Template talk:Psychedelics
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to thePsychedelics template. |
|
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Hello. I recently split this navbox fromTemplate:Hallucinogens (original) and greatly overhauled and improved it.
Previously, there was a very large 25-NB subgroup in this table (seethis revision). This subgroup was much larger than any other subgroup. I decided to slim this subgroup down, for a number of reasons. One was that the navbox was very large and unwieldy (and, to a lesser extent, still is). Another was that the 25-NB subgroup was highly and arbitrarily disproportionate in size relative to the other subgroups and structural classes. And the third was that, to my knowledge, most of the 25-NB compounds in the subgroup had never actually been shown to be psychedelic in humans or to produce psychedelic-like behavioral effects in animals. I ended up deciding to consider that a requirement for inclusion of compounds in this table (rightfully so, I would add). So I slimmed the subgroup down and moved the original subgroup to be a tablehere in the25-NB article instead so that the information wasn't lost.
Today,CrispyCupcake added the large 25-NB subgroup back into the navbox (revision link) with the following edit note: "merged the [25-NB] group, which, contrary to previous statements, had actually never been merged (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Hallucinogens&diff=prev&oldid=1284882187)". I don't quite understand the reason for this or what they meant in the edit note. In any case, considering my reasoning above, I've reverted the edits and restored the navbox to the original version. I put a lot of thought into the new reworked navbox and I don't think that re-including that large subgroup of 25-NB compounds would be beneficial. Happy to discuss further if needed.
Thank you. –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)05:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi againCrispyCupcake. I rolled back the sorting changes you made to the navbox and I'll explain why here. As part of the new navbox and design, I had carefully and meticulously considered all aspects of it, including the sorting. The navbox was basically "perfect" in my view as it was once I was finished with the work. After thinking about it a lot, I had opted against alphabetical sorting during the work on it. There is a logic to the current sorting that involves a combination of considerations of chemistry, history, and pharmacology and that I feel makes a lot of sense and is a better approach.
As an example, in the case of the phenethylamines, the scalines (namely mescaline) were the first and most well-known psychedelic phenethylamines to be discovered as well as among the simplest structurally, the 2Cs are positional isomers of the scalines with a single substituent moved, the 3C-X, DOx, and 4C-X compounds are "higher" or more complex α-alkyl analogues of those groups with an additional substitution, the MDxx compounds are generally only mild psychedelics with an unusual structural feature (a bridged benzodioxole ring), and the FLY and 25-NB compounds are the most structurally distinct as well as most recently discovered compounds and "build on" the preceding groups. Moreover, the side chain-cyclized compounds and the bioisosteres make the most sense at the bottoms of the groups as they are no longer simple phenethylamines or tryptamines but are more of "related" forms. There were similar considerations for all other relevant subgroup sortings (tryptamines, lysergamides, natural sources, etc.).
I hope that that makes sense. Thanks. –AlyInWikiWonderland (talk,contribs)05:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
