Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 16

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

Changes 2017-02-18

demo (new situation)
not done
images
Clinical
Pharmacokinetic*
Legal status*
Chemical & physical
IDs

I have boldly changed the order of sections. Now "Pharmacokinetic data" is above "Legal status". General idea: medical info be in top, chemical/physical info below, the rest in between. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The previous order made more sense. Legal dictates how it is used in the clinic. Pharmacokinetics is based in part on the Chemical & physical properties. Boghog (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm. I thought the two medical/biological topics are more of a pair together. Anyone else? -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Medical/legal also form a tight pair. The outlier section in this navbox is legal. My second choice would be to move legal to the very end. My first choice is the original order. Boghog (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that outlier was a thorn in that place to me, is why I changed it abruptly. But, if you & others think it better be back, below the clinical, I will loyally revert. (Move it to the very bottom might be OK too, but there is one minor thing: those ugly InChI and SMILES codes are put there to be out of sight as much as possible. Especially in mobile view b/c that does not collapse stuff). -DePiep (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
arrow Reverted on February 19. Sequence back to: Images-Clinical-Legal-PK-ID-chem&physical. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm very much in favor of keeping things how they were previously, it made much more sense than the new layout. You got a pretty broad sample of basic clinical data, then the legal status in various countries (which is a very good filler section from a stylistic standpoint and the data in here is important too - it leads on perfectly from the clinical discussion and smoothly transitions you onwards), PK-specific data, IDs galore (which doubles as another good filler transition), then any chemical and physical data. I know you already reverted it but I wanted to state my opinion in case this gets brought up again in the future. Garzfoth (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for expressing your preference. So my idea was not as obvious as I thought it was then. I don't understand why you say, twice, that 'filler' is a good thing btw. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Identifiers in boxes for drug combination

The drugbox in Velpatasvir/sofosbuvir looks a bit overwhelming to me. The identifiers for the individual substances are just a click away in the respective articles. Also, this approach seems to make it impossible or at least difficult to add identifiers for the mixture, which IMO are the only ones that belong in this article – i.e., KEGG D10827, PubChem CID 91885554 and a likely future ATC code (and possibly others). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. Do I understand there is not need for additions like ATC code for each of the components, in top? (Today they only show the individual drug and its class).
Then, what you want can easily be done: just remove all #2 identifiers, and edit the overall-ID's into their parameter (shows only one, as most drugboxes do). However, it requires some discipline with editing to maintain that any identifier pertains to the overall drug name (article title). Should we make this the infobox guideline for combination drugs? -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be good in the name of avoiding table creep.
Did I do this right? I think it is comparatively easy to restrict identifiers to the combination (at least compared to the problems with salt and stereomer identifiers creeping into drugboxes ). ATC codes for individual substances, if they exist, can be added to the respective articles just like other identifiers. Adding identifiers for individual substances to the combination article could be restricted to cases where there are no individual articles, e.g. Tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes looks good, and I can understand you aim (takes editing discipline). This all for |type=combo, multiple drugs mixed.
This index #2 is also used for |type=<blank>, that is: plain chemicals (the salts you mention?). I have added this option a year+ ago because people were entering two CAS numbers etc., even when they did not show. So I thought it was useful. If you pharma people think this is to be prevented too (no two chemicals), pls say so and also, what to do with those inputs then. Listed in Category:Multiple chemicals in Infobox drug (627). -DePiep (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, I hadn't noticed the duplicate parameters until a few days ago. Salts normally don't have their own articles, and I've added a few salt CAS's myself (in |CAS_supplemental=), so I'd say this would be a good use for this parameter set. The trihydrate in the Peramivir article is also a positive example IMO. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
re Anypodetos Clear by now. btw, I changed the template wrt this #2 thing recently, and then edited Velpatasvir/sofosbuvir with those v/s, so that is why you might have met it just now.
The thing with |CAS_supplemental= is that we cannot track & check that as a CAS number (for example, to make the Wikidata link to check that whole chemical out). That's why |CAS_number2= is preferred (in situations).
  • Roundup, building {{Infobox drug}} documentation:
1. Drugtype |type=combo: only add identifiers for the whole. Our Reader can click the single drug for their details. In very exceptional cases, multiple identifiers could be added (article editor's judgement).
{{Infobox drug}} combo drugs are listed in: Category:Drugs that are a combination of chemicals (495) (naming still ok? ... combination of drugs be better? - DP)
2. Drugtype |type=<blank> (a plain chemical compound; about 90% of the 7400 {{Infobox drug}} articles are). When a second chemical compound is in there: use |CAS_number2= etc. When that compound is a second drug: consider |type=combo?
{{Infobox drug}} using #2 indexes are in: Category:Multiple chemicals in Infobox drug (627)
Anyway, if a second chemical compound is not relevant, do not mention it in {{Infobox drug}} (if it is a major chemical not pharmacological issue: consider {{Chembox}}). The article body text could be leading in this. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Sounds all fine to me. I haven't got a strong opinion regarding the category name (although "Drugs that are a combination of drugs" sounds a bit redundant). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

On saying 'Legal status=Rx only' for everywhere

See WP:PHARM:talk. -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added some changes to |legal_...=, mentioned in the the link. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"FDA approved": legal or license?

When I recently was checking the legal input like |legal_US=, I saw much input like |legal_US=not FDA approved. But I think this approval belongs in |licence_US=. (see Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status (3,024)).

But I think any FDA (non-)approval is a licence issue. Shall I correct these inputs? (some 100 drugboxes are affected). BTW, both parameter spellings |licence_US, license_US= are accepted. -DePiep (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Approved drug" clearly is about licence, not legality. I will change the infobox accordingly (prevent bad preformattings). And I will edit mispositionings. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Some pages are added to Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status (3,024) (was: 1525 P). -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sizeofint (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Add parameter "status" for experimental and abandoned drugs?

Currently, drugs that are not available are categorised in:Category:Experimental drugs (225) and Category:Abandoned drugs (831).

Wouldn't it be better to add that info to {{Infobox drug}} too? This would only apply for non-marketed pharmaceutical drugs. Recreational drugs and available, marketed drugs do not show a status. Parameter could be |status= (for 'drug lifecycle status'). -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What about withdrawn drugs like Vioxx? Would that be a license issue or a lifecycle issue? Sizeofint (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Could be both or either? 'Lifecycle status' should clarify why you can not find it on the market. 'Licence' should describe (a) licence info when approved, or (b) when off-market is because of licence issue. Something like this? Like (except for the simple (a) licence link), use only to explain exceptional situation. Blank when normal. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. What happens with the licence (like FDA's) when a drug is withdrawn? Can it remain idle & still valid? -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Evolving ideas:
  • let's add |development_status=.
Usage: blank for all marketed (available) drugs. Add 'under development', 'withdrawn', etc. when not available. This irrespective of licence status (except for development_status: 'tests finished, waiting for licence'). The data can use a good source, and may be datum-based (as of ...; per ...).
Not yet solved: what about illegal/recreational drugs? Keep blank too? -DePiep (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Represent a worldwide view

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with a few countries and nations and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject: 

| legal_AU     = S2
| legal_AU_comment = any text
| legal_CA     = 
| legal_DE     = 
| legal_UK     = gsl| legal_US     = Schedule II
| legal_US_comment = and OTC in Oregon
| legal_EU     =
| legal_UN     =
| legal_NZ     = 
| legal_status = Not marketed in [[Asia]]
sign: 05:23, 22 April 2017‎ David Hedlund
I must agree. Same can be said for pregnancy category and licence. The core issue is that legality (law) and licence (like by an 'FDA' authority) are regional only, i.e., by area of jurisdiction. There is no worldwide law or licence (I skip the WHO and UN drug approach for now). However. Omitting legal and licence information at all would be a severe flaw in the infobox (and drug article). Indications of legality (illegal drugs!) and licencing, even for just the US, is better than no info at all. Of course I am interested in other ideas on how to present this information. For example, we could strive to have the continents generally included. -DePiep (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) : |legal_UN= is international. Also |legal_status= is free text and can be used to enter the status for other countries. This is the English language Wikipedia and the list does include most of the major English language speaking countries. A case could be made to add India (IN), the Philippines (PH), and Nigeria (NG) that have large English speaking populations (see List of countries by English-speaking population}. Adding a long list of countries to any one navbox would be impractical and if done, this list would need to be collapsed so not to overwhelm the rest of the article. Boghog (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes per 2017-05-19

Preparing minor changes:

  • For |type=combo, add |component5, class5= to cover Hyoscyamine/hexamethylenetetramine/phenyl salicylate/methylene blue/benzoic acid.
  • |metabolism= can appear in both sections "Physiological data" (new; re hormones) and "Pharmacokinetic data". Changed: it will show in the section with context (=has other input). Changed: could be twice then, repeating, because of context present. When no context at all, will show as single data in Pharmacokinetic.
  • See #To_go_live bug report: Pronunciation is in section "Clinical data". This section should be empty in case of physiological data (hormones etc). However, e.g. in Oxytocin, pronunciation may be validly entered. For this rare case, pronunciation will show, first textual data row, no header.
  • Todo: adjust doc.
checkY in sandbox. See testcases11. -DePiep (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new "pharmacological" data section

@DePiep, Looie496, Jytdog, and Doc James: Per this previous discussion, there is general consensus to add a pharmacological data section as implemented in this sandbox. Unless there is a compelling reason not to, I will add this to the production version. Boghog (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

To go in articles about hormones? Sure I guess. Needs to be referenced though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything at the link... Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: since the earlier proposal was build (in /sandbox4), the live template has had big changes internally (compare ). -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Green tickY: now {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} has the proposed changes. (compare ). {{/sandbox4}} is historical now.
The proposal is

... to merge {{Infobox neurohormone}} (~10 P) into {{Infobox drug}}. As the Testcases show, this would add a section "Pharmacological data" with 8 new parameters.

Comments

  • Comments by DePiep

I support the merge. I have some practical questions and suggestions, more about details.

