Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 7

Policosanol
Names
	IUPAC name Octacosanol, triacontanol, etc.
Identifiers
CAS Number	142583-61-1;
Properties
Chemical formula	CH3-(CH2)n-CH2OH n=24-34
Molar mass	(variable)
Pharmacology
	Pharmacokinetics:
Bioavailability	?
Metabolism	?
Biological half-life	?
Excretion	?
Legal status	?;
	Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa). verify (what is ?) Infobox references

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

CAS number: where to link?

Could the drugbox be modified to link to the CAS No. tool at Toolserver (http://toolserver.org/~magnus/cas.php), like {{CAS}}? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or would it be better to link to commonchemistry.org like {{chembox}}? At any rate, {{chembox}}, {{drugbox}} and {{CAS}} should not link to three different places. See Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox#CAS number: where to link? for a discussion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor changes

{{editprotected}} I made few minor changes to the sandbox of this template, so that rows for “Pregnancy cat.” and “Legal status” are the same height as the rest of the rows and I added space before the parenthesis on the “Legal status” field. Could some admin please update this template with those changes? Thanks. Svick (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing fields should be omitted

Hi, the template currently shows "?" for any field that is not specified. Instead, the field (value *and* keyword) should be omitted. It is a basic rule of Wikipedia that the article should always be in a "clean" state, without "scaffolding" of "to be filled" gaps. In a biography article, for example, if the birth date is missing, it should be simply omitted as in "Joe Doe (d. 1912)". One should not write "Joe Doe (????--1912)", nor "(unknown--1912)", nor even "( --1912)". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. +1 for obscuring missing fields. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. →Alfie^±Talk 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support in most cases, but not all cases. For example, if a substance has no ATC code, that tells me something important about it. If we have no data on pregnancy category or legal status, that may be a clue that the Chembox may be more appropriate than the Drugbox. --Arcadian (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we merge drugbox and chembox? Is there any opposition? This would hide empty fields, along with clearing a number of redundancies and inconsistencies. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

All the parameters handled by {{drugbox}} can also be handled by {{chembox}}, so there isn't really a need to merge. One would only need to migrate drugbox data for each article to the chembox format. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

True that having no ATC or not knowing the ATC is a difference. But then I would suggest to have the parameter for ATCCode recognise 'NA' as a parameter, and not showing '?' for it when it has not been found yet .. just leave it out. I am running a script on the boxes, anyone against removing question marks from the boxes in that same go (if the question mark is the sole content of the parameter)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In the {{drugbox/sandbox}} for testing. Omits almost all fields if empty (everything from the main layout except ATC code, pregnancy cat and legal status because they didn't find consensus above, and formula because it isn't really worth the trouble). No changes made to the mab, combo and vaccine layouts. Additionally, I removed the bottom margin which was caused by the CAS verification mechanism. I also replaced some cumbersome conditionals with {{#switch: constructions.

I'll be away over the next week. If no bugs or complaints turn up, I will ask for implementation afterwards. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Please replace {{drugbox}} with {{drugbox/sandbox}}. This will implement the changes discussed in this section. No bugs found since Feb 25. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the drugbox should be tweaked slightly more. If you ask me the IUPAC and CAS (and possibly ATC as well -- opinions?) should always show up and if they're blank have a "?" instead of nothing. These two fields should always be filled out and this would help to remind users to fill them if empty. Additionally I think pregnancy category and routes should be hidden by default if empty. I suggest this because there are a lot of designer drugs and research chemicals (such as those undergoing clinical trials) that aren't marketed and I find myself leaving these fields blank on quite a few of these types of articles. Finally I think another default option for legal status should be added to apply to designers and research chemicals as well. Usually if they're marketed and legal it's just "Rx-only", but what are we supposed to put for drugs that have never been commercialized in which that term does not apply? Currently I just put "uncontrolled" or "unscheduled" but I'm not particularly satisfied with that. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Support hiding pregnancy field. The routes field should already be hidden if empty. As for the legal status, that's a free text field: you could just add "research chemical". I can't think of a good phrasing for designer drugs, but I agree that "uncontrolled" is not satisfying.

Oppose always showing the IUPAC name. What about drugs like etanercept?

An empty CAS field adds the page to Category:Chemical pages needing a CAS Registry Number which I'd (slightly) prefer over the more intrusive "?". Jorge Stolfi above has a point with his argumentation. ATC is not hidden at the moment and I agree that it should always show up.

