Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

Add topic
Active discussions

WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Vaccine subproject?Edit

I'm looking for a vaccines wikiproject that focuses on coverage of vaccines (both approved and in development), social topics around vaccines (vaccine campaigns and mandates, anti-vax coalitions) and tracking reliable sources for same (specifically sources of antivax disinfo, including the rise of journals that may not have any pharma or vaccinology editors but regularly publish antivax papers). Is there a subproject like this that you know of? If not, are others interested in seeing one get started? – SJ + 16:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Enzyme inhibitor FAREdit

I have nominated Enzyme inhibitor for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 23:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


There’s been a lot written about the cost of the Cystic Fibrosis drug Trikafta. Its list price is US$311,000 per year. This has made the drug currently unavailable to non compassionate use patients in New Zealand and many other countries. I think there is far more to write about the cost, the reasons for it, and the global availability of the drug. Currently, there is a debate in New Zealand about funding the drug so it will be available to all who need it. I am certain that those in government there and the general public would benefit greatly from this articles expansion. I have not done much work regarding medicine related articles. I would appreciate any help from those with experience. Thriley (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Magnesium sulfate (medical use)#Requested move 28 March 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Magnesium sulfate (medical use)#Requested move 28 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No simufilam articleEdit

This drug, while relatively new and not yet approved, has been in the news for a while. Odd that nobody has taken on an article. Whether it works or not is immaterial. It appears to qualify as a subject of interest to Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I created a bare bones article at Simufilam, but I haven't got access to the right sources for fleshing it out. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Some eyes on the article would be welcome because of repeated IP edits that look very POVy to me. However, I don't have access to the relevant journals, and also quite frankly not the time to handle this. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Outdated Portal infoEdit

In the Categorize Articles section under How To Help, you have a suggestion to add a deleted portal template, should that be the Medicine portal instead? Penguinmlle (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate place for a requested articleEdit

I made Draft:Dibrospidium chloride from Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Medicine/Pharmacology and it was suggested to place it under another subject. Any ideas? Lalaithan (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! As much as I'd like to tell you something else, I'm afraid that dibrospidium chloride simply isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and also not notable enough to be mentioned in an article about cancer treatment or the like). As far as I could find out, it was investigated about 30 years ago in animal studies and very small human studies, and nothing about it has been published since. So, the statement in the draft that it is being investigated for cancer treatment isn't quite right. Sorry for being negative... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
In the end it is practice, so no, it's not negative, or at least nowhere near as negative as many people on here can get. Russian Wikipedia actually has an uncited article on this but I can tell which studies they're cited from so I shall fix that article.
Perhaps the non-notable items from the lists related to this project that wouldn't work as a redirect would do better in topical standalone lists, since lists can consist entirely of non-notable items, so they can be removed from the original lists. The main page here implies the enormous amount of red link items need articles. Lalaithan (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Outdated "mono" articlesEdit

Unnecessary, redundant, obsolete, isn't it? Should probably be renamed and redirected.

Examples: 6-Monoacetylmorphine, 6-Monoacetylcodeine, 3-Monoacetylmorphine, 3'-Monoiodothyronine

No idea how many other articles like that exist (or not). That nomenclature is about a century outdated in any case.

Aethyta (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I had a look on the and the titles there seem evenly split on 6-Monoacetylmorphine and 6-acetylmorphine, even looking at recent articles. However, the chemistry articles are clearly using 6-acetylmorphine. So, I support the suggestion of moving the articles to titles without the mono. Klbrain (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
So far, I cannot see that such a move is uncontroversially obvious. I'd say either make a strong case here (sources, backgrounds, affected articles pattern, new name), or via WP:RM#CM. -DePiep (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. As a chemist, I’m familiar with the IUPAC nomenclature but where will we end? Move Isosorbide mononitrate to [(3S,3aR,6R,6aS)-3-hydroxy-2,3,3a,5,6,6a-hexahydrofuro[3,2-b]furan-6-yl] nitrate and create a redirect for the nomenclature-handicapped (speak, the vast majority of readers)? Alfie↑↓© 16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Isosorbide nitrate is objectively correct, isn't it?
You oppose, how about redirecting Methamphetamine to Monomethamphetamine then? Sounds utterly insane to me. Where would THAT end?
I think it's rather clear why the mono was dropped. Aethyta (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘isosorbide nitrate is objectively correct’. Would be wrong because there is also isosorbide dinitrate. I don’t think that dimethylamphetamine deserves an article but of course, it exists. I used it back in the day in my lab as an internal standard in GC. Alfie↑↓© 10:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
What I meant is that the absence of a multiplier prefix implies singular, mono, one. There's a million examples, like (mono)Methyltryptamine and Dimethyltryptamine. Mono isn't wrong, but if it's not necessary, when do you want to use it? Always, never, roll a dice?
At least when positions are specified (like 6-acetyl in the first example, as opposed to 3,6-diacetyl), it's obsolete for sure, isn't it? Aethyta (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)