  1. Do not set he infobox width to 300px. This is unrelated to the proposal, and has problems not yet solved. Best to handle this in a separate proposal.
  2. We should require using |type=hormone (or an other covering drugtype-id, 'neuro'?). Allows us to control or check the parameter usage (prevent inconsistent usage). And categorise in Category:Drugs by type.
  3. Use original labels "Synthesizing enzyme" and "Metabolizing enzyme" (not Biosynthesis, Metabolism: these are less clear and aren't they grammatically incorrect?).
  4. Use parameter names following their labeltext: (Note that current proposals |targets=, |sources= and |synth= are confusing with similar names already used)
| source_tissues =
| target_tissues = 
| receptors = 
| agonists = 
| antagonists = 
| precursor = 
| synthesizing_enzyme =
| metabolizing_enzyme =

-DePiep (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Done in the sandbox:
Require |type=neuro, from list: vaccin/mab/combo/neuro/<blank>. Used parameternames as proposed here. Removed the 300px width setting.
Todo: check subtemplates; implement talk result. -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Question: what is a good headertext for this new block? I think "Pharmacology data" is a bit too unspecific (and doesn't it also cover other sections like pharmacokinetics?). In parallel situations, we have 'Vaccine', 'Combination drug', 'Monoclinal antibody'. I think 'Pharmacology' is not pointy enough. I saw:
neurotransmitters, neurohormones, neuromodulators. Also 'hormones'(?).
Anyone a suggestion that covers it nicely? (We could also use exactly those unfamiliar words, would be cumbersome for us editors though. And for readers). -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Naturally occurring hormones are more accurately classified as biomolecules rather than drugs (although some hormone are also used as drugs). Hence I think it would be better to label this section as physiological data or more simply physiology (which in part is the study of how biomolecules carry out their action) rather than pharmacology (the study of drug action). Boghog (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Naming the section "physiology" sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, made header "", in line with "Clinical data", "Pharmacological data", "Chemical and physical data". -DePiep (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
2: Neurotransmitters (act locally within synapses in the brain) are distinct from neurohormones (act at surrounding tissues within the brain) and hormones (act at a distance throughout the body). Hence to have only one type of parameter value (|type=neuro) is misleading and confusing. Hence we also need |type=hormone as an alias. Alternatively |type=endogenous would be a general term that would cover hormones, neurohormones, neuromodulators, neurotransmitters and would also distinguish it from xenobiotic drugs.
Thanks for clarifying. Question 2a: So this is drugtype |type=endogenous for all. We can decide: do not differentiate from other single-chemical drugs (do not use this setting, keep |type= blank), or make this a new drugtype, next to: single-chemical/mab/vaccine/combo(/endogenous)? These are mutually exclusive: the |type= can be and must be only one of these. The latter allows for easier maintenance checks: check specific data, tracking, contradicting parameters entered, etc. So: new drug type or just single-chemical? -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I am neutral as to whether to create a new drug type for "endogenous" drugs (neurotransmitters, neurohormones, or hormones). "Endogenous" drugs are analogous to single chemical compounds (they generally are not combinations). The ones that are combinations (e.g., androgens, estrogens, glucocorticoids) are represented by {{infobox drug class}}. So it would be acceptable to use |type=<blank> for simple "endogenous" drugs. The same infobox with added or deleted parameters would be used for drugs and for transmitters/hormones. For "endogenous" drugs, the "Clinical data" and "Legal status" headers should be turned off while the "Physiological data" header should be turned on. This could simply be handled by deleting all the parameters associated with "Clinical data" and "Legal status" and add parameters for "Physiological data". Alternatively this could be controlled by |type=<blank>/endogenous. The advantageous of this second approach is that if inappropriate "Clinical data" and "Legal status" were included in a "endogenous" drug infobox, they would not be display and this error could be flagged. Boghog (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Question 2b: So far, the subtype (neurotransmitter, neurohormones, neuromodulator, ...) is not stated in the infobox (but likely in the lede). Should we add new |subtype= for this, in top of this new data block? -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
3: Biosynthesis, Metabolism are clear, concise, and grammatically correct. In some cases, these may refer to a biosynthetic or metabolic pathway rather than a single enzyme. Hence it would be better to use the more general phrases Biosynthesis and Metabolism. Finally Biosynthesis and Metabolism, because they are concise, are better for the displayed titles in the infobox and for consistency, the parameter should, if possible, have the same name as the title. Boghog (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure parameter name will follow labeltext. -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
By "grammatically (in)correct" I meant to say: bad reading. A label-data pair "ATC code J01XX08" actually is read to say: "The ATC code is J01XX08".
But when reading "The metabolism is oxytocinase", that is wrong. Metabolism is a process, oxytocinase is an enzyme. So it says: The m. process is this enzyme o.. It takes a few clicks and metal steps to understand/translate this into: "The enzyme oxytocinase has to do with the metabolism process". I find this too crippled reading, incorrect, and unclear. Then, once this is wrong, being more concise (=less labeltext) is not valid. Could you find a better descriptive labeltext for these two words? -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, an enzyme represents not only a protein, but also the reaction catalyzed by that protein (see Enzyme Commission number). Very different proteins can catalyze the identical reaction. Hence the more fundamental concept of an enzyme is the reaction that is catalyzed by that enzyme. Furthermore a chemical reaction is a process. Therefore enzymes can also represent processes. Repeating what I state above, there may be cases where we might want to specify the pathway and not just a single enzyme. We may also wish to state in what tissue the metabolism is occurring. Hence the term "metabolizing enzyme" is far too restrictive and therefore inappropriate. The current |metabolism= parameter is used in the same broad sense and no one else has complained about its name. Boghog (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
New question, related: could we find better words for the other labeltexts? They are meaningless jargon words for the Reader (not for those who know of course, like scholars). Sure they are correct, but that does not say they are good in this situation. Anything better? -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
We have extensively discussed this already and I would specifically refer to Seppi's comments at the end of the previous discussion. While these words may be jargon, they certainly are not meaningless. Quite to the contrary, they are accurate and concise and each is wiki linked to a reasonably understandable explanation. This is exactly what wiki links are for. Summarizing Seppi's argument, the labels in this new "Physiological data" section are no more jargony than many of the other labels currently in the drug box. Boghog (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. I will change the sandbox following the lines Boghog described here. Then go live. -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Boghog, parameter name |metabolism= already in use for pharmacokinetic data. That label links to Drug metabolism. Effect: see Testcase. Alternative parameter name suggestion? (We could change the old one too). -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Boghog |metabolism= is already in use. Could you give an alternative parameter name? I'm not familiar enough with the wording. -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: Thanks! And sorry for not responding sooner. Actually |metabolism= has identical meaning and usage in both sections. We obviously don't want to duplicate the display of metabolism, so would it be possible to display metabolism with the physiology data if and only if there are no other pharmacokinetic data displayed? Otherwise, display metabolism in the pharmacokinetic and not in the physiology section. Does that make sense? Boghog (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. Implies that if both sections have data, it will be omitted from physiology section. (an other option: if a section has data, show it there. Could be duplication, but possibly OK for being in context twice). -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
See Testcases for various situations. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

To go live

checkY See above discussion, following line of reasoning by Boghog. See current /sandbox version, and testcases 

| source_tissues =
| target_tissues = 
| receptors = 
| agonists = 
| antagonists = 
| precursor = 
| biosynthesis =
| metabolism = <!-- ... already in use, so may change -->
  • Not a separate |type= (drugtype). So treated as a 'single chemical component' (not combo, mab, vaccin). Also not distincted in Category:Drugs by type.
  • The words neurotransmitter, neurohormones, neuromodulator, endogenous do not appear in the infobox. Of course, the lead can take care.
  • For these endogenous drugs, there is a section check: when section "Physiological data" has any input, sections "clinical data" and "legal data" should be empty. The tracking category is: Category:Infobox drug articles with contradicting parameter input, sorted under 'Endogenous'.

-DePiep (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • |metabolism= used in two places: when other pharmacokinetic data is entered, |metabolism= will show in that section. If no other pharmacokinetic data is entered, it will show with physiological section. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Todo

{{Infobox neurotransmitter}} now can be merged (replace by {{Infobox drug}}, use applicable parameters). -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

At this moment, these articles have the deprecated template: Serotonin, Dopamine, Acetylcholine, Norepinephrine, Glutamate (neurotransmitter), Octopamine (neurotransmitter), Urotensin II-related peptide. -DePiep (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Curious: we have used Oxytocin as example here, but it does not use merged {{Infobox neurotransmitter}}. Should or should it not use the new {{Infobox drug}}? Are there more such cases? -DePiep (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, thanks for implementing this! I just added Physiological data parameters to the infobox in Oxytocin. There are certainly more articles where this should be done as well as convert the deprecated template. I will try to do this when I have more time. One minor problem I noticed in Oxytocin. The pronunciation should come before the Physiological data section, not in the section. Otherwise it looks great. Boghog (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Issue. We have put Pronunciation in section 'Clinical data'. Section 'Clinical data' appears below the drugtype-specific sections like mab, combo, vaccine details.
Bug 1: header section 'Clinical data' does not appear while there is this input. I should make it show for pronunciation.
Contradiction: ... but showing the clinical header here (with pronunciation data below) would be 'conflicting input' as you pointed out above. Option: do show clinical header & pronunciation, do not treat pronunciation as conflicting. Other option: move pronunciation data to above all sections (right below images, no header).
We could move the new Physiological section to below Clinical section (sole effect: would put pronunciation more in top in this situation).
-DePiep (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Merging in the articles

Replace {{Infobox neurotransmitter}} with {{Infobox drug}}. Adjust parameter names (Preview is your friend).

-DePiep (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2017

Please correct the piping for SMILES. It's currently [[Simplified molecular input line entry specification|SMILES]], but should be [[Simplified molecular-input line-entry system|SMILES]]. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

CAS_supplemental doesn't work?

[1] Why doesn't show this? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed, now shows. Some 300+ articles affected. Probably a few months old. Thanks for the report. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturer field?

I was reading the Evolocumab article and saw there's no way to put Amgen in the infobox. Should there be a manufacturer field added? Timtempleton (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason. The infobox is not a factsheet or datasheet. It is to summarize the article into its main points. Not: repeat all. More so since the manufacturer(s!) are not a defining aspect of the drug. (If one want to pursue adding this, try to answer this: which other info should leave drugbox?). -DePiep (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 June 2017

Change 

<!--
 DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE -----
-->{{#if:{{{legal_DE|}}}{{{legal_DE_comment|}}} |
* <small>{{abbr|DE|Germany}}</small>: {{#switch:{{lc:{{{legal_DE|}}}}}
 | anlage i
 = [[Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz#Anlage I|Anlage I]] (Controlled)
 | anlage ii
 = [[Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz#Anlage II|Anlage II]] (Prohibited)
 | anlage iii |rx-only |rx only |rx |℞ |℞-only |℞ only
 = [[Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz#Anlage III|Anlage III]] (Prescription only)
 | #default = {{{legal_DE|}}}{{main other |[[Category:Drugs with non-standard legal 
status|D]]}}
 }} {{{legal_DE_comment|}}}
}}

to

Note: by now, the /sandbox code is defining. See also section #Demo below. DePiep (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Initial proposal
<!--
 DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE ----- DE -----
-->{{#if:{{{legal_DE|}}}{{{legal_DE_comment|}}} |
* <small>{{abbr|DE|Germany}}</small>: {{#switch:{{lc:{{{legal_DE|}}}}}
 | anlage i
 = [[Anlage I]] (Non-tradable)
 | anlage ii
 = [[Anlage II]] (Tradable, but not prescriptible)
 | anlage iii 
 = [[Anlage III]] (Prescriptible)
 | anlage 1 | anlage 2|amvv|§ 1 mpav|§1 mpav|§ 1|§1|§ 48 amg|§48 amg|§48 |verschreibungspflichtig|rezeptpflichtig|rx-only |rx only |rx |℞ |℞-only |℞ only
 = § 48 AMG/§ 1 MPAV (Prescription only)
 | apothekenpflichtig|§ 2 mpav|§2 mpav|§ 2|§2|§ 43 amg|§43 amg|§ 43|§43|§ 46 amg|§46 amg|§ 46|§46|anlage 1b|anlage 3|anlage 4
 = § 43, 46 AMG/§ 2 MPAV (Pharmacy only)
 | nicht apothekenpflichtig|freiverkäuflich|§ 44 amg|§44 amg|§ 44|§44|§ 45 amg|§45 amg|§ 45|§45|anlage 1a|anlage 1c|anlage 1d|anlage 1e|anlage 2a|anlage 2b|anlage 2c
 = § 44, 45 AMG (General sales list)
 | #default = {{{legal_DE|}}}{{main other |[[Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status|D]]}}
 }} {{{legal_DE_comment|}}}
}}