--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions about mab drugbox parameters

source

The parameter "source" currently allows free text, which results in rather a mess – different phrasing for the same thing, some linked, some unlinked etc. I suggest restricting the value to the range of the infixes:

value	result
a	[[rat]]
e	[[hamster]]
i	[[primate]]
o	[[mouse]]
u	[[human]]
xi	[[chimeric antibody\|chimeric]]
zu	[[humanized]]
xizu	[[chimeric antibody\|chimeric]]/[[humanized]] hybrid
axo	[[rat]]/[[mouse]] hybrid

The page Chimeric antibody doesn't exist yet, but should probably be created. Humanized antibody has a definition which does not match the one used in antibody names, so that article would need some work, too.

mab_type

There should be an additional field showing the type of antibody – "traditional" whole mab, Fab, Fab', BiTE, etc. – especially as there are more and more non-standard mabs, and the names do not show the differences. Furthermore, many articles about individual non-standard mabs incorrectly state "XYZumab is a monoclonal antibody..."

For information about those mabs, see the lead section of List of monoclonal antibodies. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Arcadian (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed values and results:

value	result
<empty>	<omit field>
mab	whole antibody
Fab	[[Fab fragment]]
F(ab')2	[[Fab fragment\|F(ab')<sub>2</sub> fragment]]
Fab'	[[Fab' fragment]]
scFv	[[single-chain variable fragment]]
di-scFv	di-[[single-chain variable fragment]]
3funct (*)	[[trifunctional antibody]]
clFab (*)	[[chemically linked Fab]]
BiTE	[[bi-specific T-cell engager]]

(*) ad hoc abbreviations by me; does anyone know abbreviations used in literature? -- ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

source and mabtype parameters are online for testing at {{drugbox/sandbox}}. Comments welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting implementation

{{Editprotected}} Please replace {{drugbox}} with {{drugbox/sandbox}}. This will implement the new features discussed in this section. No bugs have been detected in the past five days. --16:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please update the documentation, and let me know if there are any problems. Nice work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Documentation updated --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} New param values for source requested.

old (lines 63–66):

 | u    = [[human]]
 | xi   = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]]
 | zu   = [[humanized]]
 | xizu = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]]/[[humanized]] hybrid

new:

 | u    = [[human]]
 | xi/o = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]] ([[mouse]]/[[human]])
 | xi   = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]]
 | zu/o = [[humanized]] (from [[mouse]])
 | zu   = [[humanized]]
 | xizu = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]]/[[humanized]] hybrid

Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please, do not forget to update documentation. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Single chemical drugs

What's the point of using the Drugbox for single chemical drugs? Wouldn't it be more useful to adapt the chemical box (Template:Chembox) to include all pertinent drug information? Albmont (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Chembox}} is in fact already capable of handling all the information currently handled by {{drugbox}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why use Drugbox for the single chemical drugs - as Chembox has more information about them? Albmont (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The choice of box is merely depending on what the major use of the chemical is. If it's major use is a drug, it gets a drugbox, otherwise a chembox. Chembox can handle most of the stuff (if not all) that the drugbox can handle for the cases where it is less clear what the main function is. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See also prior discussion at Template_talk:Drugbox/Archive_5#Drugbox_.26_Chembox. --Arcadian (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity that discussion died without reaching the logical conclusion, that would be the merge. All chemical compounds should have a chembox, and not some with a drugbox and some with a chembox. Albmont (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the prior discussion: in many cases a "drug" is a molecule, but it can also be an antibody, a mixture, a polymer, or an unrefined plant product. There are some possible solutions, but they're all complex. It's not just a matter of a merger. --Arcadian (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But chembox and drugbox handle mixtures, polymers, or unrefined plant products in the same way, so it shouldn't make any difference which template is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.164.21 (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Could I see a model of how Policosanol looks in chembox format? --Arcadian (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I dropped all the drugbox data from policosanol into a chembox. The colors and method of organization are different, but all the same data is there. 72.94.164.21 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I now support the merge. --Arcadian (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What about combination drugs, vaccines, and monoclonal antibodies (type = combo, vaccine, mab), could they be implemented? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We could merge the chembox and drugbox together or at each drug page, we could put a chembox as well of the drugbox. -- Ebe123 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

IE background

{{editprotected}} Background of the Verifiedfields cell is incorrectly black in IE as reported on the Village pump. I used the fix suggested there in the sandbox and it works for me correctly. Can some admin copy the change from the sandbox to the main template? Thanks. Svick (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please replace the drugbox with the contents of User:Anypodetos/Sandbox, omitting the initial line

<noinclude>{{workpage}}</noinclude>

This also adds missing parameter values for the source field. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

