BRL-15572 with 14
CP-39,332 with 1 reference; CP-39332 with 0
EGIS-12,233 with 0 references; EGIS-12233 with 1
GSK-789,472 with 0 references; GSK-789,472 with 0 references (will tag that one for deletion ... one primary reference, and that does mention the drug but not that code name), no secondary sources.
L-368,899 with 45 references; L-368899 with 45 references
LY-487,379 with 5 references; LY-487379 with 19 references
then jumping a few to ...
SKF-81,297 with 2 references; SKF-81297 with 254 references
So, on balance, use in the primary and secondary sources varies, but with a tendency to use the no-comma form for the significant majority. My feeling, therefore, is that a global change or convention does more good than harm. Klbrain (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing drugs

While running a project-wide spell check, I happened to notice there are a bunch of red links on List of drugs subpages, indicating missing redirects and missing articles. I added a new section to the WikiProject's home page called "Create articles" which points to this. If anyone is interested in creating stubs or just pondering the statistics, here are the number of unrecognized words on each sublist, which approximates the number of missing pages. -- Beland (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Top million substances

Hello, I’m working with User:Egonw from Wikidata and others to compile a list of what we consider to be the one million most important chemicals. This list will be used to prioritize what we look at for both Wikidata and Wikipedia, and possibly other external groups that interact with us. These chemicals could include things like the elements and other basic substances you would encounter in your chemistry education, chemicals encountered in everyday life (e.g. in detergents, food additives or hair gel) as well as more niche substances such as pharmaceuticals, polymers, pollutants, biologically important materials, etc. Are there any specific collections of substances you would recommend us to look at? Please post any suggested lists or databases below. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed by this task!
Thanks a lot! These are very helpful. Walkerma (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_14&oldid=1142680632"