Demo

Sandbox code is the defining proposal. Compare live version and sandbox
See also Template:Infobox drug/testcases3.
Input is not case-sensistive (A=a), and spaces are ignored (§ 2=§2).
|legal_DE
= Anlage I
= Anlage II
= Anlage III
= Verschreibungspflichtig | Rezeptpflichtig | Anlage 1 | Anlage 2 | AMVV | § 1 MPAV | §1 | 48 | § 48 AMG | §48 | Rx-only | Rx only | Rx | ℞ | ℞-only | ℞ only
= Apothekenpflichtig | Anlage 1b | Anlage 3 | Anlage 4 | § 2 MPAV | § 2 | 43 | § 43 AMG | §43 | 46 | § 46 AMG | § 46
= Nicht Apothekenpflichtig | Freiverkäuflich | Anlage 1a | Anlage 1c | Anlage 1d | Anlage 1e | Anlage 2a | Anlage 2b | Anlage 2c| 44 | § 44 AMG | § 44 | 45 | § 45 AMG | § 45 
= Neuer psychoaktiver Stoff | Anlage | NpSG 
| Kategorie 1 = GUG
| Kategorie 2 = GUG
| Kategorie 3 = GUG
Demo |legal_DE= options
Legal status
Legal status
  • DE: Anlage I (Authorized scientific use only)
  • DE: Anlage II (Authorized trade only, not prescriptible)
  • DE: Anlage III (Special prescription form required)
  • DE: Prescription only (Anlage III for higher doses)
  • DE: § 48 AMG/§ 1 MPAV (Prescription only)
  • DE: § 43, 46 AMG/§ 2 MPAV (Pharmacy only)
  • DE: § 44, 45 AMG (General sales list)
  • DE: NpSG (Industrial and scientific use only)
  • DE: Anlage III (Special prescription form required) Any comment for DE

Comments

Why?

  1. Anlage I, Anlage II and Anlage III are all controlled, so it's wrong to call only Anlage I controlled.
  2. Anlage II is not prohibited (not totally, at least); in fact, that would have been a better description for Anlage I.
  3. Anlage III is not prescription only. It's prescriptible only under special conditions with special prescription forms (de:Betäubungsmittelrezept).
  4. Anlage III is not the same as rx-only. It is part of the BTMG law, which regulates psychoactive substances.
  5. rx-only, in contrast, is regulated by § 48 AMG in conjunction with Anlage 1 and Anlage 2 AMVV (not to be confused with Anlage I and Anlage II BTMG).
  6. Some drugs are available without prescription, but only in pharmacies, § 43 and § 46 AMG, de:Apothekenpflicht in conjunction with Anlage 1b, Anlage 3, Anlage 4 AMVerkRV
  7. Some drugs can be sold outside of pharmacies, § 44, 45 AMG ("Nicht apothekenpflichtig", "freiverkäuflich", General sales list) in conjunction with Anlage 1a, Anlage 1c, Anlage 1d, Anlage 1e, Anlage 2a, Anlage 2b, Anlage 2c AMVerkRV
  8. Some medical products which are not drugs can be prescription only (§ 1 MPAV) or pharmacy only (§ 2 MPAV)

rtc (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the three new §-classes are wikilinked too (enwiki). Also, the wordings 'non-tradable' and 'not prescriptable' are unclear to me, still a bit of code in there? -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the advantage in linking to a redirect Anlage I.
I have the impression (up for correction) that the BTMG is about legal/illegal aspects, while the added AMG etc. is licence-related, and so should be elsewhere. I'm trying to flesh this out, to keep the list comprehensible. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
non-tradable means that the substance may not be traded at all. Tradable, but not prescriptible means the substance may be traded under some circumstances, but it may not be prescripted for medical purposes. There may be non-medical uses for those substances.
The BTMG is about legal/illegal aspects, but only for psychoactive drugs! The AMG, in the paragraphs cited, is about legal/illegal aspects for all other substances. "Inhaltlich steht es nah (supplementär) zum Betäubungsmittelgesetz und dem Neue-psychoaktive-Stoffe-Gesetz." (de:Arzneimittelgesetz (Deutschland) – "it is close (supplementary) to the BTMG and the law about new psychoactive substances") It is licence-related in part, but only in § 21–§ 39d.
Now that we mention the law about new psychoactive drugs ([2], including Anlage), we should also add this one. It is for substances not included explicitly in the BTMG because there can be many variants of the chemical structure with only certain elements being fixed ("research chemical"). The BTMG lists only fully specified structures; the NpSG lists entire groups by specifying the fixed element, so if a new substance is discovered which contains that element, it is also automatically controlled by that law. The problem was that illegal drug labs often found slight variations of the substances controlled under BTMG which were then legal because not covered by its explicit list of fully specified substances.
 | anlage | npsg | neuer psychoaktiver stoff
 = NpSG (Industrial and scientific use only)
rtc (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Abitrary break

  • Set |answered=pause pending this discussion: no use to attract T-editors for now. Does not prejudice the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've put the code into the {{Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox}}, keep that as defining (and tested). -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Notes:
Need blue links for Arzneimittelgesetz (AMG), Medizinprodukte-Abgabeverordnung (MPAV), Neue-psychoaktive-Stoffe-Gesetz (NpSG). Preferably with internally an anchor to the right §-paragraph. Not for Arzneimittelverschreibungsverordnung - (AMVV), which does not show.
Added input options 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 (plain numbers) being obvious. Not for 1 and 2.
Are all those input options needed & useful? For example, "§" is not on a regular English keyboard, and which identifiers are actually used in German sources? Is it a good idea to add "Anlage 1" right next to "Anlage I"? Sure even experienced editors find this confusing. Remember we're supposed to list all of them in the documentation.
Isn't there a separate need for "Anlage I and III" (e.g. cannabis)? -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Should we add option "Not listed" (uncontrolled)?
FYI, this and this for legal_DE give a nice overview of usage. -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if all those input options are utterly needed, but they don't hurt I guess. If you think it's too much, remove what you think should go.
I changed "Prescriptible" into "Psychotopic prescription form" to emphasize the main difference to rx-only.
I agree that it is confusing to have both Anlage 1 and Anlage I, but that's how they are called in the respective laws. I think it is important to have both in the template, otherwise someone who sees Anlage 1 in some source may be be confused if the template doesn't know about it and may thus be tempted to think it needs to be changed to Anlage I because that what's offered. Of course the documentation needs to stress the fact that the two are different. It also allows specifying exactly whether the drug is listed in Anlage 1 or Anlage 2, instead of the paragraph from the law.
[3] shows that Rx-only is used only once so far, and in that place the specification is actually correct, Trofosfamide is on Anlage 1 (search for the German name, Trofosfamid); not on Anlage III as the template currently claims.
I don't think we need "Anlage I and III". This is a special case that occurs only once; it can be manually specified with a custom legal_DE value. Much more common is that a drug on Anlage III is Rx-only for doses below a certain threshold (see Triazolam as an example which I already fixed); this is particularly true for some benzodiazepines and Zolpidem. However, the exact threshold varies from drug to drug so it's probably not possible to take this into account in the template. --rtc (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
About saying "§ 48 AMG/§ 1 MPAV" in the infobox. Really, even if we do link the abbreviations, it is code. What does the slash mean? 'and'? 'or'? Some other Venn thing? We do need a clarification (some few words in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please help. Why do = Apothekenpflichtig | Anlage 1b | Anlage 3 | Anlage 4 | § 2 MPAV | §2 | 43 | §43AMG | §43 | 46 | §46AMG | §46 all mean the same? Are these laws overlapping? Is MPAV and AMG the same, sometimes? Is there a dependency? I don't get it. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
§ 48 AMG and § 1 MPAV are both about prescription only restrictions, but they are not the same: the former is about drugs, and the latter about medical products ("de:Medizinprodukt": "Medizinprodukt bezeichnet einen Gegenstand oder einen Stoff, der zu medizinisch therapeutischen oder diagnostischen Zwecken für Menschen verwendet wird, wobei die bestimmungsgemäße Hauptwirkung im Unterschied zu Arzneimitteln primär nicht pharmakologisch, metabolisch oder immunologisch, sondern meist physikalisch oder physikochemisch erfolgt" -- A medical product is an object or a substance that is used for therapeutical or diagnostic purposes on humans, where, in contrast to drugs, the main mode of action of its designated use is primarily not pharmacological, metabolic or immunological, but physical or physico-chemical.) However, since the box is in principle about drugs, I think we can remove those two MPAV references.
The laws are not overlapping. §44 is about the basic general sales list. §45 says that additional substances may be put on the general sales list via executive order. Anlage 1a, Anlage 1c, Anlage 1d, Anlage 1e, Anlage 2a, Anlage 2b, Anlage 2c are the lists that form the core of this executive order. §43 is about pharmacy only drugs. §46 says that drugs from the basic general sales list in §44, perhaps in certain dosages or if sold for certain purposes, may be declared as pharmacy only via executive order. Anlage 1b, Anlage 3 and Anlage 4 are the lists that form the core of this executive order. § 48 is about rx-only drugs. It says that the specific substances are to be listed via executive order. Anlage 1 and Anlage 2 are the lists that form the core of this executive order. Hope this explains the dependencies among those laws and Anlage lists. --rtc (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
In {{Infobox drug}}, the English word 'drug' can mean medicine and recreational drug. The infobox is used for both (here at enwiki). In this German legal status topic, I think mention both AMG and MPAV is fine enough (purpose is its legal status). Splitting the option (that is, allow input being AMG or MPAV or AMG & MPAV would be too detailed). So to me the result showing it OK this way. (but I do want links to articles; working on that). -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the MPAV is neither about medicine nor about recreational drugs (categories which are overlapping, btw); it is about apparatuses and substances that achieve some medical effects physically or physico-chemically. An example would be an disinfectant for medical apparatuses.
Added the GÜG which covers substances that are not drugs, but can be used to synthesize drugs.
Also further clarified some of the explanations. --rtc (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • One thing I'd like. The short clarifications could be more to the point. Remember that the article only has one, so can not learn from the other DE options (as our #Demo has). For example, all: 1. should be a complete answer, for example to the "is:" question (words like 'require' can not be omitted); 2. should be crisply short; 3. should not be too detailed (e.g. for Anlage I, I think 'trading is llegal' is more to the point than 'sientific exceptions only'. BTW, also nicely points to the German subtlety possession-is-ok versus not-trading-allowed). -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I shortened some descriptions slightly. --rtc (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks better to me, we cannot avoid somewhat longer descriptions I guess. OTOH, I don't think these secondary texts (like 'prescription drug') should be linked, it's not a defining property (as the legal classification itself is). Also, may cause overlinking when multiple countries have say 'prescription drug'. -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed those links again. --rtc (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If you think the /sandbox is stable (no more changes foreseen), we can put it live. The new List can keep evolving. If there are lists of drugs, we could add the actual input to articles? -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    Sure, go ahead. --rtc (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