UK & Canadian Legal Status

One small edit to the template information that needs correcting - under the title 'Legal status', the UK example entry is 'GSL' (General Sale List) but the resulting output is listed as 'POM'. On a more major note, there is not a clear indication that there is a distinction between a CD (controlled drug) and Class A/B/C drugs in the UK. A drug can be a CD but not necessarily fall into any of the illegal drug classes (i.e. illegal to possess) if it has legitimate medical/scientific use; instead they fall into schedules, as detailed here [1]. It would only take a few minor amendments to the template explanation (not the template itself) to clarify this, and I am willing to rework it myself if required. Perspeculum^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just found a good example of this - Morphine, where it is listed as a Class A drug in the UK, which is correct, but only if it is not prescribed. It also falls into the category of a Schedule II controlled drug, allowing it to be legally possessed with a valid prescription. Perspeculum^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also just realised that the template has no provision for the Canadian status to be Rx-only, it only has options for Schedules I to VIII, which prevents comparison against drugs which are controlled in the USA and not in Canada, an example being Modafinil, which is Schedule IV in the US, but prescription only (Schedule F) in Canada. Perspeculum^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, figured I could make the change in the sandbox myself. The documentation has been slightly tweaked to reflect the added Canadian legal statuses of OTC/Rx-only. The edits are reflected in revision 337003644 (oldid=336802200). Please could the admin that makes the change just double check I haven't screwed it up, I'm pretty sure I didn't. {{editprotected}}

Done, with one small change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

On reviewing a fair few drugs that fall into the category of 'Controlled Drug' in the UK, I think the options of 'Class A, B or C' need to be changed to reflect the therapeutic category of a drug - i.e. Schedules I, II, III, IV or V. As I mentioned some time back, Class A/B/C is only a reflection on illegal possession, so offers no therapeutic information. Does anyone have any thoughts to the contrary? I will go ahead and change it in a few days if nobody objects. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 15:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please can the following sandbox change be implemented. diff=346164455&oldid=344805469 If you need a source for my edits, the Misuse Of Drugs Regulations 2001 covers it: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20013998.htm Currently wikipedia just redirects to the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971, which is not the same and is something I will change soon... I'll also update the template documentation once this change is approved. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How will this affect existing uses of this template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Any uses that currently show Class A/B/C will show up as '?' until updated, however this only covers a relatively small number so the impact would be minimal. I would argue that it is better to have to update any that are found than continue to be using an inaccurate representation of its legality. Of course, I'm willing to demonstrate this in discussion if you'd prefer, before making the edit. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Could you update the existing uses and the template documentation. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't call the drugbox tag legal_UK then, because it's not a legal designation but a medical one. Further, if you are in the UK you probably remember that the fact legal classification is political and has nothing to do with the true potential for harm from substances is one of the things whichcaused the UK government to fall out with their advisory council on the misuse of drugs. Even ignoring this, in the UK AFAIK, though I can't be 100% sure, legal implications for a substance are related solely to it's legal class and not it's schedule. 82.132.136.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

There doesn't appear to be an option for not recognised as a drug by a country and there should be. 82.132.136.207 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of this? I don't think special mention in the drugbox is appropriate just because a particular drug is not approved in one country, this could go in the article body. How do you mean 'not recognised'? ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Substances which have no licence to be prescribed yet also do not fall under any drug prohibition laws. Most "research chemicals" would fall into this category, but I can also think of a few rx medications that are rx in some countries, yet neither rx nor controlled in others. Unfortunately I don't want to give a list because I'm quite partial to some of them... Maybe you are right it doesn't need a special mention. Another problem is I was looking at Ketamine just now, and it is listed as "Class C" in the source code, but the drugbox wikilink takes me to the information for the US Schedule III instead of information about the UK class C or the UK schedules (which only have legal implications for medical professionals AFAIK). Example of two class C UK drugs on different schedules: temazepam, diazepam. 82.132.136.206 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Originally the drugbox stated 'Class A/B/C' but this was changed since these are classes based on misuse, not therapeutic schedules. Ketamine falls under the schedule CD (Benz) POM. Unfortunately, the drugbox source on each page needs updating for each controlled drug for a stated CD, since I have no way of searching for them all, I have to do it as I go on. As for temazepam and diazepam, these can be updated to reflect which schedule they are in. There is currently no real wikipedia article on the UK schedules, something I'll remedy when I have some time in the next few weeks. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 09:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Molar mass

Posted on Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox

The data on chemical drugs where the chem box lists the "Mol. mass" in "g/mol". I believe the problem is the "Mol. mass" redirects to "Molecular Mass" wikipedia article, but it should redirect to "Molar mass" (which is measured in g/mol).

