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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
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 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)
|type=combo
, multiple drugs mixed.|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 (633). -
DePiep (
talk)
17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
|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)
|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).|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).|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
?See WP:PHARM:talk. - DePiep ( talk) 14:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
|legal_...=
, mentioned in the the link. -
DePiep (
talk)
10:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)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 (3,072)).
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)
Done. Some pages are added to Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status (3,072) (was: 1525 P). - DePiep ( talk) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Currently, drugs that are not available are categorised in: Category:Experimental drugs (224) and Category:Abandoned drugs (845).
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)
|development_status=
.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]]
|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)Preparing minor changes:
|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.@ 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 merge {{ Infobox neurohormone}} (~10 P) into {{ Infobox drug}}. As the Testcases show, this would add a section "Pharmacological data" with 8 new parameters.
I support the merge. I have some practical questions and suggestions, more about details.
|type=hormone
(or an other covering drugtype-id, 'neuro'?). Allows us to control or check the parameter usage (prevent inconsistent usage). And categorise in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Drugs by type.|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)
|type=neuro
, from list: vaccin/mab/combo/neuro/<blank>. Used parameternames as proposed here. Removed the 300px width setting.|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.
|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)
|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)|subtype=
for this, in top of this new data block? -
DePiep (
talk)
07:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)|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)|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)|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)
|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)
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 -->
|type=
(drugtype). So treated as a 'single chemical component' (not combo, mab, vaccin). Also not distincted in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Drugs by type.- 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)
{{ Infobox neurotransmitter}} now can be merged (replace by {{ Infobox drug}}, use applicable parameters). - DePiep ( talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Replace {{ Infobox neurotransmitter}} with {{ Infobox drug}}. Adjust parameter names (Preview is your friend).
- DePiep ( talk) 20:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox drug has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
[1] Why doesn't show this? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 07:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox drug/legal status has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
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|}}} }} |
|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
Legal status | |
---|---|
Legal status |
|
Why?
rtc ( talk) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
| anlage | npsg | neuer psychoaktiver stoff = NpSG (Industrial and scientific use only)
|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)= 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)
Done. - DePiep ( talk) 18:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
|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).|licence_EU=
has input, then link the INN to the EMA 'active substance' page.|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)Prepared in sandbox. See /testcases. - DePiep ( talk) 16:54, 18 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))
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)
Blue links that already show the EU licence (113 pages having licence-EU input): 98
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
edit request to
Template:Infobox drug/legal status has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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|}}}
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 |
Legal status | |
---|---|
Legal status |
|
Markfeio ( talk) 19:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
|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)
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)
|legal_BR=Unscheduled
needed? -
DePiep (
talk)
18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
|legal_BR=Unscheduled
added (we want to have as few 'unrecognised input' as possible). -
DePiep (
talk)
20:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)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)
See WP:PHARM#USAN_etc_in_drugbox. - DePiep ( talk) 11:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
In the infobox at
Ephedrine the legal status in the US is shown as "List I 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)
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)
|drug_name=
per {{
Infobox drug/doc}}.|INN_EMA=
with the correct search term in case. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)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)
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)
Clinical data | |
---|---|
Defined daily dose | 1 gram [1] |
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, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chemical compounds and Wikidata). - DePiep ( talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC) @ Doc James:. - DePiep ( talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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)
|DailyMedID=
is available. -
DePiep (
talk)
12:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
|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)
|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=
[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).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)
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)
| CAS_number = | CAS_supplemental = | PubChem = | PubChemSubstance = | IUPHAR_ligand = | DrugBank = | ChemSpiderID = | UNII = | KEGG = | ChEBI = | ChEMBL = | PDB_ligand = | NIAID_ChemDB =
| Drugs.com = | MedlinePlus =
Sure we should move out
| smiles = | StdInChI = | StdInChIKey =
right? Being extremely non-human readable. - DePiep ( talk) 14:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
But I've pulled the topic widerOkay, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@
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)
Strongly oppose. I still think collapsing portions of the navbox makes more sense than splitting it. Boghog ( talk) 22:08, 28 September 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)
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)
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)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
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 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)
|type=combo
, multiple drugs mixed.|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 (633). -
DePiep (
talk)
17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
|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)
|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).|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).|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
?See WP:PHARM:talk. - DePiep ( talk) 14:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
|legal_...=
, mentioned in the the link. -
DePiep (
talk)
10:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)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 (3,072)).