License data EU: EMA

Hello, I would like to do some editing to the info box for medicines authorised in EU by EMA. I can add 'licence EU= brandname' and then the infobox links to the EMA search page. Is there any way I can edit this so that it searches for 'active substance' instead of 'name' in the EMA search? For example see the medicine Pregabalin, because the infobox searches 'name', the medicine Lyrica is missing from the search, if it searched for active substance all the pregabalin medicines would be captured. If there is a way to do this, please let me know Libby EMAcomm (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to search the EMA page by INN. However, we can't easily change the link to the EMA search page from "searchType=name" to "searchType=inn" because that would break thousands of info boxes. Does EMA have a URL for including both trade names and INNs in the search? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me get this clear.
Today, |licence_EU= requires a brand name, then links to the brand "search" page (thats the search-result page I assume). For Pregabalin, |licence_EU=Pregabalin → [4] (search for keyword by Name; 8 results).
Libby suggests to make that a search by 'active substance' not 'name'. That simply is a different option-button on the result page, as we see. I try for Pregabalin: [5]. (9 results) And indeed, this now shows 'Lyrica'.
Then Anypodeto suggests to search by INN not by brand name. Note that this is a different entrance: not the searchpage-option but input name. (no demo at hand). -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Simple & straight, we can easily change:
1. The template links to the EMA search for 'active substance' not 'name' any more.
2. Use INN (not some brand name) to search EMA. We have the INN for almost all drug articles (because that is the article title, by MOS). So the template can inject the INN into the EMA page.
These changes can be made in the template, i.e., for all 7000 drug articles. Check questions:
Q1: Libby EMAcomm, is the 'active substance' listing wider than the 'name' result? In other words, does the list for 'active substance' show all results plus more wrt 'name'?
Q2: Is the INN equally or better valid than the brand name?
Q3: What if an INN is not in the EMA base? Other error situations?
Q4: what could go wrong if we search for INN by 'active substance'? (not today's 'brand name' for 'name'?)
-DePiep (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Detail: so we can always link to EMA, using the INN. But how to prevent linking when the stuff is unknown on the EMA site? eg heroin, INN Diamorphine, at EMA: nothing found. What to do? -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, EMA search does not have the option to search both name and active substance, it is one or the other.
If the template was changed so that it links to the search for active substance instead of name, is it possible to fix all the links that will be broken (where brand name is currently written)?
Q1 For medicines where there are generic medicines as well as the originator, the active substance is wider because it captures all the medicines with the active substance, both originator (eg Lyrica) and all the generics (other pregabalin medicines).
Q2 I dont think one is better/more valid than the other, except I suppose that an INN will never change name, but a brand name is owned by a company and can be changed by them for marketing reasons etc
Q3 EMA has approved around 900 medicines. There are lots of medicines that are not approved by EMA (they are approved by individual EU countries), in these cases the INN wont be in the EMA database, eg paracetemol. On the wikipedia page for paracetemol, and other medicines like this that are not approved by EMA, there is no 'licence EU=' currently in the info box and it shouldn't be added.
Q4 Regarding other error situations, if you search for active substance in EMA you will also pick up any medicines which contain the active substance in a fixed-dose combination, eg if you search for tenofovir disoproxil, in addition to picking up medicines with this active substance alone, you also pick up medicines which contain this active substance in combination with other active substance such as emtricitabine...but I dont really think this is an error, in a way it is informative. Maybe another error could arise because the INN and the active substance are not always exactly the same (the INN doesnt have the salt in the name but the active substance does), but I dont think this will be a problem, I think the search will work fine with the INN.
It is possible to download all the active substances in the EMA database from the EMA website, I might be able to get a list of the INNs if this would help.Libby EMAcomm (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, clear description. Easiest and most complete action would be: when |licence_EU= has input, then link the INN to the EMA 'active substance' page.
That input today is the brand name, but we'll use it only as meaning "has an EMA entrance" (that is: as a 'yes' switch). The brand name itself is unused.
All other fringe issues we can take care of later.
Today, some 113 articles have this |licence_EU=brandname input (I can list them if wished). So it would be good to have all 900 doing so. For that we could use the EMA list you mention. However, best is to have that list into Wikidata right away (our central facts database). Then our articles can read there automatically. I'll ask a bot handler to take a look at this (he or she will then contact about this). -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

checkY Prepared in sandbox. See /testcases. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: When I said "INN" I meant setting "searchType=inn" (as in the second of your search links, DePiep), which corresponds to the option "Active substance or common name" in the search form. So no, I wasn't suggesting something different from Libby. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Got that, and is how it turned out. Search term = INN, search option = active substance. (Not used: brand name, search by brand name). -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
DePiep could I please see the list of 113 articles, I can have a look over it to see if anything might be problematic, thanks Libby EMAcomm (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[6]. DePiep (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I've bit boldly made the change. You can check the list more directly (open article, then click this new EMA link). -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. So |licence_EU=any text will give the link to EMA active substance page. (todo: read complete EMA list of 900 active substances into Wikidata, then automate this link-showing. This would make manual article editing unnecessary). -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC) (fixed, should work by now after page purge. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC))

Thanks this is really great, the searches are much better than when they were just restricted to one brandname medicine. I see few that have still not updated, but I guess they will soon. Would you consider replacing the text 'by active substance' with the actual INN for each medicine? In any case, looking through the list, I think it works fine and cant see any errors so far.Libby EMAcomm (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done, good plan. But... it now says "by INN" (I choose to do so). My point is: technically you are right, but for our Reader we should be more clear and verbose. Like? -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes! Many thanks Libby EMAcomm (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Full EMA list and Wikidata

Above, Libby EMAcomm notes that they can provide the complete list of medicines (ca. 900) that appear in this licence database. First option should be to enter this in Wikidata as an external identifier for the medicine.

This could be done through d:Wikidata:Bot requests, but I'm not sure if the data model is complete for medicine (is there an "EMA identifier" for INNs?).

Then, I see that for example d:Pregabalin already has the reverse list: "Pregabalin is active substance in [eight names]". (eight, not nine?). The list is sourced from EMA. Question is: can this list be used to trigger the EMA link? Or would that introoduce incorrect lgic in situations? -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have put the list of INNs (with duplicates removed) here for now: User:Libby EMAcomm/INNs Libby EMAcomm (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Any one of us can make a botrequest for edits, either here on at wikidata. Don't know when I have time to do so. -DePiep (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
624 INNs
Bluelinks enwiki: 504 (81%).
... having Infobox drug: 442.
... having {{Chembox}}: 14.

Blue links that already show the EU licence (113 pages having licence-EU input): 98

(so: 15/113 pages are not on the list, *or* are a redlink somehow).

How further? I can easily input |licence_EU=yes to those bluelink pages with an infobox. (450 having an infobox, minus 98 that already have the data so it's): 350 new articles that will show this EU link.

What to do with the rest? 120 redlinks, search manually? ~50 bluelinks not having a Infobox. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is very useful. How can I tell which ones are the 15 pages not on the list? I would like to go through them manually.
I think it is a good idea to input the licence_EU as you suggest into the bluelinks with an infobox, but there is one problem: some of the INNs have a / in the name (because the medicines are combinations of more than one INN). The thing is that in Wikipedia, you don't use spaces on either side of the forward slash, but in EMA there are spaces and the search doesn't work if the spaces are left out. For the Wikipedia page Tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil there are no spaces, but if you search for Tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil at EMA, it doesn't work, you have to search for Tegafur / gimeracil / oteracil
For the 120 redlinks, do I understand correctly that these are ones that don't have Wikipedia pages? I can think of a lot of good reasons why that might be, and I will look through the red ones.
How can I tell which are the 50 blues without an infobox? I can think of good reasons why this might be the case, and can have a look through these if I know which ones they are. Thank you! Libby EMAcomm (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
One of these days I can split the list into those useful sublists (you may want to wait for that). I use WP:PETSCAN (eg [7]). Also, you could copy it now or then to your own page, for your editing. -DePiep (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 July 2017 (BRAZILIAN LEGAL STATUS)

Please insert a parameter to brazilian legal status. I tried to do it in sandbox: 

{{#if:{{{legal_AU|}}}{{{legal_BR|}}}{{{legal_CA|}}}{{{legal_DE|}}}{{{legal_NZ|}}}{{{legal_UK|}}}{{{legal_US|}}}{{{legal_UN|}}}{{{legal_EU|}}}{{{legal_AU_comment|}}}{{{legal_BR_comment|}}}{{{legal_CA_comment|}}}{{{legal_NZ_comment|}}}{{{legal_UK_comment|}}}{{{legal_US_comment|}}}{{{legal_UN_comment|}}}{{{legal_EU_comment|}}}{{{legal_status|}}}|<div class="plainlist">

<!--
 BR ----- BR ----- BR ----- BR ----- BR ----- BR ----- BR ----- BR -----
-->{{#if:{{{legal_BR|}}}{{{legal_BR_comment|}}} |
* <small>{{abbr|BR|Brazil}}:</small> {{#switch:{{lc:{{{legal_BR|}}}}}
 | OTC | Over the counter
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Over the counter]]
 |a1|class a1
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class A1]] - Narcotic Drugs
 |a2|class a2
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class A2]] - Narcotic Drugs
 |a3|class a3
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class A3]] - Psychoactive Drugs
 |b1|class b1
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class B1]] - Psychoactive Drugs
 |b1|class b2
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class B2]] - Anorectic Drugs
 |c1|class c1
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class C1]] - Other controlled substances
 |c2|class c2
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class C2]] - Retinoids
 |c3|class c3
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class C3]] - Immunosuppressive Drugs
 |c4|class c4
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class C4]] - Antiretroviral Drugs
 |c5|class c5
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class C5]] - Anabolic steroids
 |d1|class d1
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class D1]] - Drug precursors
 |d2|class d2
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class D2]] - Drug precursors
 |e|class e
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class E]] - Controlled plants
 |f|class f
 = [[Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act|Class F]] - Prohibited Substances
 | #default = {{{legal_BR|}}}{{main other |[[Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status|B]]}}
 }} 
}}{{{legal_BR_comment|}}}

Brazilian Schedule

legal_BR Brazil
(see Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - still working on this page)
OTC Over the counter
A1 Class A1: Narcotic Drugs
A2 Class A2: Narcotic Drugs
A3 Class A3: Psychoactive Drugs
B1 Class B1: Psychoactive Drugs
B2 Class B2: Anorectic Drugs
C1 Class C1: Other controlled substances
C2 Class C2: Retinoids
C3 Class C3: Immunosuppressive Drugs
C4 Class C4: Antiretroviral Drugs
C5 Class C5: Anabolic steroids
D1 Class D1: Drug precursors
D2 Class D2: Drug precursors
E Class E: Controlled plants
F Class F: Prohibited Substances

Demo

Sandbox code is the defining proposal. Compare live version and sandbox
See also Template:Infobox drug/testcases.
Demo |legal_BR= options
Legal status
Legal status
  • BR: OTC (Over the counter)
  • BR: Class C1 (Other controlled substances)
  • BR: Class F (Prohibited substances)
  • BR: Any comment for BR

Markfeio (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

So far we've added parameters for countries for which we have an article containing a list of drugs and their legal status in that country. Maybe hold off on this until Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is fleshed out? Sizeofint (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Put this on hold, (|answered=pause). As was said: we need a target page. Good initiative. {{Infobox drug}} also serves |legal_DE= (non-english) to List of German drug laws etc. Brazil could have the same. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Now the article is ready! Check it out: Brazilian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act! Markfeio (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Made minor tweaks in the sandbox. Does ptwiki have that article? -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think ptwiki has it. Also, please note that the original 1998 schedule has been updated by Resolution RDC Nº 36/2011. I'll see if I can go over the article in the next few days and update/wikify it accordingly. Nice job! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There should be no reference to the 1998 version anywhere (except maybe in section 'History of this law'). IOW, 2011 classification should be used. So please check the article for this indeed. -20:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done Also adjusted {{Infobox drug}} [8] to receive the new parameters.
ptwiki has it! https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_substâncias_e_medicamentos_sujeitos_a_controle_especial_no_Brasil.

