PeptidePedia The community reference

Talk:Research use only / Archive 2

Archived discussion·1 closed thread

This is an archive of past discussion on Research use only. Do not edit it. To revive a question, open a new section on the current talk page and link back to the thread here.

"Not approved" versus "unapproved"Done

The article uses "not approved for human use" throughout. "Unapproved" is shorter and is the term some regulators use. Should we standardise on it? — StyleSheetSybil (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

No. "Unapproved" reads as a status a product has, which invites the idea that approval is pending. "Not approved" states a fact about the present. The longer form is worth the four characters. — ShortageShona (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Support, and the same reasoning applies to "not assessed" over "unassessed" in the registration section. ✓ Done — DMF_Dermot (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. This thread is closed. Reopening it is fine if new sources appear; please add a new subsection rather than editing the closed discussion.