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)
Done. Some pages are added to Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status (3,072) (was: 1525 P). - DePiep ( talk) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Currently, drugs that are not available are categorised in: Category:Experimental drugs (224) and Category:Abandoned drugs (845).
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)
|development_status=
.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]]
|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)Preparing minor changes:
|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.@ 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 merge {{ Infobox neurohormone}} (~10 P) into {{ Infobox drug}}. As the Testcases show, this would add a section "Pharmacological data" with 8 new parameters.
I support the merge. I have some practical questions and suggestions, more about details.
|type=hormone
(or an other covering drugtype-id, 'neuro'?). Allows us to control or check the parameter usage (prevent inconsistent usage). And categorise in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Drugs by type.|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)
|type=neuro
, from list: vaccin/mab/combo/neuro/<blank>. Used parameternames as proposed here. Removed the 300px width setting.|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.
|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)
|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)|subtype=
for this, in top of this new data block? -
DePiep (
talk)
07:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)|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)|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)|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)
|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)
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 -->
|type=
(drugtype). So treated as a 'single chemical component' (not combo, mab, vaccin). Also not distincted in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Drugs by type.- 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)
{{ Infobox neurotransmitter}} now can be merged (replace by {{ Infobox drug}}, use applicable parameters). - DePiep ( talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Replace {{ Infobox neurotransmitter}} with {{ Infobox drug}}. Adjust parameter names (Preview is your friend).
- DePiep ( talk) 20:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox drug has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
[1] Why doesn't show this? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 07:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox drug/legal status has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
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|}}} }} |
|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
Legal status | |
---|---|
Legal status |
|
Why?
rtc ( talk) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
| anlage | npsg | neuer psychoaktiver stoff = NpSG (Industrial and scientific use only)
|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)= 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)
Done. - DePiep ( talk) 18:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
|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).|licence_EU=
has input, then link the INN to the EMA 'active substance' page.|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)Prepared in sandbox. See /testcases. - DePiep ( talk) 16:54, 18 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))
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)
Blue links that already show the EU licence (113 pages having licence-EU input): 98
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
edit request to
Template:Infobox drug/legal status has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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|}}}
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 |
Legal status | |
---|---|
Legal status |
|
Markfeio ( talk) 19:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
|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)
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)
|legal_BR=Unscheduled
needed? -
DePiep (
talk)
18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
|legal_BR=Unscheduled
added (we want to have as few 'unrecognised input' as possible). -
DePiep (
talk)
20:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)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)
See WP:PHARM#USAN_etc_in_drugbox. - DePiep ( talk) 11:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
In the infobox at
Ephedrine the legal status in the US is shown as "List I 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)
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)
|drug_name=
per {{
Infobox drug/doc}}.|INN_EMA=
with the correct search term in case. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)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)
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)
Clinical data | |
---|---|
Defined daily dose | 1 gram [1] |
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, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chemical compounds and Wikidata). - DePiep ( talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC) @ Doc James:. - DePiep ( talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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)
|DailyMedID=
is available. -
DePiep (
talk)
12:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
|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)
|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=
[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).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)
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)
| CAS_number = | CAS_supplemental = | PubChem = | PubChemSubstance = | IUPHAR_ligand = | DrugBank = | ChemSpiderID = | UNII = | KEGG = | ChEBI = | ChEMBL = | PDB_ligand = | NIAID_ChemDB =
| Drugs.com = | MedlinePlus =
Sure we should move out
| smiles = | StdInChI = | StdInChIKey =
right? Being extremely non-human readable. - DePiep ( talk) 14:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
But I've pulled the topic widerOkay, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@
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)
Strongly oppose. I still think collapsing portions of the navbox makes more sense than splitting it. Boghog ( talk) 22:08, 28 September 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)
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)
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)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)