Talk:Radiopharmaceutical

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Non-radioactive isotopes in medicine

This article lists quite a few radioactive isotopes used in medicine. Is there a similar Wikipedia for non-radioactive isotopes which are used in medical practice? I know of one, carbon-13. Are there others? Should the "see also" section mention this? 76.254.27.56 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is the use of deuterium in deuterated drugs. Good suggestion.
Stub now at
medical isotope. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 16 October 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved with support (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal radiocompounds → Radiopharmaceutical – More common name. Andrewa (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support, As the primary demandant the requested move, I found radiopharmaceutical as the official name which is used commonly. As well as google search results, in scientific publications "Radiopharmaceutical" is often employed.--Sahehco (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just as a caution, the
      official name counts very little, and for good reasons... do you know the official name of aspirin? Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
In this case, "medicinal radiocompound" is a very good definition but not a good name for a known article. I think it is not comparable with aspirin. When I refer to scientific publications, I don't mean necessarily academic papers, but also the common form of the word which scientists use. For example, see this website--Sahehco (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This was raised by User:Sahehco on my user talk page [1] but I think it's best to go to RM.

Google web search gave me almost half a million

ghits for the new name and only three for the existing one, [2] [3] which is what I was expecting having worked in the industry (or even more of a difference than my guess if anything), so I went no further. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

March 2017 Proposed merge

I would fully support the proposed merging (or does it just need deleting?) the

List of radiopharmaceuticals article with this one, it seems less comprehensive and less informative. Beevil (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As an alternative, the main article is quite long but is mostly the isotope tables. That could be spun off as a separate
List of radiopharmaceuticals merged into it). Then the parent Radiopharmaceutical article could retain and eventually expand on the prose ideas of formulation, half-life choice, and general applications. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I came here from the note at
List of radiopharmaceuticals. The list should be named that way, because these are molecules that contain isotopes, not the isotopes themselves. That list-merge would really be a (rather complicated) matter of inserting the entries that are currently on the List of page into the tables that would come from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Using Radiopharmacology as the unified parent for the prose sounds good to me. For the agents themselves, I think organizing by isotope is most logical, so it would be a list of isotopes, with sublist of pharmaceuticals of each, rather than a list of pharmaceuticals directly. Not sure how accurate for organization vs concise by topic is best for the article title. DMacks (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to me to be listing the pharmaceuticals organized by isotope, in which case it's still a listing of the pharmaceuticals rather than of only the isotopes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that both of the lists under discussion also overlap lists at
List of radiopharmaceuticals article could be deleted and replaced with a page showing section transclusions of the V09 and V10 pages. This would reduce the need to maintain 3 separate lists (as least down to 2). Klbrain (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I've put a draft of an alternative (transcluded) page at List of radiopharmaceuticals/2018draft. Klbrain (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given no objections, I've moved ahead with the alternative proposal. Klbrain (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radiopharmaceutical&oldid=1202171604"