Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

GoodRx

What is GoodRx and why should we add it to the drugbox?

As for what GoodRx is, their support page probably explains it best: What is GoodRx? How does it work? – fairly concise summary of what services GoodRx provides How does GoodRx make money? – explains where their revenue comes from As for why we should add it to the drugbox: The retail cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States is often prohibitively expensive. It's not hyperbole to say that adding GoodRx links to the article drugboxes could potentially save someone's life (I'll substantiate that assertion using insulin (medication) as an example of how and why) merely by facilitating the use of a service that provides consumer drug price information as well as drug coupons that typically discount the retail cost of a prescription significantly; at the very least, adding these links will help US consumers who click the drugbox's price data link to avoid exorbitant drug costs. I realize that this is a lengthy post, but I clearly illustrate the benefit that this website can provide to consumers in the examples below. Insulin analogs See this Google search for the string 'insulin cost United States death' and just pick any article (e.g., [1], [2] [3]) In a nutshell, they all say the same thing: the rising prices of insulin analogs in the United States has made it prohibitively costly for some people to fill a prescription for one of those drugs. The clinical efficacy of insulin analogs for diabetes is completely irrelevant if people can't afford to buy them. The news articles from the google search and the examples I provided all say that insulin analogs (nearly all of which cost >$300 out of pocket per the news articles and from checking every link in GoodRx's insulins drug category page; NB: the prices listed next to the drugs on that page are "GoodRx fair prices", not the lowest price with their coupons) are prohibitively costly for diabetics without health insurance; some ration their insulin and/or don't fill prescriptions, and in some cases doing that has led to diabetic ketoacidosis and resulted in death, as stated in those sources. The majority of those articles specifically mention prices for various dosage forms of brand name or generic Humalog (insulin lispro), which is the cheapest short-acting insulin analog (NB: none of those articles mention GoodRx or online drug coupons). If you compare the prices for brand name Humalog/generic insulin lispro mentioned in the sources to the retail prices on GoodRx's generic Humalog page, you'll notice they're more-or-less the same as what's listed there, but GoodRx's Coupons for generic Humalog discount the retail price by ~60% for all three dosage forms (i.e., the kwikpen, carton, and vial). In other words, if someone with diabetes lacks insurance and can only afford to pay a certain $ amount out of pocket for generic Humalog each month due to financial constraints, using GoodRx Coupons will more than double their purchasing power of insulin lispro at that $ amount (i.e., with GoodRx coupons, a consumer with a limited/fixed budget can buy approximately 2.5 times as much insulin lispro for the same total cost as they could without those coupons). That increase in purchasing power could very well obviate the need for a person to ration insulin or forego their prescriptions, thereby mitigating the ketoacidosis risk. @Doc James: I imagine you added some of the content in Insulin lispro#Cost to that article since it looks like your style of writing. Compare GoodRx's Coupon price of $68.38 and estimated retail price of $165.00 for a vial (10 ml insulin lispro 100 units/ml) to the following sentence from Insulin lispro#Cost about the price of that drug product: In April of 2019, Eli Lilly and Company announced they would produce a version selling for $137.35 per vial, about half the current cost. I hope that it's now clear why it would be prudent to provide links to the GoodRx website from drug articles – particularly articles on expensive prescription drugs – as well as why simply listing GoodRx's price data on Wikipedia isn't useful; if it isn't clear though, it's because that ~60% discounted price requires that a person print out this coupon for a vial (10 ml insulin lispro 100 units/ml) and take it to a Walgreens pharmacy where that coupon for that price is valid. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Two widely prescribed generic antibiotics (levofloxacin & azithromycin) This is a study of prescription drug economics/cost-minimization conducted by USC that used GoodRx data+coupons; I've quoted all of the relevant content from this source on GoodRx below. It's not the only pubmed-indexed article that used GoodRx data for research purposes (e.g., PMID 28895827, 30796990), but it's the only one I've come across that analyzed the utility of GoodRx for prescription drug cost minimization in the United States. It's worth reading the excerpts below IMO. Reflist with excerpts from the study on prescription drug cost minimization References So just to summarize: GoodRx provides a valuable prescription drug price comparison tool and coupons that often steeply discount the exorbitant retail prices of prescription drugs in the US. It helps uninsured individuals and families as well as those with high deductible plans to afford medications they'd otherwise be unable to purchase with no strings attached. And, in exceptionally rare circumstances, using GoodRx can increase the purchasing power of an individual with a limited budget enough to be able to afford sufficient quantities of a medication so as to prevent potentially lethal complications that result from treatment/management non-compliance. This is US-centric content and it is just another external link in the drugbox, but personally I think the potential benefits that this offers to our readers and the number of readers who can benefit from including this link (relative to all the other random crap we link to in the drugbox – see #Clinical data and Identifiers below) merits its inclusion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Following up on Talk:Epinephrine (medication)#Cost information in the United States, what do others think of placing a GoodRx link in the drugbox template? We could use a left-hand side field as "US consumer prices" and the RHS could just link directly to the corresponding GoodRx webpage(s) listed on Wikidata for an article (that'd require creating an identifier property for GoodRx). I'd be willing to add the corresponding identifiers to all of the Wikidata entries on prescription drugs listed on the GoodRx website with a bot if there's consensus to do add it to the drugbox. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

First impression: better not. GoodRx is not encyclopedic, is it? It's like a marketing tool. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Drug articles currently contain price information and most reputable sources (even including a number of PubMed-indexed publications) that report US consumer price information cite GoodRx’s drug prices. Anyway, since individual drug products from different pharmacies are perfect substitutes, the only factor that matters in marketing drug products (by a pharmacy, not a pharmaceutical company) is price. So, that website is more of a cost-minimization tool for consumers than a marketing tool for pharmacies. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

How is it encyclopedic to provide the cost links? WP:LINKFARM comes to mind. What's next? Second car prices? Also, the information is US specific. ~So far, I object to including this. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: Amphetamine is an atypical example since most drugs don't have 6 approved formulations. Even so, I could just add the top 2 or 3 most prescribed formulations and list the brand names instead of lengthier generic names (NB: if a formulation has a generic, price data for either the brand name version or generic version can be displayed by selecting brand/generic in the dropdown list at the top left of the corresponding webpage, so it isn't misleading to list the brand name instead of the generic name); . That data is included on each of their drug product webpages.

Re the US-centric data: we already have 3 US-specific fields in the current drugbox (see the 2nd drugbox example below for amphetamine). If desired, we could change the LHS to "Consumer prices" and modify the RHS to prepend US: to permit the inclusion of price data for other countries/regions that are currently supported by the drugbox.

Would doing it that way be more amenable to you? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I am not convinced that it is encyclopedical, let alone belong in an infobox. Bringing up the argument "saves lives" sort of proves that. (Below is a subthread on splicing the el's from the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Could you offer your input? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What does "RHS" stand for? I am okay with GoodRx. We also have this website which I primarily use for US prices.[4]

User:Seppi333 do you have an example of what you propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

l-Norpseudoephedrine

Chemical and physical data
Formula	C9H13NO
Molar mass	151.209 g·mol−1

@Doc James: Using the drugbox to the right for reference, the left-hand side (LHS) fields are "Formula" and "Molar mass" and the corresponding right-hand side (RHS) fields are C₉H₁₃NO and 151.209 g·mol⁻¹.
Since a given drug article may have several drug products associated with it, I'd code it so that it pulls the GoodRx pagenames (which is the name of the drug product) and corresponding urls from WikiData and displays each entry in a list using this syntax: [GoodRx_url Pagename_of_Drug_product]; e.g., Amphetamine Salt Combo, Amphetamine Salt Combo XR, Mydayis, Adzenys XR-ODT, Dyanavel XR, Amphetamine Sulfate, Dexedrine Spansule, Zenzedi, Lisdexamfetamine. Those products and links are the same ones from this table: Amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't think most drugs will have that many links; e.g., the amphetamine article would only have the first 6 above listed in its drugbox. I need to request access to GoodRx's database to obtain the pagenames, urls, and hopefully the corresponding INN for each drug product to be able to program a bot to add these though (lacking the INN would make this task a pain in the ass). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Amphetamine

I'll code a template sandbox example in a bit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Example shown to the right. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice to have the actual numbers within Wikipedia not just the links. People should not have to go elsewhere.

Am working on a clean up of Wikidata's medication information. We are going to work on making sure all entires have the proper INN (in multiple languages), followed by adding the medicaid pricing information for wholesale. We could also than look at adding GoodRx data. We could than whichever number we want from Wikidata. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how wholesale price information would be useful to any of our readers. The intent behind my proposal is to link to current consumer drug price and pharmacy information externally, not list historical consumer price data internally; we can't provide the current price data on Wikipedia since consumer drug prices in the US change frequently and it doesn't seem feasible to regularly automatically update drug prices from the GoodRx database: assuming we were able to pull drug price data from GoodRx's database whenever we wanted, we'd have to edit a couple thousand wikidata items every time we import new price data from their database. Our readers who are interested in current price data would have to go to their website regardless of whether we list GoodRx price data on WP since we don't provide the necessary drug coupons for buying a medication at those prices and we wouldn't list the corresponding pharmacy to which the GoodRx price we list pertains.

