Talk:Biopharmaceutical

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Merge suggestion

Why don't we fusion this article with biopharmacology? --Pepetps 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is like fusion medication and pharmacology. In biopharmaceutical should be the families of biopharmaceuticals, and in biopharmacology the advantatges and reasons of use this type of drugs (symilar to ca:biofarmacologia). I'd like to translate the Catalan articles but my English level don't let me. Llull 18:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Not Moved. Closure as requested by nominator. Station1 (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharmaceutical → Biopharmaceutical drug — biopharmaceutical is an adjective and Wikipedia titles are nouns per WP:ADJECTIVE; cf Pharmaceutical which redirects to Pharmaceutical drug RexxS (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2010 (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.

Weak Oppose. Reading the discussion just below, it seems to me that "biopharmaceutical" is used as a noun with a specific meaning more often than "pharmaceutical" is. "Biopharmaceutical drug" seems to me to be needlessly verbose. But I don't feel strongly at all. Interested readers will be able to find the page under either name. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many of the products named in this article aren't drugs (they're biologics), so I don't think that it makes sense to move this page to any name including the word 'drug'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Google search shows plenty examples of the noun plural "pharmaceuticals", even if I exclude uses in company names. See also wiktionary:pharmaceutical. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, Anthony, the use of "pharmaceuticals" as a noun may be found, but the principal use is as an adjective. The Wikipedia entry Pharmaceutical redirects to Pharmaceutical drug, so that issue seems to be settled. Surely it follows that biopharmaceutical should redirect to biopharmaceutical drug in the same way, for exactly the same reasons. Wiktionary, of course, has entries for adjectives as well as nouns. --RexxS (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing makes the compelling point that many biopharmaceuticals are not drugs. Perhaps someone could correct the opening sentence of the article: "Biopharmaceuticals are medical drugs ..."? --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but I would like to see something in the ethics section about population health implications and equity issues, as in the article at http://www.medicc.org/mediccreview/index.php?issue=17&id=204&a=va My apologies if this is in the wrong place. I am tech-clueless. Cranmills (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)cranmills[reply]

Informal closure

It seems that there is a clear consensus not to move the page. Would any uninvolved editor close it as Not moved, please? Otherwise, I'll close it myself if there are no objections. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

merge

today i merged this article into Biologic medical product as it almost completely overlapped and the target article was not so long that it needed a split. In general the "drug" articles are too scattered and lack interconnection. working on fixing that. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharmacology merge to here

Article merged: See old talk-page here.

New article - Biologics for immunosuppression

Please see Biologics for immunosuppression.

I struggled with the term "biologics" because it is an ambiguous world with multiple meanings. I redirected biologics from this article to that one.

I started a discussion about terminology on the talk page of that article. Before I meddle with this article I thought that I would let that other article sit for a while, because I have doubts about how to separate the concept of "biopharmaceutical" as something distinct from "biologics". Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A biologic is synonymous with biopharmaceutical. A biopharmaceutical is any pharmaceutical produced from biological sources and is not restricted to immunosuppressants. Hence the previous redirect should be restored. Biologics include immunostimulants used in cancer immunotherapy (see for example this list) and also include a whole raft of other indications such as insulin for diabetes. Cochrane is flat out wrong in their definition. Boghog (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: Is there a term for the class of drugs which are are structurally biologics and have the effect of an immunosuppressant? How do you feel about Cochrane or anyone else event treating that intersection as a concept to be discussed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that there is a preferred term for this. Biologics for immunosuppression, immunosuppressive biologics, immunosuppressive biopharmaceuticals, etc. all work. Clearly this is legitimate subject deserving its own article. What I disagree with is equating biologics with immunosuppressants. While the majority of biologics currently in the clinic are immunosuppressants, not all biologics are immunosuppressive. Boghog (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Boghog's perspective. This is the way it should be. I was confused before and less confused now. I think it would be confusing to use the term "biologics" when there is ambiguity about whether only the discussion is about one use or many different compounds with any possible uses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]