(First post in a discussion! Hope everything's in check, gonna work on figuring this Wikipedia functionality out in the near future) :)

Adenylated (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Physchim62 (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here too. By the way, many drugboxes for large molecules (mabs and other proteins) use kDa, which is a unit of molecular mass. Should these be changed to... what? 150000 g/mol? 150 kg/mol? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a problem... When you measure a molecular mass in kDa, you really are measuring a molecular mass, as opposed to when as when you calculate a molar mass from atomic weights. Maybe the solution is to have two parameters, one for molar mass for small molecules and the other for molecular mass for things like monoclonal antibodies. Physchim62 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But are these values really measured molecular masses, or molar masses calculated from the formulae? And how should we tell which is which? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the question isn't it, if the values are calculated from atomic masses then the page should just redirect to Molar Mass but if we're accounting for isotopes, and it is a molecular mass, then the g/mol should just be removed. Furthermore, some articles (THC, Pentobarbital for example) do not contain any units for Mol. mass., but others do (Lorazepam, Phencyclidine). Adenylated (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One way to do it would be to link to molar mass if there's a formula given and to molecular mass if there's no formula: the latter will be the case for peptides and proteins, I'm fairly sure, and those are the ones whose molecular mass is measured fairly directly (by electrophoresis, among other methods). Physchim62 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The other advantage is that it's simple to code: {{#if:{{{formula|}}}|[[Molar mass]]|[[Molecular mass|Mol. mass]]}} Physchim62 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean chemical_formula? But that's empty if the formula is given with something like C=6 | H=12 | O=6, which is usually the case. What about {{#if:{{{C|}}}{{{H|}}}{{{O|}}}{{{N|}}}{{{S|}}}|[[Molar mass]]|[[Molecular mass|Mol. mass]]}}? But let's not forget that many monoclonal antibodies have their masses calculated from their formula and use kDa as unit nonetheless. I suppose this could be relatively easy fixed with AWB. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs switches in case used outside main space

I think this template is placing pages in the encyclopedia categories even if used outside of mainspace. Switched should be used to prevent that. See, for example, User:Zodon/template and Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code#Z. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Drugbank primary or secondary accession numbers?

Many drug articles that I have come across use the secondary accession numbers from drugbank, when it may be more effective to use the primary accession numbers. Is there a reason for this?

118.208.76.46 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is. Feel free to change secondary to primary numbers where you find them. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

License information: EMEA vs. EMA

The license information field still says "EU EMEA", while "EMEA" has been discontinued as an acronym for the European Medicines Agency. Currently there is no official acronym according to the article, but EMA is quite widely used as far as I can tell. Should this be changed in the drugbox? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently no opposition. Please change [[European Medicines Agency|EU EMEA]] to [[European Medicines Agency|EU EMA]] (line 242). Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Just seen this, just thought I'd say I support it. EMEA is usually the acronym describing the region of 'Europe, Middle East & Asia', so a distinction would be best. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 16:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Link from Drugbox to IUPHAR database entry

{{editprotected}} Per the support from this discussion, I would like to request that an optional link be added from the Drugbox to the IUPHAR ligand database.

In analogy to the PubChem parameter, suggested code is as follows:

|-
{{#if:{{{IUPHAR_ligand|}}} |
{{!}} style="background-color: #def" {{!}} [[International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology|IUPHAR ligand ID]]
{{!}} style="background-color: #eee" {{!}}  <span class="reflink plainlinks nourlexpansion">[http://www.iuphar-db.org/DATABASE/LigandDisplayForward?ligandId={{{IUPHAR_ligand}}} {{{IUPHAR_ligand}}}]</span>
}}

So far, 459 pairs of Wikipedia ligand articles and corresponding IUPHAR database entries have been identified. A mapping of IIUPHAR_ligand_ID → PubChem_ID → Wikipedia_article may be found here. If IUPHAR link option is added to Drugbox, I plan to add this parameter to the above mentioned 459 Wikipedia ligand articles using User:BogBot.

Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Arcadian (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Where should it be added ? Between which 2 other rows do you want it ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deactivated the request as there was no response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, some how I missed your question. I suggest that the new code be insterted right after the PubChem and before DrugBank block (see below). Thanks. Boghog (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

|-
{{#if:{{{PubChem|}}} |
{{!}} style="background-color: #def" {{!}} [[PubChem]]
{{!}} style="background-color: #eee" {{!}}  <span class="reflink plainlinks nourlexpansion">[http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid={{{PubChem}}} {{{PubChem}}}]</span>
}}
|-
{{#if:{{{IUPHAR_ligand|}}} |
{{!}} style="background-color: #def" {{!}} [[International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology|IUPHAR ligand ID]]
{{!}} style="background-color: #eee" {{!}}  <span class="reflink plainlinks nourlexpansion">[http://www.iuphar-db.org/DATABASE/LigandDisplayForward?ligandId={{{IUPHAR_ligand}}} {{{IUPHAR_ligand}}}]</span>
|-
{{#if:{{{DrugBank|}}} |
{{!}} style="background-color: #def" {{!}} [[DrugBank]]
{{!}} style="background-color: #eee" {{!}} <span class="reflink plainlinks nourlexpansion">[http://www.drugbank.ca/cgi-bin/show_drug.cgi?CARD={{{DrugBank}}} {{{DrugBank}}}]</span>
}}