The schedule was updated, but the new one only changes the 1998, the updates are included in the pdf of the original schedule. Just check Anvisa's website. Markfeio (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: in the future, we might need a discussion on the length of this list (number of countries). -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW, no recognised option |legal_BR=Unscheduled needed? -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Option |legal_BR=Unscheduled added (we want to have as few 'unrecognised input' as possible). -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be working completely at MDMA. A2 populates the field correctly. F2 does not. Sizeofint (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The template code doesn't provide subparameters for class F. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No release date?

Add a parameter for date first released or became available, ie the varicella vaccine was first synthesized in 1984 why do I have to scour an article to simply find this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:300:14:85DE:4DA8:F215:39AC (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding local INN: AAN, BAN, USAN, JAN

See WP:PHARM#USAN_etc_in_drugbox. -DePiep (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a developed proposal now (with testcases demo). -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Data87 and label87 (E number)

I'm creating this as a new section since this is really an issue that's independent of what we decide to do with the other identifiers.

Data87 and label87 are used for the "E number" identifier in this template, which pertains to a European food additive classification. The fact that some drugs are assigned an E number doesn't make it noteworthy information that merits inclusion in a drugbox; that seems like something that should just be mentioned in the article if a substance's use as a food additive is notable. Anyway, since I don't see how this relates at all to pharmacology, chemistry, or medicine, should we just delete that "identifier"? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How much is this used? If it is not used at all happy with deleting. Otherwise it will need to be moved from the infobox to the body before deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It is more used in the Chembox, which we keep synced with Drugbox for convenience. The brief discussion where it was added includes a list of chemicals. Template_talk:Chembox/Archive_10#Let.27s_add_.22E_number.22 Sizeofint (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
re Doc James. usage: see Category:E number from Wikidata (371) for {{Infobox drug}} + {{Chembox}}. (of which in {{Infobox drug}}: 20, sorted under "*"). -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sure it's not an identifier at all (it's a classifier), but it merits inclusion. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I add: could be moved to a [projected] "Data sheet" section, i.e. out of the infobox. I note that these food additives are required in the EU to be listed on the package label. It is not a 'medicine' that requires EMA (FDA) licencing, but can have related effects. (IOW, not all additives need a {{infobox drug}}, but those that have for other reasons can have E number added). -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • A drug having an "E number" is like having a left-hand field saying "Edible?" and a right hand field accepting the values "Yes" or "No" because that's pretty much all being specified as a "food additive" indicates in the context of a drug. I really do not like having wikidata entries sent to the drugbox though because these entries can't be censored/removed without deleting the data item. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
That's two remarks. First: no, 'Edible' is not the point (~all drugs are). A drug being also a food additive is noteworthy. For example: it says that one can encounter it by regular food, not by some prescription route. Also, side-effects may be relevant. Second: once its mentioning is accepted, I see no need for the option "let's not report the E number for this drug". And let's keep in mind: it's only added when the {{Infobox drug}} is present for other reasons (being a food additive is no reason to add {{Infobox drug}}). -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

ECHA bad link: add 'no' option

spin off, separate topic from infobox-el discussion above. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Can we at least agree to get rid of the ECHA InfoCard (example)? That can't even be removed from an infobox without deleting the identifier from Wikidata, which IMO would be inappropriate. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Sigh here too. But the good news is: if we at enwiki decide that ECHA data should be presented in some different way, we can & will do that. We are not tied to Wikidata as you seem to think. Can you describe situations where ECHA data should be withhold? -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, same for CAS Number. Current link only confirms without new info (if confirms at all). IOW, it's a source at best, not an info link. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
(Split into new section, we can do). -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Research. The bad link given (example) (with illegible -brushed- info) is from Amphetamine. But wait. Just now, some time & clicks late, I got an extra disclaimer screen, I could agree. After that, the info is fully readable. Doesn't his solve the issue? -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I entirely follow what you're saying, but if you mean clicking the links to bring up the data sheet (i.e., this page), it's woefully lacking just like the infocard. Also, I'm pretty sure amphetamine is not fatal if swallowed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
      Are you aware that acute tox. 2 oral refers to a dose of 5–50 mg/kg body weight? --Leyo 19:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
      No, I wasn't; but, even for an 80kg man, 4 grams of amphetamine isn't necessarily lethal. A 400 mg dose is very unlikely to cause death even in individuals with no tolerance to that drug. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'd be content with being able to suppress the output of useless entries from wikidata though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
What I tried to say: I started a research (your link showing that ileggible, brushed page). Then a popscreen appeard there with a disclaimer I could click "OK" to. After that, I could read the ECHA InfoCard for amfetamine. [Can you reproduce that?]. I still can open & read it (apparently, the agreement click is saved). Now since this link is working, after all, I don't know why we should add a "don't show ECHA link" option. -DePiep (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If you think ECHA is "useless information" to be removed all, we need a broader response. I'm not convinced yet. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If others feel that there shouldn't be an option to suppress Wikidata-supplied inputs, that really just leaves it to editorial judgement as to whether or not to delete content from Wikidata for the sake of reducing drugbox clutter on Wikipedia. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
For chemicals having a drugbox but also non-medical uses (e.g. acetylsalicylic acid, but there are surely better examples) the information provided by the ECHA InfoCard is of high interest. --Leyo 19:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it should be included in all drug infoboxes. Like I said before, if there's no option to suppress the imported value from Wikidata or it isn't parametrized for Wikipedia editors to specify, the only way to remove the identifier from a drugbox would be to delete the entry on Wikidata. That's not ideal, because the infocard link belongs on Wikidata even when the content in the infocard for a given drug is extremely limited. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Removing data from Wikidata to control this infobox is nonsense, and per GF I assume you know that. Now please stop making that suggestion. Question: in what situations would we need to suppress mentioning the ECHA id+link? -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
And please specify what the exact problem is with the very first link you gave here. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any information in the infocard link for amphetamine besides its name, IUPAC name, CAS number, and molecular formula; it doesn't appear to include any links to other databases either, so it's a useless EL for that article's drugbox. That's the type of situation where it should be suppressed.

I also wasn't kidding about editing WD to address issues on WP when data is imported. I'd do the same thing with other identifiers too if the situation warranted that, e.g., deleting a link to IUPHAR if an article's drugbox were huge and the IUPHAR entry for the drug contained only the most basic information on a compound. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so it is not about the link being inaccessible (as I first thought). OK.
Deleting in Wikidata to set a local infobox... I think WD people will do like that. And it really should not be done.
About the ECHA Infocard (the amphetamine Infocard also shows the hazards btw; others mention toxity). It is by chemistry, not pharmacololgical indeed. But in general, I think the chemical data has its place too in the drugbox (article). For example, we do not have a strong divide between using {{Drugbox}} or {{Chembox}} in an article, so some overlap in data (rows) is welcome: a drug is a chemcal.
What you say in the IUPHAR example, you want a second judgement on the EL being relevant etc. That's about other website's content. Is that really our job? And showing no IUPHAR link is different from showing a link to a trivial data page: it's about saying "it is known in the IUPHAR database", and "their content is their business"). [Would be more acceptable when this EL is in the EL section btw ;-)].
FYI: Category:ECHA InfoCard ID from Wikidata‎ (10,839) lists the infoboxes (Drugbox and Chembox) with this ECHA link. I've adjusted the template just now to have {{Drugbox}} articles being catsorted under "*". May take some time to be resorted completely. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
→ incategory:ECHA_InfoCard_ID_from_Wikidata hastemplate:Infobox_drug --Leyo 22:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

broken non-breaking space

In the infobox at Ephedrine the legal status in the US is shown as "List&nbspI OTC" with a link to DEA list of chemicals#List_I_chemicals. This is being pulled from somewhere using the parameter legal_us = List I OTC, but I can't find where in the template code this link is being generated to fix it (there should be a semicolon after the nbsp). Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed in {{Infobox drug/legal status}}. Thx. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Typo causing stray span tag in Collagenase clostridium histolyticum?

A recent change to this template or a subtemplate appears to have caused a stray exposed span tag in Collagenase clostridium histolyticum. DePiep, can you please take a look? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

will look later on. Thx. -DePiep (talk)
I fixed the incident, but it was a <br> in parameter drug_name ??? Pls check all names involved, in that article. Also pls update me. DePiep (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I add: EMA search fails b.c of bad names. One can use param ema_inn or so. DePiep (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I did not cause the problem, nor do I know how to fix it. A change to the template appears to have corrupted article rendering. If that is the case, the template should either be reverted or should be modified to detect and categorize pages that have bad input so that they can be fixed. Another example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Testosterone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
No one said you 'caused' anything. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Fixed. You are right wrt the proper handling. I note that in both error cases, the input has unexpected code (<br/> hard line break), which is incorrect input for |drug_name= per {{Infobox drug/doc}}.
So the error is gone, but the intended link may still disfunction because it searches the EMA site with a wrong drug name (not INN, or unexpected code). If that drug name cannot be improved somehow, one can use |INN_EMA= with the correct search term in case. -DePiep (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Add defined daily dose (DDD)

We have a nice database of them here. Should go under clinical data. Maybe right before route of admin. Will need to have a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

sure. Everything you think of is infobox relevant and must be in Clinical data section. Sigh. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth adding since I don't see how this metric would be at all useful to the vast majority of readers of any drug article. I imagine only medical/pharmacology researchers would benefit from including it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
It is actually one of the most common requests from the 100,000 or so people using our offline app. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
How many requests have you received out of those 100,000? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
If DDD is relevant, encyclopedically speaking, then the DDD will be noted in the article body already. So please link these articles, and {{Infobox drug}} will welcome it :-). However, {{Infobox drug}} will not add data that is not in the article. Per WP:INFOBOX. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a lot of stuff in the infobox that is not in the body of the article. So what you say is not correct in practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, wp:otherstuffexists is not an argement to include something. Ever. Because it can also lead to the opposite outcome: remove that other stuff, equally correct. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notes it can at times be a valid argument. It is an invalid logical argument, but a valid Bayesian argument. I think it is useful in certain cases as a supplemental inductive argument to bolster a case, though it shouldn't be the main argument.
Assuming good practices tend to persist longer and be more prevalent, if you're trying to argue X is probably a good idea (which is often the case because certainty is hard) then showing X has been implemented on many pages for long periods of time increases the a priori probability that X is a good idea. In other words, what is P(X is a good idea|X is widespread)? Sizeofint (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Doc James did not (ever) claim this exception. So please speak for yourself, while Doc James can and should speak for themselves. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyway still need to work on a few other things to get this proposal ready. I will at that point in time start a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

Okay DDDs are now within WD. Next will be to get the notification system in place to make keeping an eye on all of them easy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

DDD: defined daily dose (Q1182681), P4250.
This template uses the Wikidata property:
Example: amoxicillin: 1 gram[1]
-DePiep (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Add to infobox the DDD read from Wikidata, then
Amoxicillin
Clinical data
Defined daily dose1 gram[1] Edit this at Wikidata

We can read the DDD directly from Wikidata, and publish it in the drugbox (see aAmoxicillin demo). This is automated, and does not require any parameter. Any WD reference is added, and the pencil-link to edit WD.

