User talk:ForestPlotFinn

The categories on SUSTAIN trial programme and Reverse-phase HPLC disagree about where the topic sits. Both are defensible; having both is not, because the two articles then never appear in the same listing. Could you take a view on the talk page of whichever you know better? — StyleSheetSybil (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You are right that having both is worse than either. I have argued for one on the talk page and will move the other if nobody objects. — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Given your edits around Resin cleavage, you might find the working-group pages useful — Project:Analytical working group, Project:Pharmacology working group and Project:Clinical evidence working group each keep a short priority list, and the priorities are mostly things one person can finish in an afternoon. — SPPS_Sorrel (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Useful — I had not known the working groups kept priority lists. I have taken two items. — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I have tagged the four trials in SUSTAIN trial programme that are named without a registration identifier. It is the one piece of metadata that lets a reader find the protocol and check what was pre-specified, so it matters more here than a page number would. — OpenLabelOtto (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added three; the fourth trial appears never to have been registered, which I have noted. — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead of SUSTAIN trial programme has grown to five paragraphs and now contains material that appears nowhere in the body. Per Project:Manual of style the lead summarises the article rather than extending it. Rather than cut it myself I thought I would ask whether the extra material was meant to become a section. — TallySheetTad (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair. The lead is now three paragraphs and the material that was only in it has a section of its own. — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)