Done. Boghog2, to make it easier for admins who are not familiar with the code, you could copy the current code of the {{Drugbox}} into {{Drugbox/sandbox}}, adapt the code as you want it and test it, and when all works and is fine, ask for a copy back into the main template. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Again my apologizes. I wasn't aware there was a sandbox, but I will be sure to use it in the future if I make additional requests. Boghog (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic index

Is there a good reason not to include the therapeutic index of drugs to the drugbox? Perhaps this information is not widely available, put I feel a parameter to include it would be useful in cases where the information can be found and sourced. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the main reason is it doesn't really provide any useful information to anybody - any drug in use will have a therapeutic index that is high enough to warrant licensing, but there is no fixed value that means a drug will get a license or not. Therefore, to the vast majority of people (if not all) it would be useless. Aside from that, apart from licensing bodies (FDA, EMEA etc) I don't know where you would ever find this information. Do you have any current sources? ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The information seems useful for people determining, as a very rough guide, whether or not a drug is suitable for self-administration or whether it will require monitoring strictly or loosely. A wide therapeutic index drug, in general, is going to be much less dangerous for self-administration (because of a lower risk of side effects in the low doses) compared to a narrow therpeutic index drug. That's just how I saw it, I may not be right in assuming that. I'm not sure where one would find specific values--presumably from licensing bodies, as you mentioned, or from individual sources that discuss drug efficacies. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well any drug that is self-administered will have a rough minimum TI, but how does that help anyone? Should people not take the medicine because they do not think it's safe, just because of one figure? The licensing bodies have much more to go on, the TI barely comes into it. I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's a piece of information in demand, and certainly not a piece of information that is easy to come by, especially for drugs that are newer and potentially more dangerous than say, more established ones. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, a self-administered drug will have a high TI (because it's LD50 over ED50). Wikipedia isn't just for people looking for information about the drugs they're taking, it's for anyone that needs the information. Comparing TI of similar drugs, although a minor factor, can have a role in determining the safeties of those drugs. I accept your point regarding sourcing, that would be tough, but various sources do exist for specific drugs, so is there harm in having a variable on the box just in case? It could even fit in pretty nicely under therapeutic considerations. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Every drug that is licensed has to have a high TI, otherwise it's entirely possible the person will die just by taking the amount required for it to be effective. The other thing to remember is the TI can vary substantially given different conditions - for example an elderly patient may die/be harmed from a dose that may be suitable for a healthy adult in their twenties; this affects the LD50. Similar differences arise for ED50. The head of my pharmacy school used to work for a pharmaceutical company and he mentioned in a recent lecture how useless the TI measure is as a result in actual industry practice. I will make a point to ask him about this in the next few days if I see him. However, as a result of this, you're unlikely to find any data on it for any drug - if the info isn't there it's pointless further adding to an already expansive template. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 22:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you know more about the topic than I do (I'm only a lonely biomedical scientist) so I shan't complain with your logic much further, but I have to disagree regarding all licensed drugs having high TI ratios, because digoxin and warfarin have relatively narrow ranges. This article discusses the matter, and the importance of TI: [2] but do feel free to get your professor/lecturer to get more information. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 23:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on warfarin etc, but my main concern is that putting values in for such drugs, and then Joe Public using that info to determine - 'Hey that drug is unsafe', is a pointless exercise. The only people who need this information are the people in trials/testing, and they obv. can get that info from the companies direct. I just think it's going too far for this encyclopaedia. However, like I said, I'll happily check. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 07:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst true, the lay person won't need this information, I doubt they'd need much of the medical information on here. We're not just building the encyclopaedia for those lay people who have no idea about theraputic indices, we're also collecting as much information in one place for others such as those who develop drugs, those who need the information for statistical studies etc. I think it'd be useful to have another opinion on this; I'm not discounting your opinion nor crediting my own, just merely stating we have opposing views :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 10:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that Perspeculum sums up the usefulness/lack thereof of the index very well. Basically, I would hate to see anyone deciding about what medicines to take based on this index, as opposed to accepting the recommended dose in the package insert. For that matter, I'm not wild about anyone making a medical decision based on what they read in Wikipedia (see also WP:NOTGUIDE). Now, that said, the fact that the number is not useful by itself for making medical decisions does not make it unencyclopedic. I actually like the idea of including it in the template. At the level of scientific research, it's an interesting and informative property of a drug. PhD students, for example, might well want to look it up. So I would suggest keeping it in the template, but I would not want people making medical decisions based on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you, I don't in any way advocate people self-diagnosing or self-treating based on information on the internet--we still have doctors for a reason. But if we're going to worry about how people use the information on here, we may as well have no medical information at all. I doubt that anyone will use the therapeutic index in that way anyway, since you have to know what it is before you can use it as an evaluative tool. People are more likely to go looking at the signs and symptoms, treatment and prognosis sections of medical pages than the therapeutic index in drug boxes. All that said, it does have a use for research, so I do support it's inclusion in the template (it's not in there yet). I'd still appreciate a few more thoughts on the matter before I put in a request to an administrator. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 01:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As promised, a brief response from my head of school:

I think it can be extremely important where you have drugs with a narrow Therapeutic Index such as digoxin where the ratio of ED50 to LD50 may be as low as 2-3? However, for many drugs the ratio can be very large and there are no real issues at all. I would suggest then as a broad measure it is not particularly useful but in specific cases such as digoxin then it is, or some other warning is required.