I do not understand the tracking & checking Doc_James has in mind. An extra check on Wikidata? Note that it is possible to track Wikidata edits in your personal watchlist.

Note that already, {{Infobox drug}} publishes the Wikidata value for E number and ECHA Infocard ID (see Vitamin C, Category:Chemical compounds and Wikidata). -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC) @Doc James:. -DePiep (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Error: Unable to display the reference properly. See the documentation for details.

licence_US parameter no longer works

The FDA appears to have changed their drug product search engine, since |licence_US= now just takes you to the search page instead of the results page for the parameter value/input. I'm not really sure how to fix this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

eg warfarin. I can't find the change notice on their site. Anyone? -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I figured out several possible solutions, the most feasible of which I completely implemented externally to validate that it would work, but when I looked at implementing it on Wikipedia, I quickly realized that it would be impossible to do because the <form> tag is essentially blacklisted on Wikipedia. The remaining solutions are extremely hackish workarounds that would not be preferable at all. I think we're screwed on this one unless we get into contact with the FDA and ask them to reenable search queries via GET instead of only via POST (good luck with that - the amount of bureaucratic bullshit you'd have to deal with on both sides if you did that formally is a nightmare to even start thinking about). Otherwise, well, I can always build one of those extremely hackish workarounds, but I'd need tools lab access (which I don't have) and the trouble involved to get a tools lab account and set this thing up is not really worth the bother to me, especially after having invested time into a much less hackish working solution. Garzfoth (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, good to know this. Look like it is useless to autolink now (maybe the searchpage link in the lefthand label only). I note that |DailyMedID= is available. -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I wrote up and sent a detailed email to the FDA describing the entire issue (and a UX issue with their new-form search results), as well as what steps should be taken to fix it. I operated directly (using my own private email address) as opposed to involving the WMF as I am hoping to avoid a significant amount of the potential bureaucratic bullshit by doing this, but due to operating directly, I don't have anywhere near the same clout as the WMF does and thus I have no idea if the FDA will actually listen to me. Ah well. Hopefully something comes of this.
I have changed my mind and am now willing to write a redirection proxy to temporarily solve the issue if the FDA does not reply within a few days to a week and if I can get tools lab access for it. This is a hackish but relatively effective solution for the problem. If the FDA can fix the issue, I don't want to invest the time to build this only to have it rendered worthless by the FDA's fix, so that's why I'm delaying.
I reviewed the drugbox template and changed a couple of things related to the clinical data section, most notably identifying and fixing an error with the DailyMed URL (it was also broken but unlike Drugs@FDA they still allow GET requests for their search page, so it was a simple enough fix, if slightly inelegant). I also changed the previous way of having only the DailyMed link appear if the DailyMed and FDA params were both defined to have both links display when both are defined - it's much more sensible this way, especially so as these are entirely different databases.
I would like to add Health Canada's drug product database to the page, but I would need to edit the main template to add an additional parameter for licence_CA, and I do not have the ability to edit template-protected pages so I cannot do that. I still ended up adding (and fully testing!) licence_CA anyways, it works great, so I need to find someone with template editor permissions who can copy the entire contents of Template:Infobox_drug/sandbox to Template:Infobox_drug. @DePiep:, you're a template editor, are you willing to do this for me? I can (and will) update Template:Infobox_drug/doc to reflect all changes/additions made after I can get my licence_CA changes into Template:Infobox_drug since Template:Infobox_drug/doc isn't protected. Thanks! Garzfoth (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: Thank you! I did notice that for the changelog year you put "2007" instead of "2017", so you might want to fix that ;). I don't know if you want to use the sandbox page again but I'm done using it for now, so feel free to revert to your prior revision on there if you want to (I was going to do it but realized that I don't know if you were still using it and also it would be out of sync with the main page again so I wasn't sure what to do). I'll revise the documentation next... Garzfoth (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done, saw the edits. Q: Canada does not write licenSe right? Otherwise we could add |license_CA= as for US. (Minor: please note that each edit in the subtemplate /licence went live right away and caused 7400 pages into the Jobqueue for refreshing - each time. If you want ease of working, using /sandboxes can help. And of course if I were actually working in the main sandbox you would not have interrupted that would you ;-) I will do the revert, and keep your edits). -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
You should probably add the param to avoid confusion. The Canada linking ended up being screwed up due to issues with their site - I have written an email explaining what's wrong and sent it to some people at Health Canada, I'm hoping they can fix the issue because otherwise we're going to have to remove the licence_CA param entirely (it works perfectly as long as you visit [9] before loading the search page, but otherwise does not - there is a cookie issue with their source code). For now please leave the licence_CA param in the template, given that the FDA link is also broken and unlike the other links it isn't used yet this shouldn't pose an issue short-term and it'll make it easier for us if Health Canada patches their website. I'm very sorry about the jobqueue, I got distracted with how many pages I had to modify, wasn't sure which pages were triggering live edits, and forgot to do the work in the sandbox in the process - I'll try to remember to use it much more in the future now that I have a better understanding of which pages are and aren't live. Thank you for your help and advice! Garzfoth (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I had to revert CA, see #licence_CA below.
  • I have prepared the #2 sandbox for this licence developments:
Template:Infobox drug/sandbox2
Template:Infobox drug/licence/sandbox
Template:Infobox drug/testcases2
This way, we will not interfere. We must communicate when something goes live.
  • Later on I will add the |licenSe_CA, _EU= options carefully. Not now.

-DePiep (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've unarchived this thread since it's still a current issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

licence_CA

  • I have reverted (partially) the new external HC link by |licence_CA= [10]. As Garzfoth noted above, it does not work yet: it leads to a frozen page, which is unacceptable. The infobox now shows the Canadian HC ID word unlinked (FWIW; only added yesterday so not much traffic anyway).
The difference with the kept licence_US (@FDA) link is, that the US link leads to a usable searchpage.
For now, we need to get the Canadian link working correctly before re-introducing. I strongy suggest to use the {{Infobox drug/sandbox2}} setup for develop & testing (so as not to interfere with ongoing changes in /sandbox #1). -DePiep (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I had no clue about the issue until after completing all of my primary testing/addition/documentation work, so it was just really really bad timing for their stupid delayed issue to show up all around. Will use the other sandbox when needed. Thanks. Sorry about any trouble this has caused. Garzfoth (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You mean they changed it that recently? Anyway, no need to say sorry, things happen. And I did not click that testlink either ;-). Just think: editing in the sandbox gives a relaxing pace to it. btw, would it be an improvement to move the DailyMed to below? -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Health Canada didn't change anything recently (that would be the FDA), the issue is that there is a flaw with the Health Canada Drug Product Database site's code that is completely unnoticeable because of the series of actions taken by me (which were not abnormal in any way either for what I was trying to accomplish!). The exact issue is an extremely unusual type of issue that you normally would never encounter with virtually any website's search service in this context and so I had no reason to do the kind of extended testing that would have discovered the issue immediately (normally you would not do any form of extended testing for this kind of work because it would be a complete waste of time to do so). I've received an initial reply from Health Canada, but they seem to have completely misunderstood what I was trying to do so I had to explain everything again in a hopefully easier to understand way and now I'm waiting for a response to that. No response from the FDA yet. I think dailymed belongs in the licensing section so I don't think moving it outside of there is a good idea unless you have a good argument to the contrary that you want to make (assuming that moving it outside the section is what you meant), but if you actually meant moving it around within the licensing section then please explain in more specific detail what you mean. Garzfoth (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I drop my DailyMed question. (It was about the within-licences-ordering, but I don't know why any more.) -DePiep (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Status updates on the two emails related to both CA/US drug product database issues:
  • Health Canada: The developer is now being brought directly into the discussion, but they are currently on vacation until next week so I have to wait for them to return to the office.
  • FDA: I was informed that they've forwarded my email to unspecified experts within the agency "for input and assistance", who may respond directly or indirectly to me, with no defined time frame for response (but with a warning that response time frames can be variable).
Both agencies seem more-or-less amenable to making the necessary changes so far, but I suspect bureaucratic barriers may be encountered, and the process is already as slow as I expected it would be. Still, there's some progress. Garzfoth (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox identifier discussions

I've unarchived some of the threads on this topic and created this super-thread to keep all of the threads together when they're archived; I've moved all of the talk page sections pertaining to this discussion to a corresponding level 3 sub-section below. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Move non human readable identifiers out of infobox

With {{Infobox medical condition (new)}} we have moved (some of) the identifiers to the 'External links' section and placed them in {{Medical resources}}. Does anyone have thoughts about doing the same here (and likely for {{Chembox}} as well)? I think this would help cut down on the length of the infobox while still leaving them accessible for the (relatively small) group of readers who find them useful. Sizeofint (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Which are you suggesting moving? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Ambitiously
| CAS_number        = 
| CAS_supplemental  = 
| PubChem           = 
| PubChemSubstance  = 
| IUPHAR_ligand     = 
| DrugBank          = 
| ChemSpiderID      = 
| UNII              = 
| KEGG              = 
| ChEBI             = 
| ChEMBL            = 
| PDB_ligand        =
| NIAID_ChemDB      =
and possibly
| Drugs.com = 
| MedlinePlus =
The IUPAC name could be moved to the clinical data section. Sizeofint (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
"The IUPAC name could be moved to the clinical data section" -- Oh please shut up. We are an encyclopedia, not a helpdesk for clinics. -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree it would be good to group the various names for a substance together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Is not what I asked for. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
If we move the identifiers, my thinking is that since it is a chemical name it would make sense to place the IUPHAR IUPAC name near the other other synonyms. It doesn't link to an external site so I don't think it would be appropriate to move it with the others. Sizeofint (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we should move data out of the infobox into lower article sections.
That could & should affect {{Chembox}}, {{Infobox drug}}, {{Infobox element}}, ... Whether into 'external links' or '[new] data sheet' is not that important. The real problem is: heavy-weight editors do not want their pet-data to be removed. (example: {{Chembox}} has a ~dozen external links in top. See Aspirin). -DePiep (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
IMO the ATC codes should also be moved lower along with the other identifiers. Would be fine with seeing MedlinePlus moved aswell. Our article however miss a lot of details so support keeping drugs.com were it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly illustrating the point I made one paragraph earlier: so what information is to be kept in the infobox is not based on being a summary of the article. Infobox is degraded into a linkfarm and overview, links at hand, to be useful for a non-general reader and not encyclopedic. We need self-restriction by high-end editors (confirming to WP:INFOBOX for starters). -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
And no, ATC could be in the infobox (when spelled out), as it is a classification. -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think we have had discussions about the ATC code before. IMO it is more of a classifier than an indentifier so I think it is more appropriate to keep it under clinical data. I'm fine with leaving the drugs.com link. Sizeofint (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure we should move out 

