Talk:Pharmacopoeia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pharmacopoeia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pharmacology B‑class Mid‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

this article is a mess, too much of that 1911 encylopaedia remains. GraemeLeggett 14:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of Pharmacopoeia of Tibetan Medicine has been added based on....

the citation below

http://www.amazon.com/Pharmacopoeia-Tibetan-Medicine-Medical-Science/dp/8170303885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242962651&sr=1-1 --222.64.18.232 (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JP used to be present at this site......

Don't know why it disappeared. Anyway, it is added again based on the following refs.

http://www.sjp.jp/index_e.htm

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a758558983~db=all~order=title

http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Pharmacopeia-Pharmacopoeia-Japan-Yakuji/dp/4840809747 --222.64.18.232 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since WHO is this world's government,....

Who Monographs on Selected Medicinal Plants has been added into this article according to the words of the article in the beginning--222.64.18.232 (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oooops, the monographs look more like specifications than pharmacopoeia, as the directions in the books are not fully cleared. Anyway, I leave it here for further discussions.

If the books are classified as specifications, please mean it in the title of the books. Otherwise using the term of Monographs may confuse the people of the pharmaceutical industry where Monographs have always been referred to the ones in Pharmacopoeia which contains full directions and guidances, unless the term of monographs is explained in the books

The who's monographs are linked as follows http://books.google.com/books?id=qWP4aG-wXAQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Who+Monographs+on+Selected+Medicinal+Plants#PPP3,M1

http://www.amazon.com/Monographs-Selected-Medical-Plants-Medicinal/dp/9241545178

http://www.amazon.com/WHO-Monographs-Selected-Medicinal-Plants/dp/9241545372 --222.64.18.232 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---
more links have been added today for validation purposes http://books.google.com/books?id=4p9nYZZnJVUC&dq=Who+Monographs+on+Selected+Medicinal+Plants&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=do0XSvesIIzY7AORrc2vDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPP6,M1

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/1999/9241545178.pdf

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545372.pdf

http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/traditional/MedPlantsMonograph3.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Monograph-Selected-Medicinal-Plants/dp/B0011WEV1A/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243059460&sr=1-2

I found these clues via amazon bookshop
http://www.amazon.com/Guidelines-Agricultural-Collection-Practices-Medicinal/dp/9241546271/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243059460&sr=1-3

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241546271.pdf --222.64.31.57 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%96%AC%E5%B1%80%E6%96%B9 --222.64.223.103 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and

http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/ --222.64.223.103 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redlink is created ....

based on the following http://www.amazon.com/International-Cosmetic-Ingredient-Dictionary-Handbook/dp/1882621433/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246954916&sr=1-1 --222.64.23.80 (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preperations

This seems extremely dated, the BPC it mentions was discontinued in the 1970's, and the drug "verona" (presumably meant to be Veronal) dates from about 1905 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.49.58 (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge w Materia medica

Not recommended : "a pharmacopoeia" is an authorised or other compilation of remedies e.g. London Pharmacopoeia; British Pharmacopoeia; British Pharmateutical Codex; etc.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that a merge is not a good idea. The tags have been there since 2009, I am going to go ahead and remove them. --El on ka 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that these are different, although related, topics. David Spector (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another collection of monographes.....???

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19824365

--222.67.211.208 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn-al-Baytar: dates

The article says he was from the 14th century, but in http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?articleID=525 his dates are listed from c. 1188 (or 1197) to 1248, which is not the 14th century. Small point, but... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.79.2 (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spelling

Many old book titles use the spelling Pharmacopoea (an example is already on the page). Could someone else please handle the addition as I'm not familiar with wikipedia policy about the American English spelling that is already on the page. Thanks. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm I dont understand. You want to add that there is an alternate spelling for the term " pharmacopoeia". You can add it at the beginning of the article, it happens in many articles, in certain topics you could even mention it in different languages if it would be of some importance. My opinion is that it just can enrich the text.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to remove the claim that "pharmacopeia" is American spelling, and list two alternatives. It seems that I'll have to do that and see if anyone objects. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obscurantism & territoriality

so less information is better for people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:B184:D000:1820:CF13:C691:CCA0 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]