From a regulatory perspective it will be a critical issue and especially if the ratio is low.

In keeping with this, I'd potentially support it's inclusion, but I think Tryptofish has got the idea - my main worry was the expansion of decision-making based on clinical data that people can't put in context. When I also think about it, I doubt many laypeople take the time to study the infobox given the complex nature of some of the values (how many people do you know that explain the term 'Bioavailability'?). As long as the field is hidden when empty, I'm going to provisionally support this providing accurate documentation is also provided for the template to indicate the importance of accuracy of the value - i.e. a PRIMARY source must be used to obtain it. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with those terms, but I don't know how to go about editing the template so I'll leave that to you or someone more qualified! Thanks for taking the time to check with your head of school. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So who can implement this? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 12:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I can add the field, just a case of taking the syntax from another free-text field. But I think waiting a couple more days to see if anyone else wants to pipe in would be best. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Just a couple of minor suggestions- Should 'Half life' be 'Half-life' Under 'ATC code' adding 'None' shows as 'none' - can this be changed to 'None'? May apply to other sections also.

Image2image (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Both corrected, admins please can you update the template to reflect the last two minor edits to the sandbox. Thanks. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Is there consensus for having upper case in the second column of info boxes? If so, the other param values (I can only find mab_type and source at the moment) should be fixed as well. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Disabled request for now as there has been no response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Corrected the above capitalisation. Back to you Martin :)

You don't have to pipe if the capitalization of the first letter is the only difference.

Done Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted, don't know why I didn't think of that. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This edit broke the markup for drugs with ATC_prefix = none. I fixed it in the sandbox; please update. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My fault, sorry about that. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Styling update

Hey folks,

I've finally finished the conversion of this template's styling code so that it matches the prevalent infobox styling which has developed over the project in the last few years. Basically, the changes are that the field shading for the key-value pairs have been removed and the labels bolded. The result is in the sandbox, and a comparison of old and new is available on the test cases page. Comments and suggestions welcome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks cool. No issues found at a quick glance. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No problems found, no opposition in over a week. Please implement. Thanks. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out I've made one minor correction to a wikilink in the sandbox, which should also be implemented along with this. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 23:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add synonym name for its complementary

See the topic for Detoll and Chloroxylenol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.215.44 (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.215.44 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you mean. There is already the parameter synonyms. There is no consensus for adding trade names to the drugbox (see e. g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)/Archive5#Trade names). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pubchem substance identifier

How do I put in a reference to a pubchem substance using this template. I can only seem to make links to pubchem compounds.

My scenario is that I want to link to [3] from Etanercept but the link comes up as [4] which is incorrect. Ansell 23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way I can see would be to add a new field to the box, and seperate them into Pubchem IDs for both compound and substance, depending on which one is appropriate. As it currently stands, the template will not accept the link you want to add. If this is a one off, you could always add it as a link at the foot of the page. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I copied the current template to {{Drugbox/sandbox}} and added another field for links to the Pubchem substance set. It may not be perfect but it works so far. Any comments welcome. Ansell 23:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be made impossible to add both fields – this might make the drugbox liable for table creep. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Alternatively it could be made clear in the documentation that only one field should be used. The new field doesn't appear if not filled in so won't affect existing templates. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 11:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The last edit has implemented the second PubChem parameter. I am still not sure whether this is wise or useful, but if we keep it, it should be mentioned in the documentation. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why people are so scared about having access to both datasets in PubChem. Is it clear that there are two completely distinct datasets there? Why wouldn't you want to have support for them, particularly as I found a case where access to the substance dataset is needed? Previously the template assumed that PubChem only had one dataset, the compounds.

It may be clearer to change the current 'pubchem' parameter to 'pubchemcompound' to remove all confusion. Hopefully then people would also need to know which part of PubChem they were referencing when they use the template so they don't put in substance ID's that are used by the template as compound ID's. I know it is annoying that the identifiers from the two datasets overlap but we can't really help that, just have to support it.