Like I said before, I'm willing to write a bot script in python to import the urls and pagenames from GoodRx to the appropriate wikidata items if there's consensus to add the external links. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The wholesale and retail price vary little from each other. I am okay with either. I however do not want just a link, I want the actual number. Yes we may need to update it once a year, but people should not have to go elsewhere. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose support I advocate for human readable information in the infobox, and for machine readable information and external link collections to be at the bottom in an authority control box. We have discussed drug infoboxes a lot in the past. I do not like the present boxes with the collection of links which take up valuable space and human attention at the top of the article but which either or both convey no useful information and advertise an external collection. I would support the addition of GoodRx and similar database links at the bottom of the article but oppose it being added to the collection in the highly visible infobox at the top. Additionally I advocate for the other links being removed from the top and for the infobox to be entirely intended to convey topic-specific information to humans. My opposition is not about GoodRx and is only about adding more coded information and brand advertising. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Bravo. This is a good description of the concept of WP:INFOBOX, and the deviation {{Infobox drug}} has accumulated. Too often the infobox is seen (by highly regarded editors in this) as a data sheet for consumers & doctors, not an encyclopedic summary of a medicine. Earlier on, I suggested we could move a set of data to the External links section, probably in a template but definitely not an infobox. Similar issue plays in {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)]

TBC: I said Bravo to the original opposition (argumentation). _DePiep (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Different people have different opinions on the layout and content of infoboxes, as it's not standardized. MOS:INFOBOX doesn't preclude the inclusion of ELs in infoboxes after all. Other editors think infoboxes detract from articles. Removing all the ELs from the infobox isn't the "right way" to present summary/supplemental data to our readers; it's merely one way of doing it. As for the EL template, we are 100% going to use a scaled down version of the drugbox. When I said – "The first is that I imagine a lot of readers will have no clue what happened to every drugbox on Wikipedia if we suddenly cut them in half without providing some kind of indication of what we did with the other half of the drugbox data (it's not like they're going to know we've moved it to an EL section and I doubt most of them will scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to try to find what we did with it). The second is that all of those links are still very much pertitent to the Drugbox even after being split out, so there should be a means of navigating to them quickly within the Drugbox (this is analogous to the "Supplementary data page" link in the chembox)." – I meant it at face value. We're going to cut the drugbox in two and keep the appearance identical; and, that's why that there's going to be a link from the drugbox at the top of the page to the External data half at the bottom. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the appearences of an infobox, any infobox, follows from its informational description (say MOS:INFOBOX). For exampple, since it is some summary of the article topic, we can not reuse it for an EL list. Sure readers might be surprised when the Drugbox changes (half a dozen el's disappear), but that does not imply that the new EL list is an infobox in any sense (this is more a soft change management issue). After all, this is removing those el's from Drugbox because they don't belong in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Amphetamine

Clinical data
License data	US DailyMed: 53d40847-e0d3-48ec-81a7-ec5478553565 US FDA: amphetamine
../licence/sandbox
License data	US DailyMed: 53d40847-e0d3-48ec-81a7-ec5478553565 US FDA: amphetamine

@Bluerasberry and DePiep: I've added a lengthy explanation about what GoodRx is, the services it provides, the motivation for adding this link to the drugbox, and clearly illustrated the utility of GoodRx to consumers with 2 examples. I strongly suggest reading all of it; but, at the very least, just read the quoted excerpts from the journal citation.

@DePiep: I've modified the LHS and RHS to prepend "US:" on the RHS for consistency with the other fields. I'm completely open to suggestions/feedback on this and would also be fine with limiting the number of external links to 2 for the RHS if limiting it to 3 is still a problem for you; that said, I'd be pretty appalled if, after reading what I wrote in the collapse tab above, you still felt opposed to adding a GoodRx field to the drugbox solely because it includes retail price data and drug coupons.

@Bluerasberry: See the drugbox to the right for the "Clinical data" fields that I'm referring to immediately below, including the proposed GoodRx field. I agree with you that the identifiers should probably be moved but I strongly disagree about the clinical data links. It is not even remotely possible for us to include the price information and GoodRx coupons for drugs on Wikipedia that're listed on the GoodRx website; the only way to make that content available is to externally link to it. While GoodRx does get around 10 million visits to its site per month, not many people actually know about GoodRx; if you read the news articles I linked about insulin, you might've already realized that. I'm hoping you consider the benefit to WP readers in the US from linking to a website that offers significant cost savings on prescription drugs to outweigh the cost of a slightly less visually appealing drugbox as a result of 1 new infobox field. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

1. We currently have 7 Clinical data fields (the 2 ATC parameters below count as 1 field) that link to an external source and list only the drug name, a code, or the name of the corresponding website with a hyperlink on the right-hand side. While the websites that are linked serve different purposes, these links are all displayed the same way as the field that I've proposed adding for GoodRx. With exception for the ATC code and DailyMed ID (which uses the National Drug Code for a drug as the input), none of these fields are coded.
   All of the fields in this section and all of the corresponding websites supplied as an external link in this section should be human readable; with exception for the ATC code link to the WHO page, all of those websites are human readable. As for the GoodRx website, that's obviously human readable; it wouldn't be a price comparison website if it weren't. As mentioned below, it also provides clinical data in the "Drug Info" tab (example).
   
   Given the utility that the clinical data external links provides the drugbox (in terms of clinically-relevant information about the drug as opposed to about the compound), none of these should be moved out of the drugbox. I imagine a significant fraction of readers of a drug article would be interested in the website content from one or more of these links since they all contain clinically-relevant drug information.
   
   
2. We also have 12 Identifiers fields that link to an external source and generally display a hyperlinked website-specific identifier for the corresponding webpage on the right-hand side. While these fields all just link to another website like the clinical data links do, the type of content they contain is entirely different from the content the clinical data websites contain (even the ATC code WHO link includes dosing info). Besides price information, GoodRx also contains clinical data on dosage forms, strengths, and brand vs generic formulation for an active ingredient as well as other clinical data in the "Drug Info" tab (example) on common side effects, indications, interactions and precautions, etc.; hence, the proposed GoodRx field is also entirely different from the identifier links. All of these fields are coded.
   While I personally find some of these database links useful and handy to have in the drugbox for my own use, I recognize that the content is probably only useful/relevant to <1% of the readers of a drug article. Given the wide range in types of external links included here and the general lack of utility to the average reader, I agree that moving this out of the drugbox and into an article footer template for external links might be a good idea. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Clinical data and identifiers parameters

<!-- Clinical data --> | Drugs.com = | MedlinePlus = | licence_CA = <!-- Health Canada may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> | licence_EU = <!-- EMA uses INN (or special INN_EMA) --> | DailyMedID = <!-- DailyMed may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> | licence_US = <!-- FDA may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> | ATC_prefix = <!-- 'none' if uncategorised --> | ATC_suffix = <!--Identifiers--> | CAS_number = | PubChem = | PubChemSubstance = | IUPHAR_ligand = | DrugBank = | ChemSpiderID = | UNII = | KEGG = | ChEBI = | ChEMBL = | NIAID_ChemDB = | PDB_ligand =

@Seppi333: I have failed to make myself understood. I am not contesting the quality of the information or its inclusion. I only object to its placement at the top of the article rather than at the bottom. None of the above information is of any use to an end consumer. I advocate that everything in an infobox, with the exception of 1 external link to an official website if applicable, should be to inform a human immediately upon reading without any additional clicks. I oppose placement in the top primary infobox and will support placement anywhere outside of and below the primary infobox at the top. I am already in agreement with your argument for the value of this content.

If you fear the bureaucratic process of moving these links out from the top to elsewhere, then I would support you including GoodRx or anything else at the top now as a temporary measure, so long as you agree and assert that all this content is inappropriately placed, problematic, and needs to be moved as soon as possible.

If you have other ideas I am ready to find a way to support your idea to share access to this information, which is a good idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also supportive of moving a bunch of technical stuff to the end of the article. We have finished doing this for disease related articles on EN WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(part of the talk here ended up in section #Prototype below)

(ec) Re Seppi: Good, except for the link to EL-box in the infobox. OF course, every EL related to the infobox and v.v.: that connection is the article title. (But maybe temporally useful because of the change).

To improve the process & thinking: I oppose adding GoodRx to the infobox. (Doesn't this split need a separate thread?). -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am adamantly opposed to splitting the drugbox without adding that wikilink. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the point: add this new external link in in the el section, not in the infobox. Are you suggesting we must add it to the infobox before ou would consider moving links down the article? Sounds like you are bartering with non-existant goods. What leverage does this threat have? -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not before. That would be odd. Ignoring the consensus issue, who else would be coding a bot script to do this if it weren’t me? This isn’t a simple edit to the drugbox we’re talking about. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit: if you meant the GoodRx link instead of the EL box wikilink, then yes, I did mean before. I intend to write the import script before I write the one to split the drugbox. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

oppose. I'd agree if the price was listed, with GoodRx as the reference but not with a straight up link. While I agree this is in the public good for US citizens (as already pointed out) I see a lot of dangers. (1) I can't find precedent for including a for-profit link in the infobox (I equate this (from a philosophical point of view) to having the IMDB or Rotten Tomato link in the infobox of a movie), but I think much of the general community would oppose. (2) Their profit model could change, without disclosure, and we could be giving bad and unverifiable information. (3) Their methods seem to be bit of a black box; we can't independently verify accuracy or that they're unbiased (4) There may be bias in the way information is presented (e.g. the referral fees or advertising that is not well marked as such) (5) very specific to the US. Overall; I like the idea as a public service but oppose it because it's easily corruptible by the company and it gives them a significant, and unfair advantage over anyone else that may be providing the same or similar services. Ian Furst (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ian Furst: Every DrugBank link in a drugbox, as of right now, is a for profit link. If you go to any drugbank page (e.g., https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00295 https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00910), you'll see an ad in the top-right of the loaded page that says things like: "High-quality data is the first step for training Machine-Learning and Artificial Intelligence models." and "Learn more about how you can use our data to enhance your EMR System!" Click that link and you'll immediately be taken to https://www.drugbankplus.com. I got excited by the idea that I'd be able to use a drugbank API when I saw the AI banner, but I'm not paying for that. . Not only that, but adverse effects, contraindications, and black box warnings are all behind a paywall as well (just load a page and search the term "ADDITIONAL DATA AVAILABLE"). At least GoodRx doesn't let down their users with a paywall for their services. EDIT: as of right now, your points about (2) and (3) apply to GoodRx and Drugbank equally, but (4) applies even moreso to Drugbank since it makes no attempt whatsoever to explain its business model. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• support per Blue Rasberry rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Prototype for Template:External links list Drug

