User:Meodipt/2013 talk archive

Renaming of synthetic cannabinoid pages (BB-22, PB-22, etc.)

Hey there Meodipt!

I see you recently renamed several synthetic cannabinoid pages from their vendor-provided codes to the latest acronym codes used by Uchiyama et al. I'd suggest a reversion to the vendor codes for now since these are the most widely adopted names for these compounds, and hence, anyone looking for information on the structures themselves is much more likely to use the ubiquitous codes than the new acronyms hidden away in a relatively inaccessible journal article.

I agree that the vendor codes are silly and arbitrary, however, these codes are the most identifiable link to these structures (for now) until more publications emerge to make the new acronyms ubquitous.

I raise these points as an author that has published in the field of synthetic cannabinoids.

Your thoughts? BaeyerDrewson (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there BaeyerDrewson, good work on creating all these pages for these newly described cannabinoids! I try to keep up to date with the recent developments but the field seems to move so fast these days. Actually the main reason I moved these was because I saw you had moved the page for APICA / 2NE1 to SDB-001, and I figured it was best to be consistent and use the codes from the scientific literature where possible, rather than made-up vendor code names. Also the made-up vendor codes for these compounds are particularly unsuitable as they seem to be shared with historical US battleships, so I felt the codes assigned by the Japanese forensics lab are more unambiguous. Anyway there remains a link to the new page name from the old one, so anyone searching for it should get redirected. Meodipt (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I forgot about the old redirects. I'm working in this field at the moment so I'm able to keep up to date quite easily. I changed the APICA page to SDB-001 since that is the latest code from the latest publication (Banister et al, presumably coded after the lead author), and there is already a Wikipedia page for a different research chemical with the acronym APICA. That is my general problem with all these Japanese forensic labs, they are adding ambiguous acronyms rather than codes to the literature, and some of the acronyms are getting as long as reasonable chemical names. For example, ADB-FUBINACA?! That is an absolutely ridiculous label for a molecule when you consider the very rationale for coding compounds in the first place. Anyway, I'll wait and see what other codes emerge from the literature for some of these newer compounds. BaeyerDrewson (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Drug/compound infoboxes

Hello, I just posted discussions on expanding our bot-driven maintenance and expansion efforts to both drugs/compounds [1] and diseases [2]. Since I see you at the root of many compound/drug pages that I've looked at, I think your feedback on these ideas would be particularly valuable. When/if you feel so inclined, I'd love to hear your thoughts! Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you intend to upload an image for 3-Bromocytisine? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs)

Already have, was just checking the structure before I uploaded it, as PubChem appears to show the wrong isomer.

Meodipt (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unifiram Stereochemistry

Hello Meodipt, you created the Wikipedia page for Unifiram. From http://dx.doi.org/10.2174%2F1573406054864142, it appears Unifiram has one stereogenic center, and Unifiram refers to the racemic compound. The image and chemical name shown in the Unifiram infobox seem to refer to the more active (R)-(+) isomer of Unifiram. Would it be more accurate to show the racemic compound structure and name? Also, can you provide more detail on how to use BKChem to produce SVG or PNG molecular structures in the same standard visual format used in your Wikipedia articles? Using BKChem 0.14 with default settings, I am able to draw a Unifiram structure congruent with that you created for the Unifiram article, but the SVG / PNG exported by BKChem does not look the same: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Unifiram_Racemic.svg Scarmani (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I generally show the more active isomer just as I feel it is more informative, however it may be more accurate to show the racemic form if this is how unifiram is generally marketed. To make the BKChem structures look a bit more solid you have to export them at 200% rather than leaving it as default, also turn auto crop on. Meodipt (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)