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

Middle Ages B‑class Top‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-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]

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]