See Special:Permalink/911052801#External data for an example that includes template fields that are pulled from wikidata. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

{{External links list|GoodRx= [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo Adderall], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo-xr Adderall XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-sulfate  Evekeo]| MedlinePlus = a616004 | license_US = amphetamine | licence_EU = yes | INN_EMA = amphetamine | Drugs.com = {{Drugs.com|parent|amphetamine}}| ATC_prefix = N06| ATC_suffix   = BA01| CAS_number_Ref = {{cascite|correct|CAS}} | CAS_number = 300-62-9 | PubChem = 3007 | IUPHAR_ligand = 4804 | DrugBank_Ref = {{drugbankcite|correct|drugbank}} | DrugBank = DB00182 | ChemSpiderID_Ref = {{chemspidercite|correct|chemspider}} | ChemSpiderID = 13852819 | UNII_Ref = {{fdacite|correct|FDA}} | UNII = CK833KGX7E | KEGG_Ref = {{keggcite|correct|kegg}} | KEGG = D07445 | ChEBI_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEBI = 2679 | ChEMBL_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEMBL = 405 | NIAID_ChemDB = 018564 | PDB_ligand = 1WE| smiles = NC(CC1=CC=CC=C1)C}}

@Bluerasberry: I'd be fine with moving all the fields in the drugbox that list an external link – including DailyMedID, Drugs.com, MedlinePlus, licence_CA/EU/US, ATC code, GoodRx, every identifier except the IUPAC name, and the 3D model image – into a new EL template for drug articles and then using a bot to remove all those parameters from the drugbox while simultaneously placing that new template in the "External links" section of every drug article. One further condition is that we'd need to include a link to the external links section (e.g., something like [[#External links|External data]] or [[#External data|External data]] provided that I add {{Anchor|External data}} to the heading of the new template) at the bottom of the Drugbox for two reasons. The first is that I imagine a lot of readers will have no clue what happened to every drugbox on Wikipedia if we suddenly cut them in half without providing some kind of indication of what we did with the other half of the drugbox data (it's not like they're going to know we've moved it to an EL section and I doubt most of them will scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to try to find what we did with it). The second is that all of those links are still very much pertitent to the Drugbox even after being split out, so there should be a means of navigating to them quickly within the Drugbox (this is analogous to the "Supplementary data page" link in the chembox).

Using the authority control template for displaying that content is a bad idea IMO. Too much garbage gets lumped into it and I've deleted it from several drug articles for that reason. Also, when there's a lot of data mapped into that template, it looks like Template:Authority control#Examples; those "examples" are almost unreadable.

Anyway, if you're alright with the approach I've described above, it should be proposed at WT:PHARM for further input. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: does that approach sound fine to you? If so, are you fine with adding the GoodRx field to the Drugbox for now? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We need to add the actual number. I am working to do that but it will take a few months. The license I think is good in the infobox at the top rather than the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: As I mentioned above, adding price data from GoodRx isn't useful IMO. If you want to do that with another data source, that sounds fine; however, this proposal pertains to adding an EL to the drugbox (and subsequently, the external data box) for the reasons I've explained above. I'd appreciate it if you commented on that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So I support adding price data and the link as a reference. I do not support just adding it as an EL to the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I'm about to ask GoodRx to give me access to their database or send me a dataset containing the relevant data I need. Will see if it's possible to obtain that as well. As for price, is it the current lowest GoodRx Coupon price you're interested in using? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that since some brands contain multiple dosage forms (e.g., insulin lispro - vial/kwikpen/carton, as described above), it'll be a tough ask to give me as much data as I'm looking for if they send me a dataset. If I can get access to their database, I can get the data you're looking for, but if not, an external link will have to suffice. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit:I could potentially update this once every 1-3 months and list the lowest price associated with each brand name in the Dbox/EL section if that would be more amenable to you. I'd need to see if they'd be alright with providing me with price data on a regular basis though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes that would be perfect and what we are working on using the gov database. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Yes I support adding to the Drugbox now as a pilot and short term solution to delivering information in the context of a need for a later reform. If you could somehow do a prototype of what it would look like to move some information to the bottom in a sample article then I would appreciate that, but do not consider this as an obligation if this is a distraction and it is not urgent. It is enough for me just that you explained your thoughts. I agree with you just adding the box for this to get sorted in a broader way with the pharmacy board and others later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: See right. I don't see any reason to change the way it's presented. I will, however, fix the default width to 300px to match the size of an infobox which is compliant with MOS:IMGSIZE. Template:Drugbox external links is the name I'd use for the new template, if implemented. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That external links box is awesome and exactly the kind of thing which I want elsewhere in the article and not at the top. Thanks for prototyping it as an demo for discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I've notified WP:PHARM editors by creating a thread about GoodRx and splitting the drugbox links out into the EL section at WT:PHARM#Template talk:Drugbox#GoodRx. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: GoodRx should not be under "Clinical data". Add new header "Marketing info", "Consumer info"?. -DePiep (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Clinical data" or "Consumer info". As I explained above, there is ample clinical data on GoodRx for every drug in its database; one simply needs to click the "Drug Info" or "Side Effects" tabs on the corresponding webpage. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Name should be "Consumer price (US)" to clarify. Rather than "Consumer price data" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: "US:" is prepended to the input on the right of that field, but I can change the text on the left side to reflect your version if you wish. Would you prefer it your way or is the current version fine? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If we move to a number like "US$ 14" than having "US: US$14" might be a little confusing. But I guess either is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• In the end result, we should not use meta {{Infobox}}. Also, better not reuse the infobox styling (bg colors). -DePiep (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  In the end result, we should not use meta {{Infobox}}. And why is that, exactly? I made it clear earlier that I still consider all of these external links to be part of the drugbox even after splitting them out, hence the use of an infobox with an identical appearance; we're simply moving them to the EL section since it's just as appropriate to place them there as it is in Drugbox template itself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:INFOBOX. For example, the infobox is a summary of the article, is placed in top, is treated differently (by html, on mobile, etc). Better be guided by Wikipedia:External links. -DePiep (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Formatting should be fit for the EL section: For example, the EL's better be a bulleted list (which can also have subheaders like unbold & unindented). IMO, it could be a multi-column list to be organised as refs list is organised; leave it to the browser etc. (not hardcoded by the template). -DePiep (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If an article already has a list of external links, I'd prefer not to bloat it even more by adding this content on the left-side of the page. E.g., Amphetamine#External links. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What you call "bloat" is actually: changing (breakiung) the MOS format for the EL section. Simple: it is an EL list, so present it as an EL list. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Name suggestion: pls skip the oldfashioned informal 'drugbox' wording. Maybe: External links list Drugs. (we want to reuse the principle!) -DePiep (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  @DePiep: I don't see why it matters, but if you want to move the template and leave behind the redirect, go ahead and move it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved to {{External links list Drug}}. Changed section title + add anchor. Preferred: systematical name, while more descriptive and less informal. Prevent confusion with existing {{External links}}. If this plan works out well, we could reuse the concept for other templates (like {{Chembox}}). -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Just because a template uses {{Infobox}} to style its contents does not make it an infobox. E.g., {{Glossary infobox}} is a back-end template for {{Addiction glossary}} and {{Transcription factor glossary}}, yet neither of those should be used in place of an actual infobox for an article. Edit: that back-end template was created following this discussion: Template_talk:Addiction_glossary#"Glossary skeleton" template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That's right by itself. But it is an infobox when stating class=infobox (as {{Infobox}} does}}). class defines loads of behaviour, layout, formatting, presentation (responsive even). Our intentions do not count in a browser. We do not want those effects, that would be bad coding and bad information handling. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've created Template:External links list Drug and modified the width of the template to match the width of the drugbox when it includes a 300px-wide image (the maximum size and typically the default per MOS:IMGSIZE). The template at the top of this section now uses {{Drugbox external links}} instead of {{Infobox drug/sandbox2}} to generate the example. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

support to do for drug box the same what was done for diseases (putting links out of the infobox) EncycloABC (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Template coding

New subsection to discuss technical issues like template coding, formatting, etc.