Sorry about not documenting it yet, just wanted to hear what people thought about it so far. Ansell 21:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem here. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 09:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the substance id is that PubChem can contain lots of substance entires with the same structure, but only one compound entry. Furthermore, the compound page links to the related substance pages, so there is usually no reason to link them from WP as well – it only bloats the infobox. I can only think of one reason where a link to the substance page might be useful: if there is no chemical structure (and consequently no compound page) available on PubChem, as with etanercept, which has 8 substance ids (and an additional one with the spelling "ethanercept"). By the way, people tend to link to the wrong compound ids if there are entries of different salts or stereochemistry, and the possibility of linking to substance ids will not make it any better. (Searching simvastatin returns 20 compound hits and 62 substance hits.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't appropriate to be linking to PubChem in many cases if there are so many duplicates. It is a pity that NCBI don't curate the dataset more to eliminate duplicates. From looking at the results of searches it appears that both datasets contain duplicates due to multiple imports from KEGG, DrugBank, CAS etc. that haven't been aggregated. Maybe it isn't reasonable to expect either PubChem compound or substance to have unique entries. Ansell 00:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, there are no duplicate compound entries, strictly speaking. For example, [5] and [6] are both simvastatin acid, but the second entry has one unspecified centre of chirality. I suspect that the entries are checked automatically, and even such marginal differences result in the creation of two different entries. So, at least, we know which is the (only) correct entry if we look careful enough. On the other hand, there are lots and lots of duplicate substance entries, obviously one for each data source. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, I propose the following:

Disable displaying the substance id if a compound id is given (to avoid list cruft)
Change the text in the left-hand cell from "PubChem compound" to "PubChem" (to avoid using two lines)
Display "CID nnnnn" or "SID nnnnn" in the right-hand cell

I'm aware that the abbreviations CID and SID are not self-explaining, but they are the official ones, and the words "compound" and "substance" don't explain anything in this context but only use up space. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) {{editprotected}} No opposition in a week. Please update template from sandbox. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

EMA website link

The EMA site has changed (no idea when) and the old links just error. The new search url is several lines long, and for future maintaince would be better in a subtemplate (that Chemo boxes might also use) - hence {{EMA-EPAR}}.

Whilst the EMA site now has a number of search options, seems best to keep it simple and continue searching by name (I think generic name now also works).

Whilst there is a search by ACT code option, I can't see how we might implement: most of our articles include ATC values, but EMA only has a minority of current drugs, so an automatic link would currently end up mostly to a negative search result (and infoboxes are not meant to inlcude negative fields). David Ruben ^Talk 14:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

and I promptly found the links failed to cross from subtemplate correctly.. hmmm, ?url too long or confusing with lots of "/" and "&" ? {{EMA-EPAR}} simplified to give the raw url rather than any link.

I've tested [{{EMA-EPAR|{{{1}}}}} Link] in the sand box, so implemented this coding approach.David Ruben ^Talk 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Vaccines usually don't need a structure drawing

{{editprotected}} I updated the code in the sandbox to exclude vaccines from being shown in Category:Drug pages needing a structure drawing (as is already the case with combination drugs and monoclonal antibodies). Could an admin copy this to the main template? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Protein Binding >> Plasma Protein Binding

Does anyone have any objection to me altering the heading 'Protein Binding' in the visible template to 'Plasma Protein Binding'? Just to distinguish it from tissue protein binding. I'll give it a few days then alter if no objections. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 14:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented this in the sandbox. I'm not sure the change a good idea because "Plasma protein binding" needs two lines of text and so enlarges the dugbox – see Template:Drugbox/testcases for an example. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I suppose given it at least links to the correct page, we should probably leave as it is for the moment then. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 23:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to KEGG DRUG database

{{edit protected}} In the Template:Chembox, a link to the KEGG COMPOUND database is already defined and used as a Template:Chembox_KEGG. In addition to the KEGG COMPOUND database, the KEGG project have also developed a database for drugs, the KEGG DRUG database, which currently contains >9,000 entries. Therefore, I would like to request to include a link to this database in the Template:Drugbox template, something like:

{{#if:{{{KEGG|}}} |
! [[KEGG]]
{{!}} <span class="reflink plainlinks nourlexpansion">[http://www.kegg.jp/entry/{{{KEGG}}} {{{KEGG}}}]</span>
}}
|-

Skwsm (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the update. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Link from CAS number

Passing on a suggestion from our friends at the U.S. FDA: why does the CAS number link to MeSH? A link to ChemIDplus (also a National Library of Medicine database) would provide much more information for readers (including the MeSH name). The URL for the ChemIDplus entry for paracetamol is http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/ProxyServlet?objectHandle=DBMaint&actionHandle=default&nextPage=jsp/chemidheavy/ResultScreen.jsp&ROW_NUM=0&TXTSUPERLISTID=0000103902 Physchim62 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For me, this link only shows a navigation bar, no mention of paracetamol. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