| smiles = 
| StdInChI =
| StdInChIKey =

right? Being extremely non-human readable. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As I understand, they are more than identifiers - really shorthand ways of describing a chemical structure - so I wasn't really thinking about including them in this discussion. They aren't external links so I don't think it would be appropriate to place them in that section. Besides making a special template to put them in a 'Chemistry' section I can't think of what else to do with them. I'm fine with leaving them where they are for the moment. Sizeofint (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You lost me. Even before your idea is fleshed out, you (and Doc J) already claim exceptions for personal preferences? -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is that they contain structural information about a molecule which makes them dissimilar to the other identifiers which are just database keys. I believe they may fall under your IN-2 point below. Sizeofint (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, they are not external database keys. But I've pulled the topic wider: there are more reasons to move data out of the infobox. Such as: not useful as article summary.Believing they should be an IN-2 exception: that's the ugly road I'm trying to avoid. Already 'believing' is not a strong argument; and it is pulling the pet-data argument at first instance. If we (involved editors) can not be self-critical and restrictive about the infobox, this excercise is going to be fruitless, resulting in a equally chaotic information presentation. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
But I've pulled the topic wider Okay, I didn't realize you wanted to to broaden the scope of this discussion beyond the external database links. Sizeofint (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we can only improve something by thinking from WP:INFOBOX first. Not individual parameters, not even groups like those external links. We should make the infobox best & strong. Then, issues from that ("what to do with data point x, with data set y?"), must be accomodated elsewhere in the article (or deleted). In that order. Infobox design first really. -DePiep (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
They are out of place in an infobox. And sure, they are inhuman. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't read them but according to Simplified molecular-input line-entry system and International Chemical Identifier they are intended to be human readable (to a savvy chemist at least). Sizeofint (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes they are ASCII-characters only, but that does not make them readable as in: meaning something to the reader. And that savvy chemist: is not our Reader. Again, why not move them down into the article body (say section Data sheet)? What is the reason to add them to the infobox at all? (Please read WP:INFOBOX to get the design aim of it). -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
why not move them down into the article body (say section Data sheet)? I imagine some editors thought the information should be compactly together in the infobox. If we add a "Data sheet" section, shouldn't all the IN-2 data end up there? Sizeofint (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hard to argue with your imagining other editors thoughts. Those editors should come forward by themselves. As for IN-2: I meant this route for extreme and undisputed exceptions (like melting point). Not for (allow me to say so) pet data. If involved editors like us keep pushing pet data into the infobox, who is guarding the overall size & relevance of it? (even more important in mobile view, one cannot skip or fold the infobox there!). -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • More general: why include, why exclude data from infobox?
To include
IN-1. Data is summary of article, already mentioned in body text (per WP:INFOBOX)
IN-2. Data is udisputed major fact, while not reasonably expected in body text (example: melting point)
To exclude
OUT-1: Is external link
OUT-2: No information (e.g., just a code number, or external id)
OUT-3: Encyclopedic info, but not in body text and not of infobox relevance
  • Where to put it then?
External links could go in section ==external links==
A new, standard section could be added: ==Data sheet== (working sectiontitle).
This could contain a wide list of data, including the external links and inhuman texts.
-DePiep (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
We could also punt it off to Wikidata. Sizeofint (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This does not make sense. The question is: should it be in the article, and then where? (irrelevant whether the article has it in its source, or that it is read from Wikidata). -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I mean don't have it in the article at all and just direct interested readers to WikiData (e.g. at the bottom of the infobox put "More data available on WikiData" linking WikiData to the appropriate page). A data sheet section may work but some editors may oppose it on grounds of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sizeofint (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
A Wikidata page is hardly the informative webpage, its more data facts only (no page design for readers). Wikidata is for pulling data out of it, but not for showing. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Or: collapse identifiers block in infobox

I very strongly prefer that all of the identifiers remain in the drugbox; however, I think it would be prudent to collapse the entire identifiers section for the sake of navigation. If people want external links to relevant databases in infoboxes (e.g., someone like me; I use the PubChem, IUPHAR, and DrugBank links very frequently in drug articles that have those included in the drugbox), then retaining these in a collapsed form retains their utility while reducing clutter for other readers who don't use those links. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I actually just came here to propose collapsing the identifiers section due to the size of the drugbox in some articles, but read this thread first. I probably would've created a new section to make my proposal otherwise. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sizeofint, Doc James, and DePiep: How do you feel about this alternative? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • re. First and foremost, collapsing in infoboxes is not a serious design option. Because: mobile view does not know 'collapse' (show/hide) such parts. The only collapse mobile view knows, is section headers. So to support mobile viewing, we must design infoboxes as being uncollapsible/uncollapsed (collapse is an extra in desktop view). This is by m.wiki page design. The reason I've learned is, that TOC/sections/pagenavigation in mobile requires a different approach.
(If any collapse would be added to mobiles, I'd propose to make the whole infobox (all of them, enwiki wide) collapsible like a sub/section; notice how infobox appears in mobile: after the first paragraph btw).
  • re 2: I still think those identifiers do not have a place in the WP:INFOBOX. They are not summarizing the article, they add no information, they are external links (each one of these alone is killing). Once removed, the "size" issue is reduced as an welcome effect of better infobox setup. Not unexpected: "too long" (size) already indicates "too much data" (design).
The reason why they are still there is illustrated by Seppi333 above: "Someone like me; I use the PubChem, IUPHAR, and DrugBank links very frequently". But that 'someone like me' is not the target reader, and the '... use them frequently' is not a good inclusion-in-infobox reason. I call this pet-data: only heavy users (involved editors like us) are keeping in the infobox because "I" use it often, "I" find it easy to have nearby. It is exactly these editors (we) that need to apply restriction wrt infobox content. If we keep evading this (pushing individual data into the box, but not taking responsibility for the overall box view), no infobox improvement is to be reached. All this while the answer is easy: move those external ID el's to External links, systematically. -DePiep (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Straying off-topic a bit, what is the CSS-ish magic that makes sections collapsible on mobile and why can't that be replicated as a more generally available container? DMacks (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, but keep in mind that it is by design, that is: Wikipedia level (MediaWiki?). -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
One technical concern with collapsing is the visibility to external search engines. As much as we can be a starting point with pointers to external database sites, we can also be discoverable by searching for the compound itself--database tokens are useful beyond the original database sites. I just checked and at least Google search by SMILES and InChI does find chembox articles where those fields are collapsed. So that's good.
If we really do want to have smaller infobox, I would prefer collapsing rather than moving certain fields elsewhere. Some of the fields being discussed are inter-related. For example, SMILES is structural not database token, but is often usable as a database search term. But it also is how the Jmol VR model is generated, which is definitely user-oriented content and not solely niche readership. That means SMILES needs to be in the same template as the Jmol, which blurs the distinction between machine-readable/niche-readers and general-readership. DMacks (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
As I described above, collapsing does not reduce infobox size. Instead, it shows stresses that there is unneeded data in there. -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware that mobile viewing doesn't allow for collapsible content, but I still think that it should be collapsed. A lack of improvement on mobile and a general improvement on desktop is still an improvement, at least pending further changes for improved mobile viewing (i.e., while we're discussing what to do, some drugboxes remain excessively long in part because of their identifiers section - my proposal is at the very least a temp-fix for desktop viewers). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Again: the reason(s) you want it collapsed it the same reason it does not belong in the infobox. Please respond to my move-to-article-body point. -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with systematically moving them all to the external links section. However, that will take time to implement (i.e., someone needs to write a script for a bot which will then need to execute that across a bajillion drug articles), whereas adding a collapse tab to the section takes as long to implement and come into effect as it took me to write this response. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not an implementation problem, nor the other technical knots ahead. (We could easily have a bot move certain infobox sections elsewhere in the article, in a new appropriate template). Even worse, making a "quick fix" now (collapsing against design) will ensure that a true improvement will not be supported at all. Because: this quick fix is rewarding the pet-data claims into concrete. It's the non-support that is the bottleneck. I've encountered this issue of 'pet-data' (both external IDs and loads of trivial data rows being added) in {{Infobox drug}}, {{Chembox}}, {{Infobox element}} by many involved editors. Note that already in this half-a-day talk, two seriously involved editors keep wiggling out of my suggestion by ignoring it. For this reason, from those three infobox encounters, I do not even find energy to start the much-needed RfC. -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I've already said I support your proposal because I acknowledge mine has flaws. I don't know why you're acting like I'm opposed to your idea. All I'm proposing here is simply analogous to covering up a disgusting wound on an arm that needs to be amputated before amputating it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't really feel like having an argument over this, so I'm ok with your solution without collapsing it in the meantime as long as your proposed solution (i.e., moving drugbox identifiers to the EL section) is implemented sometime in the near future. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1. You're right, I struck. 2. I expect/predict, collapsing 'for now' will make a true improvement further out of reach (collapsing has be advocated before). 3. Note that 'involved editors' are also the good to very good editors. I'm just having trouble getting the talk to be about infobox design. -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose Better to collapse identifiers section than to split up the infobox. Boghog (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

But as DePiep says, collapsing is not possible on mobile, the platform swiftly becoming the dominant way of accessing WP (if it is not already). I also agree with his assessment that a desire to collapse perhaps indicates the content shouldn't be in the infobox at all. We successfully moved the database links to the external links section in {{Infobox medical condition (new)}}. What makes this template different such that keeping the database links is justified? Sizeofint (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Collapsing is not currently possible on mobile web browsers, but should be in the future. There was a request that was merged into this request to make it collapsible. Even better solution would be to collapse all infoboxes by default which is currently done in the Wikipedia mobile apps. For example, the iOS Wikipedia app, collapses the drugbox with the heading "Quick Facts: Clinical data, Pronunciation ...". On the desktop, the infobox does not need collapsing because it is displayed on the righthand side. It is better to keep all these links in one place rather than split them between two infoboxes, one at the top and one at the end of the article. This also applies to {{Infobox medical condition (new)}}. Boghog (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Were it technically possible, that still does not merit inclusion of all that data in the infobox in the first place. (Only argument so far, by involved editors:, is like "nice to have it nearby" — I call this "pet data"). That's not what WP:INFOBOX is designed for. Also, if you want to collapse something, it shouldn't be in the infobox in the first place. An could you engage in this point: we, editors, need to restrict ourselves in adding data to the box (i.e., take responsibilitry to remove data from it), to improve the infobox as a whole page element. -DePiep (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It is better to keep all these links in one place rather than split them between two infoboxes, one at the top and one at the end of the article. So why not just put them all at the end? You know... in the "External links" section... because they're external links. Sizeofint (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Because they are more conveniently accessed in the infobox. The WP:EL guideline specifically allows external links in infoboxes and there is a long tradition of including them. Boghog (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
While it is more convenient for finding these links, the more we stuff in the infobox the less convenient the infobox becomes overall because it takes more time to identify the facts one is interested in. We need to balance this. The infobox is becoming too long and collapsing sections, even if implemented on mobile, is not likely an option for accessibility reasons. Asking editors to not fill in fields to keep the length down has never been effective; as long the parameter is available somebody eventually wants to fill it. Therefore something needs to be removed. Because there is a clear alternative location for the database links I think moving these is a good option. Sizeofint (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Re the "pet data" comments: we don't have any Wikipedia readers who are not editors here to comment as to the usefulness of what I call "useful identifiers", so it hasn't been established that said links are only useful to editors. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Yep. The only thing we know for sure is that editors cannot restrict themselves to keep Infobox small. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Move External links from infobox to new EL box