{{Drugbox external links|GoodRx= [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo Adderall], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-salt-combo-xr Adderall XR], [https://www.goodrx.com/amphetamine-sulfate  Evekeo]| MedlinePlus = a616004 | license_US = amphetamine | licence_EU = yes | INN_EMA = amphetamine | Drugs.com = {{Drugs.com|parent|amphetamine}}| ATC_prefix = N06| ATC_suffix   = BA01| CAS_number_Ref = {{cascite|correct|CAS}} | CAS_number = 300-62-9 | PubChem = 3007 | IUPHAR_ligand = 4804 | DrugBank_Ref = {{drugbankcite|correct|drugbank}} | DrugBank = DB00182 | ChemSpiderID_Ref = {{chemspidercite|correct|chemspider}} | ChemSpiderID = 13852819 | UNII_Ref = {{fdacite|correct|FDA}} | UNII = CK833KGX7E | KEGG_Ref = {{keggcite|correct|kegg}} | KEGG = D07445 | ChEBI_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEBI = 2679 | ChEMBL_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEMBL = 405 | NIAID_ChemDB = 018564 | PDB_ligand = 1WE| smiles = NC(CC1=CC=CC=C1)C}}

• So far, the prototype uses {{Infobox}} to get it going. That's fine of course. However, since the new list is not an MOS:INFOBOX, I strongly propose to prevent any Infobox suggestion (by formatting, class=infobox, responsive behaviour). I therefor created:

1. Module:External links list as a full code copy of Module:Infobox, and

2. {{External links list}} to employ that module.

After this, I removed from the new module all straight "infobox" referencing. Other functions etc. were kept.

With this, current (Seppi333's) prototype looks like {{External links list Drug/sandbox}}.

I propose:

a. Accept the change principle, away from {{Infobox}},

b. Improve (edit) the new module to tailor it for this list.

It allows us to refine the list to more usable settings without being tied to Infobox formattings. I think the formatting should follow WP:EL section styling.

-DePiep (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• To research: maybe existing {{External links}} (Module:External links) could solve this new thing altogether. I have not looked into it. It reads Wikidata values; if it allows overwriting locally (as we want to do now, I assume), we could arrive at target very soon! -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: As long as you match the layout/formatting and overall appearance of the example template on the right as closely as possible, I don't really care what markup is used to generate the end result. I also don't care if it's wider (to reduce the height when the LHS or RHS text takes up multiple lines) or not right-aligned, but if right-alignment is not default, having the option to set |align=right would be desirable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that this new EL list should look-and-feel like an infobox. No, basically it should be a bulleted list, in the EL section. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We should be using generic names. But seems like a reasonable addition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests on 2 August 2020

@Primefac, DMacks, Doc James, Seppi333, DePiep, and Sceptre: Recent editors: Greetings and felicitations. In both the Australian and the US "Pregnancy category" fields, there is a space between the category and the comment, e.g. in the Ibuprofen article, at least when it is used to add a reference. Unfortunately, I can't see where the problem is, even after checking the sub-templates. Would someone please be so kind as to fix this, or tell what other change should be made? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Re DocWatson42. The reason is that |pregnancy_AU_comment= (and so |pregnancy_US_comment=) can be used for comment (=add space) and reference (=no space). At the moment, distinguishing between those options is not possible or implemented.

Long term solution is to find a way to distinguish (preferred), add |pregnancy_AU_ref= (cumbersom for editor), or enter like |pregnancy_AU=C<ref>...</ref>. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should discuss why it's coded like that. Is |pregnancy_AU_comment= used for anything other than as a reference? If not, then the space should be removed. If so, it might be worth looking into having a "comment" para and a "ref" para. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Usage list through TPU. -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Why? Because this redu es complexity. Also, I had in mind that we could distinguish input. This is recently became possible using {{killMarkers}}-like modules. But it should be used (developed) carefully, for which I do not have the time right now. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the other question is why it matters (specifically, if there's a space between the code and the comment). It's going to be a faff and a half to separate out refs from comments regardless of how we do it; is there a reason we can't just leave things as-is? Primefac (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason we have this problem is that the MOS is "no space before a ref-marker" but obviously "need space to separate words or an open-paren from preceding text", and there isn't a way to pass leading whitespace in a template parameter-value. If we kept it as a unified field, how about regexp for /^<ref/ to decide whether to render it without vs with space?

Scanning by eye Special:Search/insource:"pregnancy US comment" for uses other than referencing, maprotiline seems to use _comment to hack around some uncertainty in the value itself that should probably be done differently, and valproate has a good use. DMacks (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth I set up a cat for the pages using the pregnancy comment.

The more I look into this, the more I wonder if the entire template subpage shouldn't be reworked - basically the only reason there's |pregnancy_XX= and |pregnancy_XX_comment= is so that we can link to a country-specific section of Pregnancy category. Given that the label already does that, we're just duplicating links. I say we drop the linking for |pregnancy_XX=, and convert |pregnancy_XX_comment= into |pregnancy_XX_ref= for sole use as a reference. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

re Primefac why it matters &tc: you lost me. What do yoo actually say or propose? -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should get rid of the complexity of the subtemplate, have one parameter for the "type" and one parameter for the reference. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

??? Less complexity of subtemplate WHILE the request is to add diff between _comment and _ref? What do actualy you propose? -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm proposing; make it simple and convert _comment to _ref. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

duh, _comment to _ref is flipping, not solving.

User:Primefac -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not that worse, I say. Proposals & discussion welcome. -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's Category:Pages using infobox drug with a pregnancy comment (0). -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

DePiep: Thanks for the reply and the explanation. <sheepish> Hopefully the discussion I've unintentionally sparked will lead to improvements. </sheepish> —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Primefac please copy {{Infobox drug/pregnancy category/sandbox}} into live code: use {{Main other}} to keep category clean. -DePiep (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: in the 229 articles categorised, some five use the _comment starting with plain text; the others are a <ref>. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a great reason to convert |pregnancy_US_comment= to |pregnancy_US_ref= and modify the subpage to avoid overlinking. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any significant objection, so barring any in the next 24-48 hours I'll change everything over. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Similar changes should be made to the legal_XX_comment fields. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That one's not as clear-cut, as the label links to Regulation of therapeutic goods while the data value links to quite a few different pages based on input. That's not to say it's not possible, just not a simple "remove double links and clean up" issue. [[User:|Primefac]] (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac Are there plans to expand the letters when other text exists in the field? The recent edits that moved the text from the |pregnancy_US_comment= field into the |pregnancy_US= field prevent the expansion of the specified letter. For example, this edit:
before

Pregnancy category

AU: A(when used topically)

US: C (Risk not ruled out)(for topical use)

after

Pregnancy category

AU: A (when used topically)

US: C (for topical use)

There were other edits that eliminated the expansion of one of the letters. for example -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the 15 edits are here; to be completely honest I don't think it's worth worrying about - the "category" is just a general indication of the risks etc and if there are multiple categories for a single drug the usage and differences are more important. I will note, of course, that anything put in the _comment parameter didn't have the auto-added clarification either, so I would say either neither of them get the "risk" suffix or both do. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Log of significant changes

The following change log (here with more standardized date formatting) was originally being kept inside the template code itself:

Changes:

• 2016-12-08: add ECHA InfoCard from Wikidata P2566 (// with Chembox)
• 2017-02-14: add licence_CA, improve showing+link of DailyMedID. licence_US link broken at FDA site.
• 2017-02-16: PubChem (CID) add option 'none'. Shows & categorised (also: CASnr, Chemspider, ATCcode), simplyfy ATC/vet, fix ATC issues, always show PubChem SID, added licenSe_EU, licenSe_CA, general code cleanup
• 2017-02-16, indexes (2nd identifiers): use unbulleted list not <br />, use /formatX subtemplates, use standard formatting, rename some index params (hard removal)
• 2017-02-16, tracking categories: track 2nd identifiers & indexes to help maintenance checking (incl. Wikidata), rename and deprecate some, redo the track subtemplate, add default tracking option (when no need for new category)
• 2017-05-10: add physiological data set (endogenous drugs); parameter metabolites possible in two sections.
• 2017-05-19: reorder to position of pronunciation in rare situation; metabolism maybe repeated in contexts; add option component #5.
• 2017-07-20: add new parameter legal_BR, legal_BR_comment with options (Brazil)
• 2017-08-18: add INN_EMA to allow EMA-licence showing for differently written INN.
• 2017-08-25: add local INN variants AAN, BAN, JAN, USAN as synonyms; move synonyms into clinical data section.
• 2017-10-15: add cat 'Drug has EMA link', rm cat 'Drug has EU (EMA) licence'. See EMA talks.
• 2017-10-21: licence_EU and EMA: improve external link (see also subtemplate)
• 2018-03-08: adjust TemplatePar error message
• 2018-03-31: add tracking physiologica data
• 2018-03-31: add section gene therapy; with 4 parameters; tracking
• 2018-03-31: add parameter gt_target_gene
• 2018-04-14: adjust labels in gene therapy (gt_*)
• 2018-04-18: add links 'edit at WD' to E-number and ECHA chart ID
• 2018-08-20: vaccine_type: allow free text
• 2019-04-22: add DTXSID, DTXSID2 for CompTox database el (uses P3117)
• 2020-07-05: Category:Infobox-drug molecular-weight unexpected-character: +main other

I've moved it to the talk page, since injecting material like this directly into templates is abnormal and not useful, as well being a parsing burden. Talk pages (in which one can link and format) exist for a reason, and so does the edit-history feature. @DePiep and Primefac: pinging known-interested editors. PS: If it is desired to keep this as a perpetual running list, see similar solution at the top of WT:MOS, including "archive bot defeater". Another solution is using {{To do}}:

{{To do |To-do=Log of significant changes |collapsed=yes |inner=
* List
* Items
* Here
}}

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Pinging also Izno, who chimed in on the original thread, but I didn't notice until now. Has related tracking ideas for the citation templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Primefac (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No thanks. Bad approach. How is this a "logging" feature? Anyway, you are supposed to discuss-before-TPE-enforce-change. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to believe you are unfamiliar with the term changelog, which is what this is a classic example of. Whether I'm complying with WP:TPE is a behavioral matter already under separate discussion at User talk:SMcCandlish, and has nothing to do with the content or output of this template or the content of my edit to it, so it is off-topic here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• How significant changes; what is unsignificant? And how will this section be maintained & updated? -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't care what the wording is. I just noticed that only big changes were being logged, so named the discussion to reflect that. I don't really understand your second question. I've already provided two ways to maintain it, assuming it is wanted at all. Personally, I don't think it is very useful or we would do this at all templates. That's why I simply removed it originally. But you objected, and demanded discussion, so here we are, discussing, and with the content restored (and improved), and two equally viable options for doing something with it, instead of just letting it archive away eventually. As for "how", well, by editing the page, of course, same as with the original changes log. It's simply on this page instead of jammed into the actual template code where commentary and personal note-taking don't belong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic behavioral discussion that belongs in userspace and has already been hashed out there.

