Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Medicine/Pharmacology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconPharmacology 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


About 40% of this page can be un-redlinked by making adequate redirects. JFW | T@lk 00:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree the use of trade and generic names appears rampant. actual compounds are referred to several times by different names. When I understand how to do redirects I would be happy to help do so. Stblndr 15:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice job guys:)[edit]

It was 1825 entries in original dump. As for today, there are only 836 unlinked terms left. In less than a year. TestPilot 02:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • One more year. 417 articles left. Less then a half again. If couple hundred would left - I will request them officially. Happy New Year;) TestPilot 03:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Another year - 256 redlinks left now. TestPilot 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Also, 1,000+ more redlinks. -- (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • What is the point of adding non notable INNs with few hundreds Google links(and most of them unrelated to INN)? Virtually none of them have a chance to get actual article plus it is not likely anyone will search Wikipedia for those INNs. TestPilottalk to me! 12:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


May we simply redirect unremarkable links (i.e. salts, alternate formulations with no significant impact on bioavailability) to the parent page? Fvasconcellos 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, have been doing as mentioned above. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List clean up.[edit]

In it current state list virtually meaningless. Look for example at this edit. None of "requests" added have any notability and totally fail Google test. Same thing apply to majority redlinks in the current list. Even if someone will create articles about non notable chemicals or INNs, that article will sooner or later be removed from Wikipedia. And there dozens articles deleted each day for non notability. Many dozens - each day! Take a look at articles for deletion. What I thinking of, me (or whoever would be willing to help) go through the list and do notability check according to en.Wiki policies, on one by one case for every entry. And remove non notable items. That should save lot of work for later. TestPilottalk to me! 12:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, there are no clear-cut notability criteria for chemical compounds or drugs. I would start any effort to clean up the list by getting rid of salts (such as XXXX hydrochloride, XXXX sulfate etc.) by redirecting them when possible—I've been doing this for quite some time—and redirecting non-INN names to existing INNs. A notability check is a major undertaking, and a simple Google test is not enough; I'm sure it would be worth it, and I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but it will take quite some time :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google check sounds like good enough notability checker. If there is not much information/publication about particular chemical, then it is not notable. Think what purpose serving this page. What is a point of creating article or even redirecting a chemical name that have few hundreds entries in the Internet? No one will ever search for it. TestPilottalk to me! 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TestPilot, perhaps you would also like to nominate for deletion all articles on rare diseases? Hardly anyone ever searches for those. --Una Smith (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are requested topics and do not merit summary deletion. Do not delete them. In most cases, they can be handled as a redirect to the appropriate article. Especially the mis-spellings. --Una Smith (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you mean by saying requested? This page is a dump of chemicals names from databases. One of them is "proposed drug names" etc. And deletion for non notable chemicals will be done sooner or later. Plus, there billions of possible chemicals. Redirecting them all, including one that not notable doesn't make much sense to me. But in theory it is possible. Now this page relatively small, but it have potential to become millions entries long. TestPilottalk to me! 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. You do understand that lots of requested topics are rejected at the end because they dose not make sense or non notable? So not many requested articles end up becoming an article or riderect. TestPilottalk to me! 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • First my apologies for all who check behind the non account edits for doing the first letters one by one. To start off I added a request for a page listed at the bottom in unsorted due to extra text. Then I went through A-D or E by section remove terms with pages, until I realized I could do the rest of the alphabet all at once. Although I wish I would have done a save page at the end of Z before I start placing selectively unsorted requests that seemed to fit better in their upper correct letter sections. I was unsure how to deal with letters & numbers so they were place in order from beginning letter through to the letter before the number, filing the number before letter not by number's spelling example 3 before A instead as Three being after S and before U. I also only made to the letter "I" in unsorted before I started have issues for performance and sight. I hope my work was more helpful than needing to be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about these compounds.[edit]

It mentions that this list is "a dump from the public domain FDA resource at". However, many compounds here are not listed in this resource...for example: MIRABEGRON. Could someone explain where the extra compounds have come from? Speedlearn1000 (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move of content from Medical page[edit]

Have moved the content from [Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine] as we may as well have all pharma terms in the same spot. The set from the FDA is big. Notability is an issue on all request pages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]