Talk:Selective estrogen receptor modulator

Estrogen vs Oestrogen

If we change Estrogen to Oestrogen we will also need to start calling SERMs SORMs Boghog2 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition

"SELECTIVE ESTROGEN RECEPTOR MODULATORS (SERMS) IS A CLASS OF COMPOUNDS THAT ACT ON THE ESTROGEN RECEPTOR."

This is the first line of the article, and it's an utterly useless statement. The phrase "act on" is nothing more than a sophisticated way of "does something to". So, the first line of this article could have been written as:

"Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMS) is a class of compounds that does something to estrogen receptors."

Sounds pretty lame, doesn't it.

I suggest that someone change the phrase "act on" to "stimulates or inhibits (depending on the particular agent)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.164.86 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the second sentence in the lead? Boghog (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bone Density and Tamoxifen

Tamoxifen has agonist activity in bone, preventing osteoporosis, so I'm going to add this to the table. The caveat is that this drug seems to worsen bone density in premenopausal women, so I will include this as well.--AaronM (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved. Hyphenated title is used in reputable sources and appears preferable per MOS:HYPHEN. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Selective estrogen receptor modulator → Selective estrogen-receptor modulator –

Well, first reference is to nothing less than the New England Journal of Medicine, and hyphenates this. The hyphen accords with external style guides and WP:MOS. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Tony (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fewer than 2% of sources hyphenate (see this search). Dohn joe (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of how prestigious and authoritative that journal is???? Tony (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's extremely prestigious. In this case, though, it's an extreme outlier in its usage of the hyphen. Roughly 98% of sources do not hyphenate. And responding to Dicklyon's comment below, it's not just technical writers writing for each other. While academic journals and textbooks do nearly always present the term without a hyphen (as do U.S. patent applications), so do publications aimed at the public. Here's a story in the general-audience magazine Health, sans hyphen. Likewise, a search on WebMD brings up only hyphen-less results. Even our friends at Brittanica forgo the hyphen. Dohn joe (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Patent attorneys almost never use hyphens—that's their style (perhaps because they prefer to leave the interpretation of their words to later?). If you look at books for the the general public, something above 10% use the hyphen. Here are a few, with some title words that suggest their general audience in many cases: clinical nutrition, women's health, women's health, women and stroke, for women only, women and cancer, painless answers to women's, women's fitness, understanding nutrition, pharmacist answers, breast cancer, breast cancer guidance, breast cancer for dummies, the lump. That's typical of the extent to which editors go to help readers understand complicated technical phrases, and is plenty enough to verify that the reading implied with the hyphen there is the correct reading. There's no reason for WP to adopt the style of not helping the reader, when there are so many good precedents in sources for using the hyphen to clarify the meaning. This is not a commonname issue, but a style issue; WP style is to write clearly to help the reader. I usually do not get any pushback on such title fixes; not sure why this one is objected to. The observations of frequency in sources is not really relevant to the issue. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support – if it's a receptor modulator for selective estrogen, it's OK as it is; but the fact that some sources go to the trouble of signalling that it's not that, means the hyphen is useful to resolve that parse ambiguity; per MOS:HYPHEN and the explanations in compound modifier, this hyphen is clearly useful, as a service to readers, and is clearly precedented in high-quality sources. It is natural that such hyphens get dropped when technical writers write for others in their field, where they can assume that the ambiguity won't be a problem. When writing for the public, however, dropping such hyphens is a disservice; so let's put it in. Dicklyon (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.