DePiep, I get the feeling you are arguing for argument's sake, feigning inability to understand, and have no substantive objection, only a bureaucratic, WP:WIKILAWYER one which doesn't belong on this page. I do not understand where your hostility is coming from, but that, too is a user-talk matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Again, @SMcCandlish:. The point you skip is: had you started a talk, no issue had happened. But. Your behaviour, including TPE trespassing and personal attacks (ouch!) and 'what do you mean' and whatever you write here: had you started a talk, no problem would have happened. While this way, you playing ignorant, you leave it to other maintaining editors (including me) to 'argue' back uphill. Let's not forget this post does not help serious maintenence, one of us is involved with serioously. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC) You removed it 13:26 4 Aug. I protested 19:03. 16:40 5 Aug you started this thread. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC) DePiep, please just drop it; this is not a hill worth dying on. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Allow me to disagree. -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC) User:Primefac, I have been threatened with the "boomerang" argument, and nothing else, by -otherwise- serious editors. -DePiep (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Already addressed at the thread at my talk page, as you already know. Again, this stuff is off-topic here; it has nothing to do with the code of this template, and that is what this talk page is for. To the extent your concerns can even be partially discerned, there is no way to address them without a time machine, so I'm simply going to move on. The more you post about this, the more it looks like trolling. We all have better things to do than engage in circular arguments. You wanted a discussion, I opened one, and you have simply tried your hardest to poison it. It's weird nonsense, and I have had way more than enough of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC) You wrote 'boomerang' as an "argument" (I perceive it as a threat) [5]. Sure you'd want me to drop it. You even closed, after ridiculing me, the 'discussion' one-sidedly. -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Oh and btw, User:SMcCandlish (who I respected seriously until recently): After ridiculing me [6] you choose to close the discussion early [7]. So I see no reason to reply more seriously here now (IOW, you are disingeneous). Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Made more permanent

I have copied the Log to header, thread be archived as usual. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

License links

Useful links, general

Template:Infobox drug § Licensing information

The CA, EU, and US FDA license links are broken. It looks like the CA one is no longer displayed. We should disable or fix the others. What about adding one for AU?

CA

Are there plans to fix |licence_CA=? It not, the documentation should be updated to remove |licence_CA= and/or indicate that it is disabled.

US

It looks like the link for |licence_US= needs to be implemented as a POST request. Can that be done in a Wikipedia template? See US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work in the archives.

EU

The EMA can be searched using something like https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/ema_group_types/ema_medicine/search_api_aggregation_ema_active_substance_and_inn_common_name/tadalafil and EPARs can be directly accessed using the brand name https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/cialis

CA

There are CA search options at https://health-products.canada.ca/dpd-bdpp/index-eng.jsp and https://health-products.canada.ca/noc-ac/index-eng.jsp but it looks like they require using POST.

AU

The AU ARTG can be searched using something like https://tga-search.clients.funnelback.com/s/search.html?query=Tadalafil&collection=tga-artg or just the PI and CMI can be searched using something like https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/PICMI?OpenForm&t=pi&q=Tadalafil

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Drugs@FDA site still uses GET requests with an application number parameter (three to six digits including all of the digits for the NDA, ANDA, or BLA number)

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=021368

We could create a bot that grabs the weekly data files from the Drugs@FDA site and populates |licence_US= with the application number in the infobox.

We could ask them via the Drugs@FDA Contact Form to add a GET request for Wikipedia pages to use. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

We could add |licence_UK= too. It uses an ID in the URL

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/7432/smpc

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, DePiep any thoughts? Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

No idea, other than the edit request further up the page I've never really dealt with this template. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Below, I have started a structure to discuss and develop this per governing institute. HTH -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

OP remarks by User:Whywhenwhohow are quoted. CA link is not shown, so rm from /doc as requested. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

On licenses (in general)

Our general ideas and aims for this topic

Template:Infobox drug/doc § Licensing information

Parameter: |licence_XX=, |license_XX= (so -c- and -s- are equally usable, whatever the formal ENGVAR)

• Question: How is |DailyMedID= related to the license? Or is it consumer info? IOW, do we have to keep |DailyMedID= within this discussion? -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

License ARTG (AU)

Useful links ARTG Australia

www.tga.gov.au/australian-register-therapeutic-goods

• The AU ARTG can be searched using something like https://tga-search.clients.funnelback.com/s/search.html?query=Tadalafil&collection=tga-artg or just the PI and CMI can be searched using something like https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/PICMI?OpenForm&t=pi&q=Tadalafil

  — Whywhenwhohow

So, it is proposed to add ARTG to this set (Australian license, |license_AU=). However, since neither Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods nor ARTG exist (redlinks now), there is no need to consider this. The question can be reopened when the article exists. (Then I will raise the question: by what criteria do we include any of the ~200 countries?). -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

License HC (CA)

Useful links Health Canada Canada (French: Santé Canada, SC)

www.hc-sc.gc.ca

See also Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 16 § #licence CA

• There are CA search options at https://health-products.canada.ca/dpd-bdpp/index-eng.jsp and https://health-products.canada.ca/noc-ac/index-eng.jsp but it looks like they require using POST.

  — Whywhenwhohow

A discussion is at Archive 16 # licence_CA (2017). Garzfoth, do you know more about this, as of today? -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

License EMA (EU)

Useful links EMA (European Union)

www.ema.europa.eu/en

Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 17 § EMA licence link (2019 EMA API change)

EPAR: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/download-medicine-data#european-public-assessment-reports-(epar)-section

• The EMA can be searched using something like https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/ema_group_types/ema_medicine/search_api_aggregation_ema_active_substance_and_inn_common_name/tadalafil and EPARs can be directly accessed using the brand name https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/cialis

  — Whywhenwhohow

EMA has changed the API two years ago, the infobox can no longer use INN. There are new options though. Archive 17. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• EPAR (european public assessment report) overview is downloadable from here: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/download-medicine-data#european-public-assessment-reports-(epar)-section (xls spreadsheet). Has human and vet med listed. Today 1726 records (data rows). (late sign:) -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

License FDA (US)

Useful links FDA (US)

www.fda.gov

Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 17 § US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work -- (issue recently analysed by Whywhenwhohow)

• It looks like the link for |licence_US= needs to be implemented as a POST request. Can that be done in a Wikipedia template? See US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work in the archives.

  — Whywhenwhohow

Whywhenwhohow, I have reread Archive 17 on this. Skipping the POST/GET too-tech difference: is it possible to make this FDA link working automated with a parameter (infobox drug input parameter)? If so, what (sort of) parameter is required? -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: The parameter that would work is the application number. Something like

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=XXXXXX

where XXXXXX is the application number. An application number is three to six digits including all of the digits for the NDA, ANDA, or BLA number. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: I am not familiar with the implementation and rendering of a WP template. When the infobox drug template is rendered does it have the ability to make a query and then use the results of that query to generate and format a displayable URL link? I assume that it does something like that to generate the displayed fields that are not specified in the template (e.g. CompTox Dashboard (EPA), ECHA InfoCard). If so, then the brand name or generic name could be used as the infobox drug input parameter and the template could get the application number to use for the link in a JSON result via the Drugs@FDA API. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if that 2-step is feasible. But I can note: vlaues for CompTox Dashboard (EPA) and ECHA InfoCard are read from Wikidata, so no local (enwiki) parameter input is required. This means that the values are entered in Wikidata (i.e., by Wikipedia editors). Wikidata has options to mass-import data. If that is the route to go, we can do it. Collect NDA ID numbers manually or automated ...

