Talk:Saizen

Not an ad

I just compiled the data for this article myself. I'm not interested in giving any company a leg up by advertising. But I did find a lot of the online searches keyed in to this item are selling the product and not describing it. That's why I decided to spend the time to write this. It has adequate links to the rest of Wikipedia. Merely because it's a commercial product shouldn't be reason enough to delete it. I think this was quite hasty. --SidP 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate entry, but see my comments about it on your talk page! I've rewritten it by removing duplicate material. Hope this works! Nehwyn 10:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SidP, sorry if I seemd overzealous. I did not mean to suggest that you have a reason for advertising that product; I merely remarked that its entry, as written, sounded like an advert for it. Therapeutic indications are covered in the page on artificial GH, and physiological effects of GH are also covered in its own page. There is no reason to repeat them in the Saizen page, as Saizen is just a commercial name for a substance that is in all aspects identical to normal growth hormone. Moreover, if you use a commercial name, you should also state in which countries that drug has that name; the very same preparation may have different names in different countries.

Understood. However, I believe that when someone is looking for a specific medicine or drug, they are not interested in reading the full entry on the treatments; that is why there are wikilinks. And I agree, the drug naming should come in to play. Please keep in mind that this is an initial entry; hopefully others will contribute. And once again, I am in support of your efforts.--SidP 10:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the effects of a drug (especially, in this case, a human hormone) should be listed in the page detailing that drug's active principle. Commercial names are just names, they do not modify the effects of the active principle. Consider this: if the effects of aspirin were described repeatedly in the entry for each and every different commercial preparation of aspirin that exists in the world, we would end up with an immense amount of duplicated material. Instead, the effects of aspirin are described in aspirin, and each commercial preparations can just link to it. Nehwyn 10:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You make a good point. However, deleting all of that information seems a bit hasty, as it provided a valuable and concise amount of information. If a specific entry organized the same data, I could understand better. Or perhaps moving my text to another entry might make sense, incorporating it. If you know of an entry that accomplishes this, please let me know.--SidP 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. It is true that the information on the GH pages is not as concise, but that, if anything, is a fault of those pages. I'd suggest the best way to go is probably to insert the concise version of the effects somwhere on those pages, so the "link to the active principle" criterion is maintaned, and still the concise information is available for those who prefer it. Nehwyn 10:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is correct. However, I caution your efforts to remove text created by others. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are meant to exist on their own; they may have a large amount of overlap with other articles. Redundancy within an article is of course a problem. However, that is not the case here.--SidP 10:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SidP, I am afraid I have to disagree on both points. Wikipedia articles are indeed _not_ meant to exist on their own; they are meant and indeed encouraged to link to each other. And as for cautioning against removing text created by others, that too is entirely allowed within Wikipedia (as long as there is a reasoning behind it, of course). Nehwyn 10:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course deleting text is allowed; but you must agree it's much easier to delete than to create. And as a new user, you need to temper your behavior (perhaps not in this case, as I said). Also, you have misunderstood my point about articles existing on their own. They should be able to be read independently, without needing to jump to another article to receive a concise, developed explanation of the subject. Please keep these matters in mind before you continue your important work at WP.--SidP 11:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions... but I still deem my behaviour in trimming the text justified in this particular article. If you still think this entry deserves explanation of effects of hGH-N and its indications, perhaps we could call for a mediation? Nehwyn 11:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]