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 articles
I just added the bit about why this is not always a good naming principle, in light of the case with Cephalexin, to better inform people who may be clicking through.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.11.48 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 September 2010
Someone knowledgeable should add a few more examples and details, for example how INN drug names appear in various languages, and a more complete list of systematic stems for other drug types besides the few listed. Also, how does the INN harmonize its system with old drugs having well-known pre-existing names, like aspirin, phenacetin, morphine, quinine, epinephrine, etc? Are there borderline cases where an old but not very well-known drug was given a new INN name to avoid confusion?CharlesHBennett (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to the Big List of Stems.
What I'd like to know is, given that the last few syllables of a standard name are defined by the Stem Book, how are the other syllables chosen? By the inventor? From a hat? —Tamfang (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The inventor chooses a name, but the WHO can decline it, e.g., if it is too similar to an existing one. Older names often are derived from the molecule's chemistry (nifedipine = nitrophenyldihydropyridine, amlodipine = amino-chloro-dihydropyridine etc.), but I'm under the impression that names are getting more fanciful. The darunavir article, e.g., claims that the name is derived from the discoverer's first name. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it's easy to get too near an existing name, working with amino-phenyl-dihydro- over and over again; even organic chemistry has a finite set of morphemes. I'd be tempted to use the number-words of obscure (but euphonious) languages: Finnish, Hawaiian, Elvish ... —Tamfang (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is an INN proposed, and how does it become recommended ?[edit]
Article does not say. Once proposed can it only be rejected or recommended or is there a third state of preliminary or under-consideration (ie proposal-accepted) ? How long can an INN stay as 'proposed' ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamfang: if I was sure, I wouldn't ask ;) Maybe the wording is bad. From another point of view: what language from the 7 has priority (to specify a drug name), if neither is the official one of some country? --Djadjko (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a rough consensus that, because reliable sources do not consistently capitalise, we should downcase per MOS:CAPS. Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – very commonly lowercase in books except where defining the acronym. It's hard to find support for the assertion above that "INN is a prooper noun". Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The official spelling the WHO uses is with caps ([1] and elsewhere). The link you give, Dicklyon, has hits with both lower and upper case spellings, so this isn't really conclusive IMO. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:CAPS, we don't capitalize when sources are mixed, showing that caps are not necessary. And look again at your own search hits; most of the caps are either for defining the acronym or as headings; click to second page of hits and find it lowercase in a sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dicklyon (disclaimer: I stalk his contribs). 06:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. See also Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union: "Three European Union schemes of geographical indications and traditional specialities, known as protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI), and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) ...". The fact that something is a legally defined category doesn't make the category a proper noun. The obvious proof of this is that the words "trademark", "patent" and "copyright" are not capitalized, despite these being three very, very clearly defined legal categories (the most profitable in the world). Simply drilling down to a more specific level, e.g. that of "protected designation of origin" doesn't magically make it a proper name (even if the EU likes to capitalize them, which it does). In the case of this RM, what we actually have is an uncategory. The INN is the exact opposite of a legally defined form of intellectual property, but rather a catch-all for anything that is the absence of one. Capitalizing it is like suggesting that "Apple" should be capitalized as a catch-all category for Malus domestica varieties that do not have formal cultivar names like 'Granny Smith' and 'Golden Delicious'. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, INNs are not catch-alls for everything that hasn't got a trade name. There is a special process, and they are published by the WHO. Everything that is not in the INN lists isn't an INN. Just nitpicking, though. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lower-case. Whether WHO wants to capitalize or not is irrelevant. Government agencies routinely capitalize everything they give a definition to; this is government style. "INN" is capitalized because it's an initialism, not because "International" and "Nonproprietary" and "Name" are proper names in their own right. Nor is the combined phrase "international nonproprietary name". It's simply a categorical description. But the pro-capitalization reasoning here, we'd have to capitalize every single label any governmental body every came up with for anything, any time such any agency capitalized it in their own internal documentation. When I go to pay my vehicle registration fee and pay off a parking citation, that's what I'm doing. I'm not paying my Vehicle Registration Fee and a Parking Citation, regardless of the fact that they're spelled this way on the paperwork. Governmental bodies and the materials they generate Capitalize as a Form of Emphasis, like that. Encyclopedic and most other forms of writing do not. The #1 rule at MOS:CAPS is do not capitalize as a form of emphasis. Anyway, because even the RS don't consistently capitalize this, MOS says not to, so that's that, even aside from the "it's a proper name" analysis being faulty. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment:. The Oxford Dictionary uses upper-case according to this example. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