But there is an other issue: the NDA is an application of an active ingredient (say, the INN stuff). One INN can have many applications. Example: Lipitor (active ingredient INN = Atorvastatin), NDA=020702, list link: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&varApplNo=020702. Is this the page we want to show, listing applications & trade names? Or is there a general Atorvastatin (INN) info page? -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

... or the Drug Safety-related Labeling Changes (SrLC)? Searching for Atorvastatin 1. search page, 2. returns -- cannot be done by url. -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

020702 is the NDA number for Lipitor. There are many ANDA numbers for the generic atorvastatin calcium

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #076477 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | SUN PHARM INDS LTD

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #077575 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | SANDOZ INC

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #078773 | TABLET;ORAL | Discontinued | TEVA PHARMS

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #090548 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | APOTEX INC

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #091226 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | MYLAN PHARMS INC

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #091624 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | LANNETT CO INC

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #091650 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | DR REDDYS LABS LTD

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #202357 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | DR REDDYS LABS LTD

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #204846 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | INVAGEN PHARMS

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #204991 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | LUPIN LTD

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #205300 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | TEVA PHARMS USA

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #205519 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | SCIEGEN PHARMS INC

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #205945 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | MICRO LABS LTD INDIA

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #206536 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | ZYDUS PHARMS

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #207687 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | ACCORD HLTHCARE

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #208478 | TABLET;ORAL | Discontinued | PERRIGO R AND D

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #209288 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | THEPHARMANETWORK LLC

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #209912 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | GRAVITI PHARMS

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #211933 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | MSN

ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #213853 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | UMEDICA LABS PVT LTD

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The NDA can also be used to access entries in the FDA Orange Book.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/results_product.cfm?Appl_Type=N&Appl_No=020702

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"ANDA" = abbreviated new drug applications; NDA = New Drug Application. Is NDA the ID to link to?

Which inforemation (-page) do we want to link to? Options: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases I guess through Drugs@FDA (FDA-Approved Drugs) is the route? -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• So. enwiki articles are by INN: Atorvastatin

'Atorvastatin' in Drugs@FDA returns https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=BasicSearch.process (six entries), kinked but not specified.

AMLODIPINE BESYLATE AND ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM
ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM
CADUET
EZETIMIBE AND ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM
LIPITOR
LIPTRUZET 

What do we want to show to the Reader? -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Add support for biologicals to legal_AU

The infobox does not recognize values like C1, C2, C3, C4 in the {{{legal_AU}}} parameter for Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 biologicals.

https://www.tga.gov.au/classification-biologicals --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Currently, codes are available as listed in SUSMP Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons. The link you provide uses "Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990". Should this be changed? -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We should add the biological classifications. More info at

Inclusions of new biologicals

Australian regulatory guidelines for biologicals (ARGB)

Example Class 4 Biological:

Yescarta PI

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Add support for additional components in a combination drug

The template doesn't accept more than five component/class parameters type=combo. It would be useful to support at least six. The hexavalent vaccine contains six components. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, as a follow-up to our earlier discussion about multiple entries for various parameters, there are some errors for the Dengue vaccine article:

Error in template * unknown parameter name (Template:Infobox_drug): 'UNII3; UNII5; index3_label; index4_label; UNII4; UNII5_Ref; UNII3_Ref; index5_label; UNII4_Ref'

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I reactivated the multiple entries for various parameters edit request. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

PDB

The RCSB PDB links appears to be broken.

For example, for F9E it generates the following URL which fails to work.

http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/search/smartSubquery.do?smartSearchSubtype=ChemCompIdQuery&chemCompId=F9E&polymericType=Any

It looks like the correct URL should something like this

https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/F9E

or this

https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"F9E"}%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409"}}

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Some background. Examples: MDMA, Paracetamol, list all (ca. 145). The first el (PDBe) seems to work OK as is.

Sidenote: probably the lefthand label link should be a single one: PDB ligand. No need to explain ligands here. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There are two links in the PDB field. The first one works and the second one (RCSB PDB) is broken.

The F9E example I provided above is for Valganciclovir. For MDMA, the second one (RCSB PDB) should be

https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/B41

or

https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"B41"}%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"246d5e4721efa28968e77026dc51de67"}}

For Paracetamol, the second one (RCSB PDB) should be

https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/TYL

or

https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"TYL"}%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"9228d1d289499c18e4c10fe3bb429ff3"}}

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The second, long url (for F9E) humanreads like this: https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query":{"parameters":{"value":"F9E"},"service":"text","type":"terminal","node_id":0},"return_type":"entry","request_options":{"pager":{"start":0,"rows":100},"scoring_strategy":"combined","sort":[{"sort_by":"score","direction":"desc"}]},"request_info":{"src":"ui","query_id":"b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409" }} (link)

In the example, querying "F9E" opens the page "6GS4"; is that OK to expect for these ligands? Looks like a user-build query. Is there a reason to use this query over the short one? -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You get the long URL when you visit the RCSB page and enter the ligand into the search box. The short URL provides detailed results for the ligand specified in the URL. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I will put the short url in the sandbox; automated linking preferred (that's GET over POST, IIRC). -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbox proposal (to check)

+Changed the (second) link as requested.

+Changed the LH label into PDB ligand (single wl)

See testcases5. Proposed sandbox version produces:

F9E (PDBe, RCSB PDB)

TYL (PDBe, RCSB PDB)

OK? Whywhenwhohow -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Think I can put it live tomorrow then, Whywhenwhohow? -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: It looks like it works. Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

Please replace all live code with /sandbox code (two templates):

{{Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{Infobox drug}} (diff)

{{Infobox drug/formatPDBligand}} → {{Infobox drug/formatPDBligand/sandbox}} (diff)

• Changes: 1. LH label wikilink refine, 2. External link RCSD PDB fixed per talkpage complaint
• Talk and test: see #PDB above.

DePiep (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Add flag to identify as a stub-infobox when also have a chembox

On articles that have both {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}}, lots of the "chemical" fields are omitted from the drugbox to avoid duplication and keep content where it is most relevent. But drugbox also tracks certain missing fields, including some that get deffered to the chembox in these cases. That pollutes the tracking categories for things that are intentionally not to be done. For example, Niacin has the chemical structure and CASNo in the chembox and therefore blank fields {{Infobox drug|image=|CAS_number=}}, which triggers the article to be listed in Category:Infobox drug articles without a structure image and Category:Chemical articles without CAS registry number, respectively.

We had a similar problem in Chembox when it was a secondary infobox, and in June, User:DePiep implemented {{Chembox|container_only=yes}} to stop whining about intentionally-missing fields (see Template talk:Chembox#Field to indicate only partial infobox). I propose a similar flag here for the drugbox. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Will take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

Please perform these two edits:

1. All code from {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories}} (overwrite, diff)
2. All code from {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug}} (overwrite, diff)

Changes

• Add |container_only= per this talk; will populate new Category:Infobox drug container only
• Remove unused, elaborate maintenance tracking options
• Remove minor and old comments

Background

Discussion & consensus: this talk (following {{Chembox}} in this)

Tested: see /testcases9 and Niacin live (by preview)

Post-edit check: the demo article is Niacin. One can check this article, right after these edits, for any disruption.

DePiep (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: An editor requested more thinking. When ready, a new request will be made. -DePiep (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this! If I'm reading the changes correctly (and that's a big if!), |container_only=y will inhibit all tracking of missing fields, which means |legal_*=, |ATC_=, and |license_*= among others. I don't think that is the correct behavior, because those fields would not be covered by {{chembox}}. DMacks (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: so I paused this one, since discussion is not clear allright. My thoughts were: make it work, refine afterward. (as Chembox needs too). -DePiep (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Restart. Many tracking categories in {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} overlap, but not all. My current |container_only=yes proposal here suppresses most if not all of the generic chemicals & CheMoBot trackings. Meanwhile, in Drugbox detailed cat reportings like "EMA" input issues are tracked, which seems OK to me.

So, my questions are: Why not proceed with the initial change (not article breaking assumed), and after that propose refinements? Or: what clear changes (I did not forsee or include) do you expect right away? -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"would not be covered by {{chembox}}"? I don't understand. Which categories should we (systematically) suppress and which not? -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I totally support getting this implemented as a start and I do not (by eye) see any breakage. I can be tweaked later. I would like to suppress in drugbox those fields that have equivalents in chembox. So anything that is only supported by drugbox would still be tracked as they currently are. I actually didn't know until I just checked that chembox has legal_* and pregnancy_* fields. Question for WPMED: if an article has both a chembox and a drugbox, which (or both) infobox should have them? DMacks (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the setup for |container only=yes. I cannot exactly reproduce the {{Chembox}} handling, because Chembox is more complicated and anyway, when using the template this way there is a bit of "you're on your own" consequence. {{Infobox drug}} however we can fine-tune. This is what the sandboxes have now:

1. Categorise in Category:Infobox drug container only
2. Do not categorise the negative tests: "image missing", "CAS number missing", "no legal status", Drugs missing ATC, ... This is the main reason to introduce |container only=.
3. Keep categorising parameter tests, when parameter value is entered (eg, analyse |Legal_US= when there is an issue with its actual input).
4. Bot Validation effects are kept (CheMoBot adding and setting the {{cascite}}-type templates for |CAS number_Ref=: as intended, and not added anyway if CAS number is absent so no undesired effect).

One can check in code:

{{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} -- regular categorisations

{{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/container only}} -- new routine, called when |container only=yes. See the -xxx-> lines that cancelles (=comments out) categories.

DMacks, have I made things clear? Any questions? -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Please perform these two edits:

1. All code from {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories}} (overwrite, diff)
2. All code from {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug}} (overwrite, diff)

Changes

• Add |container_only= per this talk; will populate new Category:Infobox drug container only
• Remove unused maintenance tracking options
• Remove minor and old comments

Background

Discussion & consensus: Following {{Chembox}} in this. See #this talk and #this withdrawn request with extended discussion. @DMacks:.

