Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dietary Supplements

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Dietary Supplements Wikipedia:WikiProject Dietary Supplements is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Problem setting up bot

I wanted User:WP 1.0 Bot to track article quality and importance, but I am having problems setting it up. I posted for help at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Help_requested_to_diagnose_problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is operational now. The class and importance of articles is tracked in the assessment section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Membership size requirements?

• I thought wikiprojects had a specific membership size requirement? (it may have been optional) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone be invited if there is not a membership page? I will invite people - let me set it up. Or if you feel like it, you invite someone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually one way would be to gather likeminded editors across perhaps the pharmacology and medicine wikiprojects and going through a wikiproject proposal phase (see WP:WPPRO). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce proposal

This will not gain enough followers. I suggest making this into a taskforce under Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology. I support the effort, and I would join it as a taskforce. Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a task force is a great way of making it more sustainable. The problem is that there are so many overlapping wikiprojects that the small guys get lost in the background. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be a task force of either WikiProject Medicine or WikiProject Pharmacy. I will post on their talk pages about this to get consensus from the communities there. But first - do either of you have advice about updating the WikiProject template for this project? Currently it is

{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | class= | importance= }}

and I think that if it merged it should read (for example, if medicine is the choice)

{{WPMED| supplement=yes | supplement-imp= | class= | importance= }}

Currently, about 100 pages have this project template. Should I change these manually after the merge (which would come after community discussion) or is there a more clever way? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... there are other dead WikiProjects which should also be merged into task forces. Have either of you ever seen a merge like this before? How was it executed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:Desserts, WP:drinks, WP:Spices, and WP:Cheeses all started life as separate projects. Get an administrator to do a group move to the new project. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be sensible to talk first with people in the pharmaceutical project about whether or not to merge this project. I also think that the growing work in nutraceuticals is going to be tedious. How different is that? MaynardClark (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MaynardClark I set up this WikiProject as separate because I wanted to run certain bots here to do metrics reporting, and at the time I only saw a way for me to install the bots if this were its own project. The more natural thing to do would be to make this project a "task force" of a more popular WikiProject, but right now, there is little relationship between WikiProjects and bots which operate on WikiProjects. Ultimately I proposed that someone apply for funding someday and do development so that it would be easier to know when to start a WikiProject and to get metrics on the articles within a WikiProject. Right now, all of this is managed manually with unstable software subject to change, and lately a lot of software has changed a lot. See meta:Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_management_suite for the reform proposal.

With regard to your merge proposal - I have no opinion. It would be work to merge it and I am not sure it matters. I have no reason to believe that this project is being disruptive to stand unused. I never was able to get metrics on these articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in seeing the development of a section on nutraceuticals (though it's not expertise for me). The current Wikipedia article on the topic is a scant introduction of the portmanteau, and a little more. MaynardClark (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the definitions of "alternative medicine" by "major world health organization[s]"?

At Talk:Alternative_medicine/Archive_25#Reddit_discussion_on_Wikipedia:_Alternative_medicine_article I responded to a query from a user on Reddit about the state of the article. He says that the article's definition of alternative medicine does not reflect the definitions of alternative medicine from "major world health organization[s]".

I don't specialize in science-related articles, but I would like to know what these definitions are, and if there is a need to tweak the definition in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe Yes, there is a need to tweak the definition. The question is not easy to answer even by top experts in the field. If you want to take this to the alt med talk page you can. Check the archives - it has probably been discussed there. Also, I regret making this WikiProject. Consider posting to WikiProject Medicine in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda RFC

A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Society for Nutritional Sciences

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/129/7/1412S.full and others are Free for Abstracts, Texts, and PDFs. References should be amended to include |url= . ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary supplement article downgraded from B- to C-class

I took it upon myself to downgrade the Dietary supplement article from B-class to C-class because in my opinion so much of it was incomplete, incoherent, off-topic, under-referenced, etc. I have since been editing the article. Anyone else wants to get involved - great. I have no intention of "owning" this article. At some point the collective changes may warrant upgrading to B-class. I do not intend to make that decision, as I am too close to the topic. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the talk page of that article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project update

Hello members of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, I just wanted to inform everyone that there is now a userbox and barnstar available for this project. Additionally, I also created a shortcut via WP:DIESUP. Jerm (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerm: Thanks, I like it! The fanbase developing dietary supplements has been rather thin over the years. These days I mostly engage in Wikidata with medical topics in general, but if there is any action here I am around to support. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry Yeah, when there aren't the proper templates and/or shortcut available, the project goes cold. It was like that for WP:CRYPCUR...until I came along😉. This project should be getting more members now after my additions though. Jerm (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ephedra listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ephedra to be moved to Ephedra (medicine). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

New Chapter vitamin and supplements maker

I recently created an article for New Chapter, a vitamin and supplements maker. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be better as a line or two in the main Procter & Gamble article and a redirect at the most rather than an entire article as the notability for the company is low. I added a comment to the deletion discussion page, and I welcome others here to join in. Lalaithan (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burantashi the same as yohimbe?

I was looking around for refs to improve the article Burantashi and found at least two journal articles that are worded in a way that imply either that Burantashi is a brand or at least a local name of powdered Corynanthe johimbe AKA yohimbe. Here's one of the articles that has it right away in the abstract (I accidentally misplaced the other link, but it was buried further in the article): [1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339004535_SUB-ACUTE_HEPATOTOXICITY_OF_PAUSINYSTALIA_YOHIMBE_BARK_EXTRACT_BURANTASHI_IN_MALE_ALBINO_RATS_RATTUS_NOVERGICUS

If it's true that Burantashi is simply another name, it should probably be merged, no? I can't find outright confirmation of this so I decided to post here. Lalaithan (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lalaithan: I support merging because Corynanthe johimbe is the article for the plant and Burantashi is a derivative of that plant. There is a source in the species article saying that a synonym is Pausinystalia johimbe, which is what the source in the derivative article calls it. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Amino acid

Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Theanine

This revert was justified for several reasons discussed repeatedly on the article talk page here among which are primary research, outdated sources by 11-15 years, absence of WP:MEDRS reviews, and dubious quality of journals. Reflecktor has not addressed the deficiences of the sources raised on the talk page, but persists in edit warring to reach WP:3RR today as before seen in recent editing history.

As an analog of glutamate and rare in food, beverages or supplement products, theanine as a pharmacological/physiological issue is WP:UNDUE. The extraordinary claims of benefit by theanine on memory, cognition, learning, and brain chemistry require extraordinary sources, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which do not exist. Comments welcomed. Zefr (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Tea component theanine and its putative cognitive effects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanobacteria listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cyanobacteria to be moved to cyanobacteriota. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requested move at Talk:Medicinal fungi#Requested move 31 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Medicinal fungi#Requested move 31 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal fungi listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Medicinal fungi to be moved to Medicinal uses of fungi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Sambucus listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sambucus to be moved to Elderberry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Expertise in evaluating systematic review & adding appropriate language to an article

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Tribulus terrestris regarding the evaluation of a small systematic review & how to include its findings in the article. The thread is Male sexual performance. The discussion is about the topic Tribulus terrestris. Thank you.

A IP editor posted a study about the efficacy and safety of Tribulus terrestris. I responded that we avoid primary sources. I also found a systematic review concerning dietary supplements for erectile dysfunction. Since this out of my league, I am requesting help in some WikiProjects where this be more apropos. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Boron

Boron has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]