Talk:Vial

Merge proposal. Multi-dose vial is a container type and this is the article about containers. The two overlap on closures, on coring and on integrity, and the overlap is already producing divergence — the coring material is now in both and the two versions do not agree on whether needle gauge or repeated penetration is the dominant factor. Propose merging. — — MergeMorwenna (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The distinguishing content of the other article is not about the container at all: it is about preservatives, antimicrobial effectiveness testing and the 28-day rule. None of that belongs in an article about glass and elastomer. What should be merged is the duplicated coring material, into whichever article keeps it. — — StopperingSteff (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Steff. A multiple-dose container is defined by what is permitted to be done with it and by the preservative that permits it, not by its geometry — a 10R vial can be either. Merging would put microbiology into a materials article. — — EndotoxinEd (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, and note the practical test: a reader arriving from a label that says "multiple-dose vial, discard 28 days after first puncture" wants the other article, and would have to hunt for that content in a merged version. — — ColdChainCleo (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn. The preservative argument is decisive. I have instead proposed that the coring material live here, with a summary and a pointer from the other article, and raised that on its talk page. — — MergeMorwenna (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Cyclic olefin containers get four sentences, and the infobox and every table are glass-only. That was defensible when the article was written but polymer primary containers are now common enough that a reader may hold one. At minimum <661> and its subchapters deserve the same treatment <660> gets. — — API_Aurora (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would add that the trade-off framing in the current paragraph is too compressed: polymer eliminates delamination and alkali leaching but has a worse moisture barrier and a different extractable profile, and for a lyophilised product the moisture barrier is the attribute that matters most. That is a real argument and it is currently one clause. — — StopperingSteff (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The adsorption question is also different for polymer — peptide loss to the container wall is a documented issue for both materials but the mitigations differ. If the section grows, that belongs in it. — — DiluentDiya (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The USP <1151> excess-volume table is about label claims and their fulfilment, which is the subject of Underfilling. Here it sits in a section about dimensions, where it is only loosely related. Proposal: move it. — — CrossRefCleve (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose the move, support duplication of the conclusion. The table belongs where the container geometry is explained, because the reason an excess is needed is that a syringe cannot recover the whole fill from a real vial. At Underfilling the interesting question is a different one — whether a label claim is gross or net — and that article should state the consequence and link here. — — UnderfillUna (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Una. The two articles ask different questions of the same numbers, and a cross-reference is the right connector. — — SeeAlsoSelma (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Consensus to keep and cross-reference. Closing. ✓ Done — — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)