Tested: see /testcases9 and Niacin live (by preview)

Post-edit check: the demo article is Niacin. One can check this article, right after these edits, for any disruption. DePiep (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. It sounds to me that it would be well worth exploring whether these two templates can be merged — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes the ../maintenance categories/.. templates can be merged. This step is just to make it work, and do cleanup. If I only knew the editor who did code it this way ;-) @Whywhenwhohow:. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Is sources == source_tissues and targets == target_tissues?

Hey. I know jack shit about this subject, but I noticed that the code for calculating whether to show the metabolism parameter checks for the parameters {sources} and {targets} despite neither appearing anywhere else in the infobox code. I'm 99% sure that it's the {source_tissues} and {target_tissues} parameters that someone just forget to rename thoroughly. I don't have editing permissions - can someone who has please confirm that this is the case and then fix the code? --Metalindustrien (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Will take a look. Could you add example article(s)? -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Example articles of what? I'm looking directly at the infobox's source code. --Metalindustrien (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Examples where the infobox shows or hides info unexpected. (or, if you go by code: which testcase would fail?). -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Background: parameters involved

Background from /doc. Parameters |source...=, |target...=: Fact 1, the parameters: #Monoclonal antibody drugs (type=mab) <!-- type=mab: ----- ----- --> | type = mab | mab_type = | source = | target = #Physiological_data: <!-- Physiological data --> | source_tissues = | target_tissues = ... | metabolism = <!-- same parameter as in pharmacokinetic data --> Fact 2: section Monoclonal antibody with |source=, |target= only shows when |type=mab. Outside of this, there is no logic between them. Maybe the question stems from this: issue when |source=something but |type=? (|type=mab). -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: But it looks like |data58= looks for "sources", not source, and the context seems to specifically be about the source_tissue? (same with targets) --Metalindustrien (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, to be fixed. Thanks for the fine report User:Metalindustrien. We'll wait until current Template-protected edit request is performed, /sandbox is now occupied. -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Checked, using Parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug. (Look for parameters |source_tissues, target_tissues= in there, lists 10 articles). It appears that, in spite of the two misnamed parameters, the #if-clause in |data58= does fire correctly because of other parameters having data. So, at the moment no errors in articles. Of course, we will fix the issue. -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

Please replace all live code with /sandbox code:

{{Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{Infobox drug}} (diff)

Change: replace |sources=, |targets= with |source_tissues=, |target_tissues=. Replace non-existant parameter names.

Talk & test: Old code error. See above #Is sources ... source_tissues ... ?; F3 and visual checks. h/t @Metalindustrien: DePiep (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

To editors DePiep and Metalindustrien:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

Hi, could anyone with the ability to edit this template be so kind to add the legal statuses for legal_SG (Singapore)? I think it would be really useful and once added I will start adding the appropriate legal classes/schedules onto the most common drugs/medications. It will be based upon the Misuse of Drugs Act (OTC, Rx-only, Schedule I, II, III or Unscheduled) first enacted in 1973. Thank you! BelfastBrooks (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• |legal_SG=
• |legal_SG_comment=

• Put on pause: I will build the sandbox for this. Meanwhile, editor can discuss appropriateness of this proposal (for example, which of the ~200 countries should be added this way?). @BelfastBrooks:. -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Input options, recognised: |legal_SG=otc / prescription only, rx-only, rx only / s1, schedule i, schedule 1 / s2, schedule ii, schedule 2 / s3, schedule iii, schedule 3. Not recognised → Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status under "G".

|legal_SG_comment=any text, will show unedited after a space (consider using brackets).

Testcases: see /testcases3#Legal for SG.

@BelfastBrooks: please check the testcases and its links. (Good plan to have the 'schedule's only, not the details). OK? -DePiep (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Looks good to me! BelfastBrooks (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fleshed out: sandbox works, discussion on number of countries listed to be separate. Will reactivate. -DePiep (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Request: Please replace all live code with all sandbox code, twice:

{{Infobox drug}} ← {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} (diff)

{{Infobox drug/legal status}} ← {{Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox}} (diff)

Changes: Options SG (Singapore) added to Legal status.

Discuss and test: see above, and /testcases3#Legal for SG (now defunct). -DePiep (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, editor can discuss appropriateness of this proposal (for example, which of the ~200 countries should be added this way?) I think this is an important point. I'm guessing we list options for the countries which are most popular amongst readers, but that's just a guess. Obviously we couldn't (and shouldn't) list it for every country on the map. Does an inclusion criteria for this label already exist? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but IIRC recently a country that has no article about their legal status (such as [[Misuse of Drugs Act (Singapore)] for SG) was denied addition. If list control is not acceptible, a solution would be to move the list out of the infobox into a body section (after all, it is not infobox-info derived from the article body anyway). Agree we should discuss this separately, User:ProcrastinatingReader? -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. Last addition seems to be Brazil in 2017. I think it makes sense to have it in the infobox, as a reader I frequently found it useful information, especially when I didn't read much else of the article, so I don't think moving this out is a good idea. Whilst just adding one more is not a problem, the same argument could be made for every edit request, and I think without any inclusion criteria it's hard to give a good answer on why we list some countries but not others (and any more than ~6-10 countries would look ridiculous). Maybe it's better we decide that before we implement this - once people start using it on articles it's an uphill battle to remove a param. But those are just my initial thoughts; it looks like you were the maintainer for this template, so what are your thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to add SG now, being an increment of an existing list. There is no argument like "7 is the max", let alone "These 7 are the right ones". Criteria should be discussed separately, and will apply to all countries and institutes (like EU, UN), already present or not. With that discussion, I'dd add we should follow MOS:INFOBOX: the infobox is an article summary not, e.g., a package insert for conveniance (so split out into a section is a solution). Can you agree to split the discussion? -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by split? As in add this now, and discuss inclusion criteria later? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. A strong discussion + conclusions can change current list too, afterwards. (And in that criteria discussion, also consider the option 'fork the Legal list out of the infobox, into article body'). -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

UNII formatter URL

The {{Infobox drug/formatUNII}} formatter URL currently differs from the UNII (P652) formatter URL. This infobox appears less correct. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Put it in /sandbox: See diff. (todo: test).

One question: the WD formatter URL (P1630) (as in UNII (P652)), has an !exclamation mark notice, noting an issue. Is that issue relevant in this (is it limiting)? -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. No I don't think the exclamation is an issue: the formatter URL is without a reference, but an editor wanted to date when the information was retrieved. (They're supposed to add a reference and note when that reference was retrieved.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Test {{Infobox drug/formatUNII}} diff permanent, for aspirine:

live

Current enwiki [8]: R16CO5Y76E

sandbox

WD url formatter [9]: R16CO5Y76E

Obviously, the enwiki url is redirected to the WD url, so the change is due. Will make the editrequest. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

Please put all code from in {{Infobox drug/formatUNII/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug/formatUNII}} (full replacement), diff.

Change, talk & test: External link URL format updated. See #UNII formatter URL above. ping @Int21h: DePiep (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks​! int21h (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Pregnancy_US parameter

We should remove the |pregnancy_US= parameter since the FDA doesn't use letter categories any longer. They were replaced by the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Final Rule (PLLR). Here is an excerpt from Drugs.com:

Prescription drugs submitted for FDA approval after June 30, 2015 will use the new format immediately, while labeling for prescription drugs approved on or after June 30, 2001 will be phased in gradually. Medications approved prior to June 29, 2001 are not subject to the PLLR rule; however, the pregnancy letter category must be removed by June 29, 2018. For generic drugs, if the labeling of a reference listed drug is updated as a result of the final rule, the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) labeling must also be revised. Labeling for over-the-counter (OTC) medicines will not change, as OTC drug products are not affected by the new FDA pregnancy labeling.

— https://www.drugs.com/pregnancy-categories.html

By the way, when 'N' is used for |pregnancy_US=, the text "US: N (Not classified yet)" appears in the infobox. The "yet" should be removed. It is confusing to readers and some editors try to find the category to use to replace the 'N'. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Replaced by a 'narrative' I understand, and so not fit for the infobox. Will work on this removal. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

{{Infobox drug}} also has |PLLR=, free text input (label link). Was added 2015, see also this talk.

See a monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug in articles.

|Pregnancy_US= 1315 articles (mainspace)

|PLLR= 0 articles (mainspace)

@Whywhenwhohow: Remove both? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Some articles use |pregnancy_category= instead of |pregnancy_US=. I think it makes sense to remove |pregnancy_US=, |pregnancy_US_comment=, |pregnancy_category=, and |PLLR=. Australia still assigns category letters to medicines. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

We'll remove |pregnancy_US=, |pregnancy_US_comment=, |PLLR=. Their input will not be shown at all. The comment usually refers to the Code too. (Will not remove them from the infobox in articles). -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That is: |pregnancy_US_comment= is used as a reference input (added unspaced). Todo: {{Chembox}} too. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Please replace all code with all sandbox code, in these two templates:

• {{Infobox drug}} ← {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} (diff)
• {{Infobox drug/pregnancy category}} ← {{Infobox drug/pregnancy category/sandbox}} (diff)

Changes, talk and test: See § Pregnancy US parameter; US pregnancy category code abolished, so no showing. /testcases3. DePiep (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To editors DePiep and Whywhenwhohow:  done, Happy New Year and thank you both very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Paine Ellsworth, and best wishes to you, all year long! Nice to ping WWWH btw, and Have Nice Edits In 2021 :-) -DePiep (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

DrugBank

FYI, DrugBank changed domains from drugbank.ca to drugbank.com. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. Official website seems to be:

go.drugbank.com (https)

Formatter for DrugBank ID (P715) says:

https://www.drugbank.ca/r/DB$1 Jun 2020, "/r/" for resolve

and

https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB$1

What to use in code?

