`  ==Continuation of response to == You’re right that a map can be created for any subject, and scale is the critical factor. “Shoe-horning” detail into this article is not easy. There is, however, a difference  with topics like physics and medicine – they have been around long enough to have extremely well defined components and boundaries. The retrospect of such topics makes for a much more easily catagorized article. In answer to the ``pharmacology`` article (which, incidently needs more info about principles and possibly a separated article on ``list of medications``: Pharmacology is mostly what I condider a ``closed`` subject (except for the medications themselves) - the major aspects of drug disposition, pharmacokinetics, the basics of pharmacodynamics, are all well established and slowly evolving if at all. There is no need to refer to journals in that article. In a subject like neuropsychopharmacology, though, much of what is known is in a state of disarray. In principle, if lab research were to stop today, the field could still continue for some time purely based on analysis of existing data. That is why I think the journals are so important. An article like Molecular nanotechnology should and does refer to journal articles (I think it should actually link to more journals). Anyhow, not to get too wound up over the journal issue, I do see your point that it is overstretching to make sub-section out of a journal as I have done.  Back to the article at hand, please bear with me while I elaborate. Early in the article, I gave some thought to categorization. The main two possibilities seemed to be something like organization by clinical topic (diseases etc.) or organization by technical topic (neurochemical etc.). Either way will involve some level of “mish-mash”. Clinical topic organization would continually refer to neural details which would not have been formally presented. Well, a point I was trying to make in the article is that only relatively recently does the formalism underlying psychiatric and mental study begin to have a basis which places these on par with other ‘’hard sciences’’. By analogy, if you wanted to fix or re-design a television set, you’ll need the schematic or else you’re just tinkering. Neuropsychopharmacology is finding the “schematic of the brain”, but also the principles analogous to component design as well.  All of the “hard sciences” tend to present material in the logical heirarchy of technical knowledge, with examples or applications interspersed along the way where appropriate. I decided to treat the subject more like the hard science it is becoming. I like the idea that one day humans may be able to write a technical manual for the human mind, and this is partly what  I meant by “flavor”.     But forget about “flavor”, let’s talk mapping. From what I gather, the major sub-topics of neuropsychopharmacology are something like: Neurotransmitters, Receptors, Investigational tools, Gene transcription, Anxiety disorders, Affective disorders, Psychotic disorders, Degenerative disorders, Sleep and Anesthesia, Eating behavior, Future direction. Activities are drug development, and assorted fundamental research activities, each of which  typically adds a mere incremental fraction to collective knowledge. These could be sub-categorized into slice methods, patch-clamp methods, genetic methods, I don’t know what else.  Perhaps it would be technically more appropriate to go ahead and catagorize the article that way, but I felt that even that would make the article too long. Again, with regards to the scope of the field, the ACNP 4th generation of progress compilation has a chapter “Introduction to pre-clinical neuropsychopharmacology” which is a very nice intro-type article, and comprehensive, too. But it is rather lengthy (by wiki standards), highly presuppositional, quite dense, and still does not provide any of the details which are precisely what the remainder of the compilation is to render.  So I currently have: *History *Overview (Investigational tools, degenerative disorders) *Neurotransmission (neurotransmitters, receptors, gene transcription) *Drugs (drug development, future direction) *Neural circuitry (more example oriented: sleep, psychosis (hallucination aspect)) *Research  There is currently nothing about eating behavior or anesthetics.  I’m wary that there may not be enough detail about degenerative disorders, though I mentioned three of them and briefly discussed relevant developments. I believe that the research section could de-emphasize journals and cover some of the actual methods like the patch-clamp.  I did not think this all through so rigorously when I began writing, but now having done so, it should be easier to identify flaws or deficits in this approach.  ==H