Talk:Levodopa

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Proposed merge on April 8, 2025

I suggest merging L-DOPA into this article, as they both refer to the same chemical compound, viewed from different perspectives. "L-DOPA" is simply the abbreviated form of "levodopa". To differentiate between uses and contexts, it may be helpful to insert the respective subheadings, but maintaining two separate articles on essentially the same topic likely does not contribute to a better understanding. Terminologically, this is somewhat comparable to levothyroxine. –Tobias (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. An IP editor boldly split L-DOPA to the two articles last September (L-DOPA, Special:Diff/1248169830; levodopa, Special:Diff/1248169788). The justification was that this is consistent with other article pairs that split focus on a molecule between 'chemistry' and 'medication'. In my view the split doesn't satisfy P&G behind WP:SPLIT per article size or content. Though, it seems that other editors see the difference between use as a medication versus everything else as a sufficiently different topic for a content split. ⇌ Synpath 11:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As noted by others, examples exist for both positions - split and not split. Wikipedia:Splitting says to split due to size or scope, suggesting to split, but also says size must be considered, supporting the counter-point. Given the uncertainty I would differ to usability - I think the user will gain more from having the information in one place. Kernith (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Articles on a medication contrasts to articles on chemicals and role in the body, even if they are the same chemical. Levothyroxine is an article on the medication, while thyroxine is for the hormone, even though they are identical chemicals. Other examples include hydrocortisone (medication) and cortisol (hormone), as well as melatonin as a medication and supplemant and melatonin. There absolutely is a distinction here. Slothwizard (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never tried to contest the distinction. However, all the articles you mentioned are significantly longer than these two combined. When articles are that short, they’re usually placed in a single entry rather than being split unnecessarily. –Tobias (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are plenty of counterexamples such as cholecalciferol, calcitriol, atrial natriuretic peptide, or thyroid-stimulating hormone. Separate articles are only necessary when there is sufficient information about both roles and not merely a few paragraphs. –Tobias (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]