This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
health and
physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
This article 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
DGG writes in review comments "You need to write first about it as a chemical, and after that about the therapeutic use." But there's no cite for that (incompatible with DGG's insistence on reliable sources, true?) Does any such rule really exist, or did DGG just make it up?
73.119.18.232 (
talk) 23:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't think there is such a rule.
MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices says to "[i]ndicate the drug class and family and the main indications" in the lead, while the section "Chemistry" comes below all clinical sections. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk) 08:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Requested move 28 May 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think we can do superscripts in article titles. (I support INN, or any generic name, or as close as we can actually get to that in practice.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
That sounds like a solution to me.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 00:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I support Whywhenwhohow idea (There are some articles where the title doesn't have a superscript but the DISPLAYTITLE does — for example, Flortaucipir (18F) where the INN is flortaucipir (18F)[2].)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 11:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
^World Health Organization (2016). "International nonproprietary names for pharmaceutical substances (INN): recommended INN: list 76". WHO Drug Information. 30 (3).
hdl:10665/331020.