StdInChI / StdInChIKey

I have been adding lately quite some InChI's (at the moment, mainly StdInChI's) and their corresponding keys to the drugbox. The parameters are now ignored by the box, and just sit there. However, if they would be rendered in the final output of the page, then they would be indexed by Google, which would make compounds on Wikipedia even easier to find from outside. The problem is, these things are long and ugly. {{Chembox}} uses a trick to hide them in display (still they are visible in the rendered code, and can be shown if the reader wants to). As I don't want to tamper with this part of the wikicode of the drugbox without discussion, may I ask the regular drugbox users, if they want the InChI's in the final box, and how (one could also consider a solution where they are not shown, but at least get parsed into the final page, so that Google will index them). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Chembox's solution is still quite spacey in my opinion (2 lines for InChI and 2 for InChIKey, not counting additional InChIs). What about putting "InChi/Key" or similar in the left column and "[show]" in the right? Hiding both values behind one [show] saves space and clicks. This would also be a suggestion for the chembox. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed planing to do something like that with the chembox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have upgraded the display in the chembox. Maybe something similar for the drugbox? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. The horizontal line between multiple SMILES is a bit irritating, but I can't think of a better solution. Support doing the same with the drugbox. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking to only display the StdInChI / StdInChIKey for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I added StdInChI and StdInChIKey. Not sure where the bolding is originating from (would like to get rid of that). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed in the sandbox. The drawback is that the entry "InChI" isn't a header cell any more; the bolding comes solely from the fact that it is the title of a collapsible box, as far as I see. No visible diffference, but could confuse programs that read the HTML code (search engines?). The other possiblity I see would be explicitly setting the font-weight to normal via a span HTML tag with the style parameter set. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I also changed "IUPHAR ligand ID" to "IUPHAR ligand" for consistency with the chembox. Also, I seem to recall that the longer title wraps under certain environments. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Another one: The left-hand column displays centered text on this computer but left-aligned text on the one standing next to me. Both WinXP/IE8. Wouldn't be a problem if InChI weren't displayed left-aligned on both computers. Any idea? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}} Please update from sandbox. Contains fix to the problem (bolding) mentioned above, as well as other minor changes – "IUPHAR ligand ID" changed to "IUPHAR ligand", got rid of an out-of-place line break, added wikilink to "Dependence liability" and removed capital letter, added a "?" if Legal status not specified, "EU EMA" canged to "EMA". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Related to the StdInChI / StdInChIKey thread above. Drugbox does show a Y where the data in the box is checked by the bot to be the same as the verified data (for the verified parameters: ChemSpiderID, UNII, StdInChI and StdInChIKey). {{Chembox}} additionally also shows that on the separate parameters (if ChemSpiderID is correct, the number gets a Y, otherwise it gets a N). This helps in knowing what data is correct, and what may have been changed or contested (or even, vandalised). Having the correct identifiers on the page is of great value, as these identifiers can be used to link into a wealth of information (with a much greater ease than, e.g. the name of the compound. The parameters that allow for this are there already in the box (updated by User:CheMoBot (this also means that in the page code one can easily see which parameter is correct, the info is just not visible at the moment in the shown page).

Would it be beneficial to this box to have not only a Y at the bottom if all are correct, but also Ys on the verified and correct identifiers? Would there be interest in having these displayed in the page? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. By the way, do you know a bot accessible database for ATC codes? My bot is currently adding redirects (e. g. ATC code J01AA02 -> Doxycyclin) based on the ATC code lists; the next step will be checking drug-/chemboxes against these lists; and then this task could be used to support CheMoBot's chembox checking task. What do you think? (It will be a few months, though, till I get there.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good for the ATC codes: there are still many chemboxes without the ATC code (when it exists), and that would help us ensure that pharmacological uses are given proper attention. Physchim62 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have such a list .. I will program my script to update them in the boxes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the other way round – I've got most of the program code but no list. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. annoying. We now have some verified identifiers on Wikipedia, with which it should be possible to source them .. if there is such a database somewhere. I'll ask around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented this, ChemSpiderID, UNII will now show ticks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What about CAS no. and InChI(Key), aren't they checked as well? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

CAS_No verification is now dropped for the moment (as we have run into 'where to verify the ones that are still missing', while for CSID we can achieve close to 100% coverage quite fast). StdInChI(Key) are also checked and tagged as such (updating them at the moment), but they are not yet displayed (see thread above). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I momentarily forgot about InChI...

Isn't "{{#if:{{{CAS_number_Ref|}}}|{{{CAS_number_Ref}}}}}" the same as "{{{CAS_number_Ref|}}}"?

And could you change "[[Plasma protein binding]]" back to "[[Plasma protein binding|Protein binding]]"? The first needs two lines of text (see thread #4 above). Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Both adapted, sandbox also synchronised. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)