New section, follows above. 20:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sizeofint and Doc James: Unless either of you, or anyone else for that matter, has any qualms with the solution proposed here, I think it'd be prudent to start moving the identifiers listed below to the EL section in their respective external link templates (e.g., {{Pubchem}}) within the next week or two (note: every identifier except the IUPAC name is an external link and a "data sheet" section would create issues with the manual of style's guidance on not placing external links elsewhere in the article body - MOS:Layout#External links). The length of drugboxes has been an issue for a while and this seems to be the only practical solution. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC) 

List of "identifiers" (database links) to move to an "External links" section
 | PubChem           = (useful EL)
 | PubChemSubstance  = (fairly useless EL IMO)
 | IUPHAR_ligand     = (useful EL)
 | DrugBank          = (useful EL)
 | ChemSpiderID      = (useful EL)
 | UNII              = (completely useless EL IMO)
 | KEGG              = (useful EL)
 | ChEBI             = (useful EL)
 | ChEMBL            = (useful EL)
 | PDB_ligand        = (fairly useless EL IMO)
 | NIAID_ChemDB      = (completely useless EL IMO)
Edit: the "ECHA InfoCard" identifier is imported from Wikidata via data88 and label88 in this template - that is also a completely useless EL IMO and it should just be cut from the templated

Note that I haven't listed the CAS number here because that, along with the IUPAC name, really should stay in the drugbox. The CAS registry number and IUPAC name of a drug are the only two actual chemical identifiers in the current identifiers section; the rest are just database links. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Seppi333 for the ping. I support moving the list of items you mention here.
I can also get built a gadget that does the moving if people want. If we could get the move done by bot that would be even better. Some of tricky bits are how to do the move if no "external links" heading currently exists in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Support as well. Sizeofint (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I still think collapsing portions of the navbox makes more sense than splitting it. Boghog (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

see previous discussion. This is not a !vote question. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It is now. There is no consensus in the above section that we should proceed with this proposal. There is even less consensus after my no vote. Boghog (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
see prev talk for arguing. This section is exploring. over there you'll find replies to your point. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
From what I understand from User:RexxS hiding content is a problem for people using screen readers and thus the practice is not recommended.
Agree we will likely need a formal RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we should start an RfC. Sizeofint (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Boghog. Many months and many fora (talks) we have met over this. I still don't get: why should those external links, adding no information, being not part of article body text, be in the infobox at all. (And once they are in, you want to collapse them into invisibility...?). I note that this question likely will appear in an RfC too. -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
adding no information – you are contradicting yourself. Above you have characterized many of the external links as useful. How can an external link be both useful and add no information? Boghog (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
It provides a pointer to other resources but contains no content itself. Basically data vs. metadata Sizeofint (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Many of the external links not only contain metadata, but also information themselves. For example, the PubChem link page for aspirin contains a extensive amount of information directly in the page as well as links to other sources. Boghog (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about the link itself. Not the content the link points to. Sizeofint (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
re Boghog: I mean "information" as in: meaningful statement, related to the topic. (while 'data' is a fact too, but not necessarily relative nor saying something). Then, applied for these external links: the external identifier is not a statement, so is not information. And yes, I find them useful data for the article, as external link. But not in WP:INFOBOX per WP:INFOBOX. They have a place in section ==External links== (or ==Further reading==).
Now could you answer the question about your own opinion: why in the WP:INFOBOX and not elsewhere? -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Data and information are practically synonymous. While information is sometimes defined as processed raw data, many of these external links contain more than raw data, they also contain information. Including external links in infoboxes has a long tradition and is specifically allowed by the WP:EL guideline. Infoboxes provide a quick overview of the subject and including key external links is an essential part of that overview. Having these links in the infobox is more accessible than in an external link section at the end of an article. Boghog (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I described how I used the words 'information' versus 'data', as an answer to your question. As I said, they are not synonyms (esp in this encyclopedia), and you redefining my opinion does not help you understanding me (wp:idonthearyou). And yes I know they contain information, but they are not information by themselves (reading that identifier says nothing about the topic).
WP:EL does not allow or promote el's in infoboxes (instead, it strongly points to the EL section and references). And tellingly, you do not refer to WP:INFOBOX which should be the first place to go, right? (note that even companies can have only one, official, el in their infobox, btw usually as a readable url. One el). Also, being a 'tradition' is not that convincing, given that wp is a developing project based on continuous argued improvement. Now on that "quick overview" and "more accessible": well, the el does not add to any overview, being an abstract identifier. Yes it is closer at hand, but exactly that is why the EL section is placed near the bottom: that's by wiki page design. It shows the relevance of el's wrt the article. I get the impression that you perceive the infobox as a mini article page for the way you personally use the drug articles (as more involved editors want to use it, themselves). Understandable, but not what the reader expects (maybe onkmowingly expects). What I ask is that we, editors, re-approach the infobox from the encyclopedic view as it was designed. Now the infobox is too long, because there is too much data in there. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Information is data + context. Context is provided internal wikilink that proceeds the external link. The identifiers in the identifiers section (e.g., CAS Number, DrugBank, etc) are every bit as information containing as the identifiers in the clinical data or legal sections (MedlinePlus, ATC codes, Legal status). Contrary to your assertion, WP:EL does allow external links in infoboxes by specifically stating that external links may be included in an appropriate location within an infobox. I never said WP:EL promotes links in infoboxes. By their wide spread adoption, many readers have come to expect that appropriate external links are included infoboxes. I agree that many of these infoboxes have become too long, but I think the infobox template itself should retain the option of including these parameters to allow contributors exercise editorial judgement on a article-by-article basis. For example, the relative importance of some of these links differ depending on whether the drug is investigational or approved. Boghog (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, you are redefining what I said, then drawing conclusions to your like (isn't that called a strawmnan?). I said, and meant to say: "information is meaningful data". "MedlinePlus: a682878" is not. Next, you keep referring to WP:EL, but not once mention WP:INFOBOX. Strange. Anyway, WP:EL is already very clear and strict about official websites; why expand that to dozens of non-offical websites? Plus, the word 'appropriate' is key: per WP:INFOBOX, these links are not appropriate in an infobox (not article summary, not information by themselves, external link). And no, readers do not expect these el's in infoboxes: their spread is couter-design and so are wrongfooting readers. By design, el's are not to be expected in infoboxes (with few, limited exceptions). The drugbox does not show & act as an wp:infobox, so the reader is not helped but confused. Receiving information is a subtle process, too easily broken. -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not re-defining, only clarifying using generally accepted definitions. Hence not a straw-man. MedlinePlus: a682878 (database accession number) is meaningful information as the internal wiki link provides context. The accession number is displayed to provide a clickable link to the corresponding MedlinePlus external link. The external link is rich in relevant information. WP:EL allows and WP:INFOBOX does not prohibit external links in infoboxes. Full stop. Boghog (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
"a682878" is not information and so not fit for an infobox. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Boghog (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
DePiep I think you have completely missed the point of these links. The visible link that is displayed in the infobox (in this case a database accession number) is not nearly as important as the target of that link and I think there is general agreement that at least some of these external links are useful. To argue that external links should not be included in infoboxes because you object to how the link is displayed in the infobox is absurd. How else to display a link to a specific entry in an external database than to use the entries accession number? We perhaps could use something like "MedlinePlus database entry for aspirin", but is this really an improvement over "MedlinePlus: a682878"? Finally the accession number is information as its meaning is made clear by the internal wiki link that proceeds it. Boghog (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is the case that the accession number is not important then we should really rename the 'Identifiers' section 'External links' (and move the actual identifiers like the IUPAC name to another section of the infobox). This then raises the question of why we split the external links across two locations instead of placing them all together. Sizeofint (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC question wording

How ought we phrase an RfC question (or multiple RfC questions) to discuss the issues raised above? And what would the scope of such an RfC be (Drugbox only or Drugbox + Chembox)? Sizeofint (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  • (WP:RFC). Thoughts: I'd suggest a single simple question like:
"In articles with {{Infobox drug}} or {{Infobox chemical}} (aka {{Drugbox}} and {{Chembox}}), should the external links be in the infobox or in section External links (+an indication of which el's)".
I'd like to include both infoboxes. They are very similar in this, but it will pull this broader in many ways, and so could easilier not reach consensus/answer: I prefer a thorough result; YMMV. (Maybe invite WT:CHEMS already for this preparation talks?) Also, I think it should not be just a technical question (possibilities, wikilawyering), but more about our page design (how to present information). In the consideration, mention MOS:INFOBOX, WP:EL, MOS:LAYOUT. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC) (Added box names to the question, as it must stand on its own without title). -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I add: personally, I can imagine this option is acceptable too: create a new section ==Data sheet== in the articles to contain both these ELs and minor data like InChI string (data not fit for infobox). A 'data sheet' is quite common in chemistry. However, this might complicate the RfC into three-way options, which is not effective (will not produce a convincing result). -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, comes to mind, but tooo easily and tooo uselessly. Negatives: AC is a crude class=navbox, i.e. not visible in mobile (and not printed). That's for a reason. AC IDs are not information, they are just checking keys. Not information: keys. Just to connect to other DB's (ID confirmation). As an article fact, they are useless and meaningless. Even more so then, for the article infobox. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Create an example of what the proposal is proposing and than ask whether we should roll out such a change widely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC
Better not talk about a demo. Would lead us all into technical and detail issues. Main textual question is better: "Where should the ELs be". -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
More thinking done: Agree, a demo would be good (it could point out issues). Hope I can make one shortly. (I'm thinking about a "EL-box" template). Doc James@ -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:DePiep sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It's more complicated. There are those subtleties wrt ELs, like "This actually is a source". Working on this. We have time, don't we? -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Changing the "medical condition" template took a few years of discussion, a number of mockups, and than another year for gradual rollout that is far from complete. Yes there is no hurry. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Did I really sign up for a three year job? Good to know ;-) -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
LOL. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Swap {{keypress}} with {{button}}

Replace {{keypress|Preview}} and {{keypress|Save}} with {{button|{{int:showchanges}}}} and {{button|{{int:publishchanges}}}}. There's no "Save" key on my keyboard and Legal wants to standardize on Publish changes. — Dispenser 04:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done, with other message adjustments [11]. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

JSmol 3D-model rendering errors

Here is a discussion about the JSmol 3D interactive models that do not show right. Only 3 examples so far. - DePiep (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Route of administration

This parameter should probably be displayed under the heading "Pharmacokinetic data" instead of "Clinical data" since RoA is an aspect of pharmacokinetics. What do others think about moving this field? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It has to do with both: (1) how it is normally administered in the clinic and (2) under which conditions the pharmacokinetic parameters were measured. If there is one predominate route of administration, it is assumed unless otherwise specified that all the pharmacokinetic parameters refer to that route. If there is more than one route of administration, then each of the pharmacokinetic parameter should specify the route of administration under which it was measured (e.g., bioavailability by mouth, rectal, IM, or IP, etc; note that IV bioavailability is by definition 100%). In short, I think it is fine as is, as long as ambiguous cases are disambiguated. Boghog (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I do think it belongs under Pharmacokinetics. The way "Clinical data" is understood here (en:WP:MED), is like "everything that is useful in a clinical treatment", or "the single lookup section for an internet doctor". Even synonyms are listed in there. However, synonyms should be closer to the top (outside of Clinical section) -- see gout, and RoA can be in the more specific section of Pharmacokinetics (when other kinetic data is entered - we can encode that). - DePiep (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_16"