Talk:Druglikeness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

[edit] Merge

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I was looking for Lipinski's rules, I won't have thought to look under druglikeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.104.226 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems a very sensible suggestion, drug likeness and Lipinski's rules are concepts which are contemporary. Note however that these guidelines are relevant to drugs given by the oral route only.

Pharma. Medicinal Chemist (UK)

Except if it needs to cross the blood-brain barrier. (Druglikeness is relevant, I mean, I don't know about Lipinski's rules). --Vuo 06:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No Please donot merge. If one wants to see Lipinski's rule, it is very difficult to locate

I would keep both as separate entries and cross reference. Could imagine that the term 'Lipinski' is searched for more often than 'druglikeness'.

The problem of keeping them separate is that the same issues have to be discussed in both articles, and not only that; there are several "extensions to Lipinski's rules" that are essentially different druglikeness indices. --Vuo 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that there is sufficient published information on Lipinski's rule that a well rounded and well specified article can be crafted that has only minimal redundancy (for context) with the Druglikeness article. However, the Druglikeness article is sufficiently minute that having a section devoted to Lipinski's rule that encompasses the entire current article content is not unfeasible or unreasonable. To the matter of being able to find the information, that is solved by retaining a redirect ... that will show up both in searches and when formulating a URL. Demerger could come at a later date when a more comprehensive set of druglikeness tests/criteria have been included in the Druglikeness article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem to me like a good idea to merge these topics. As I read the discussion, it is largly one of encylopedia-tidiness versus user needs. Users will look up Lipinski rule of 5 and they should get a concise hit when they do, without the need to sort through a druglikeness category. Users are most unlikely to search for the term druglikeness. Anderstamc (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't merge them. I wanted to see an article on Lapinski's rules themselves, not a general discussion of druglikeness. This is a very useful article on it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)