Talk:GLP-1 receptor agonist

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

Requested move 5 November 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist → GLP-1 receptor agonist – The majority of scholarly sources don't seem to be spelling out the name, per Google Scholar results since 2019:

GLP-1 agonist: 9700
"Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist": WP:ACROTITLE for using an acronym in the title, and I also think that GLP-1 is more recognizable to our readership than the spelled out name. I would also support "GLP-1 agonist" if that's what the consensus goes for, as this term is used in many sources aimed at a popular audience (see Google search or news results). (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - following Wikipedia:ACROTITLE . But just a comment that related pages are not moved yet. See Glucagon-like peptide-1 and Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor Hongsy (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily the case that they need or should be the same, after all we have Central Intelligence Agency but CIA controversies. I think the other articles need evaluating on their own merits especially since they are of more scientific /less popular interest than this article. (t · c) buidhe 02:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.