See also: {{DrugBank}}, WD: DrugBank (Q1122544), DrugBank ID (P715)

WD not used, here for reference:

Plus, we could think of adding the WD link automatically (with overrule by local enwiki input).

-DePiep (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The official website is now https://www.drugbank.com/ and any drug detail pages using the hostname www.drugbank.ca are redirected to use the hostname go.drugbank.com. For example, Asprin was at https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00945 and is now at https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00945. The only changes to the URL appear to be changing www.drugbank.ca to go.drugbank.com.

Do we support using |Drugbank= for uses other than drugs? For example, here is a sample target and a sample indication.

https://go.drugbank.com/bio_entities/BE0001571

https://go.drugbank.com/indications/DBCOND0117810

The use of "r" for resolve appears to be old. For example, using https://www.drugbank.ca/r/DB00945 for Asprin is the same as using https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00945 and is now at https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00945.

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is |Drugbank= used in the {{Chembox}}? If so, it would need to be updated too. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Another use is for salts but using drugs in the URL redirects to the salts. Using any of these

https://drugbank.ca/drugs/DBSALT000110

https://drugbank.ca/salts/DBSALT000110

https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DBSALT000110

redirects to here

https://go.drugbank.com/salts/DBSALT000110

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, /drugs/ seems to do the job. Will work on this. Chembox to be checked. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

Please replace all code {{Infobox drug}} ← {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} (diff).

Change: re-insert three parameters into the whitelist, to prevent excessive error categorising. No effect in mainspace rendering.

Background: This edit correctly removed three parameters (do not show any more). Also, the parameters were removed from the "Know parameters" whitelist. Unfortunately, this reports almost all {{Infobox drug}} articles, ~5500, into the Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Infobox drug (0) making it useless ;-(

Consensus: administrative (maintenance) change only, no effect in Mainspace. DePiep (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Add a regular line for International Non-proprietary Names

Suppose I want to know more about Viagra, I search with the term viagra because that's the WP:COMMONNAME. I find that the title page is Sildenafil and it's the first name suggested in the first sentence, if I wish to find information about the origin of Sildenafil, the infobox shows that it is the name used by the FDA, and that it appears in the chemical nomenclature of its metabolite, but nothing else, I suspect the name comes from the FDA, but I cannot be sure. I assumes that Sildenafil is "the official name", but I might be skeptic about the notion of a single offical name.

I tried to add a line " INN = Sildenafil" but that just causes a tooltip to appear beneath the title of the infobox, since they are both the same, it looks weird.

I understand that by default, the policy is to name the article according to the INN, but this is not transparent to most users, who cannot navigate through wikipedia's policy to finally understand that the name comes from this thing called the INN.

If I could just add a field "INN= Sildenafil" to the infobox, it would make the naming convention explicit, and it would allow regular users to explore the concept of INN. It would also allow editors to add sources regarding INN nomenclature.

Thank you for your time.--TZubiri (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Sure our guideline is: "article title = INN", but that does not show what the INN is. Will reply more later on. (exceptions: see Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title (840)). -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(keep live, do not archive). -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(keep live, do not archive). -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:MED: Infobox drug - redesign talk

See this discussion about redisigning {{Infobox drug}} at WT:MED: § A slimmer, more reader-friendly drugbox?. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A follow-up, there's a discussion here regarding which external links we should move to a new {{Drug links}} template in the External links section. Please chime in there. Ajpolino (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Date(s) of patent/patent expiration/generic potential availability

<revived discussion;

Further information: Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_6 § Patent_status_or_generic_availability

https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/p/graph/index.php?graphname=patentbytradename&step=byyear&tradename=MAVENCLAD, etc>

It is extremely useful to know date that patents are issued. Please consider adding this to the drug box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.31.113 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes good idea.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In principle this is a good idea, however deciding which drug patent to include may be non-trivial. The original composition of matter patent (if there is one) is probably most relevant, but there also may be relevant "use", formulation, and/or process patents as well. In addition, patents are country specific and have different issue and expiration dates. One way around this is to instead list the international patent application (WIPO). Because of these complexities, I think it is more practical to add patent information to the history section of drug articles, including of course citations to relevant patents ideally formatted with {{Cite patent}} template that includes fields for filing date, granted date, etc. The WP:PHARMMOS does not currently mention patents. Perhaps patents should be mentioned (e.g., in the history section). Boghog (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Mention in the history section or society and culture section may be best. Than greater details can be given with respect to different areas of the world. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I see additional problems. For example, there were two ranitidine patents filed worldwide several years apart (so-called "original" and "polymorph"). I knew a patent agent who resigned from GSK when instructed to enforce the second one, which was widely thought, and which some courts held, to be invalid for lack of novelty. Also, continuing patent applications under US law add another layer of complexity. Further, there is no guaranteed date for patent expiry; the term is shortened if you stop paying the renewal fees or if the patent is invalidated or revoked (not the same thing), or extended if you get an SPC. Narky Blert (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

is there no website that lists drugs patent date in the USA? then you could just link to it as an external link. The drug box is faster for doctors than reading a history. i hope you reconsider and add it to the drug box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.31.123 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any website that list drug patent dates. Futhermore, I am not sure how to get these other than digging through the patent literature. Finally, why would a doctor be interested in the patent filing, issue, and/or expiration dates of a drug patent? What I think you may be getting at is whether generic forms of the drug are available or if not, when they may become available. An expired patent of course is a prerequisite, but even if a patent is expired, it may take time for generics versions to reach the market place. In addition, these dates will differ from country to country. Given this data is difficult to find and is country specific, I don't think it is practical to add it to the drugbox. Boghog (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

When generic become available is very important especially for our colleagues in the developing world as this affects the price. am unable to find this information. If someone knows of a place would be happy to look at it. Most drugs become generic at the same time around the world with international patents. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While the following estimates are for the US, they may also give a rough indication of when generics might become available in other countries:

• "Estimated Dates of Possible First Time Generic/ Rx-to-OTC Market Entry" (pdf). Medco Health Solutions, Inc. 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-30. Boghog (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. Wondering if we should add a line to the infobox for this info or just add it to the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What's going on with this? I search the page and there isn't even a mention of 'generic' or 'patent' to add this info manually. Let's do something that's better than nothing.

Add field year1stPatentEnds to the template. Feel free to be more ambitious, but I'm just requesting a simple static field that accepts a number. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hard to judge this idea (bad layout and it includes 2011 talks). In general, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, describing drug. Not a medical self-help-page. HTH. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. From an inclusion standpoint, sure, patent status seems as encyclopedic as other legal status, i.e. whether controlled in various countries. Invention/discovery date seems important enough to feel like an omission to me. But it seems there are practical (evergreening) and possibly npov (worldwide point of view) considerations that need to be fleshed out in more detail. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Add ABN field

Consider adding the other name fields too.

Australian Approved Name (AAN)
Australian Biological Name (ABN)
Australian Cell and Tissue Name (ACN)
A botanical name for a herb (AHN)
A herbal substance Name (AHS)

— https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/tga-approved-terminology-therapeutic-goods

For example, the ABN for the newly approved COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is ChAdOx1-S. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• About AAN: already in, with other 'INN variants' (see /doc). Should not repeat INN.

|AAN=, BAN, JAN, USAN.

• About ABN, ACN, AHN, AHS:

I question whether these (regional or synonyms) lists should be included. They are not defining. First idea: in See also section (using an #anchor!).

So far, we have not even added the 'WIDA doping list' parameter, which is international and has high implications.

What do others think? -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Whywhenwhohow: I'm not sure I'm understanding. Could you give an example of a page where you think the ABN (or one of the other non-AAN names) should be in the infobox as its own separate field. The example you give of the AstraZeneca vaccine already lists the ABN in the |synonyms= field. In my mind that would typically be a better place to list national/regional names than having a separate field for each? That would give page editors a bit more flexibility to pick the relevant synonyms for each? But maybe an example or two would help make things clearer for me.

Also a note that at least for the AZ vaccine, the Wikidata item doesn't have the ABN. Perhaps we could fix that at least (sadly, my Wikidata know-how is pretty much zero). Ajpolino (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It may useful to explore why we have entries for AAN, BAN, JAN, and USAN. The |synonyms= field may be used for those too. An ABN is just like an AAN and is assigned instead of an AAN for a specific class of therapeutic goods. COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has an ABN instead of an AAN. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see. Then yes I agree that maybe it'd be best for all to go in the |synonyms= field, and then to update the documentation accordingly. Perhaps the documentation page could link to the gov't databases of names so an editor could quickly check the names from each when they're setting up an article on a new drug? I assume the AAN, BAN, JAN, etc. are sometimes the same? Ajpolino (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

These are added to the "Other names" list. See See a monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug in articles..

As for using Wikidata: we can make "Read from Wikidata, and allow local (=enwiki) overwrtite" (I advise). -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine target

The documentation examples state that the vaccine target is the antigen/bacteria/toxin/virus to protect against in the comments but the infobox labels the field as Target disease. The label in the infobox is incorrect since the vaccine targets the cause of the disease, not the disease itself. Please remove disease from the infobox label. Thank you. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Changed the documentation. I did not find the text "Target disease" in a vaccine IB (eg Alemtuzumab). -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Alemtuzumab is not a vaccine. Here are some mixed examples

• Influenza vaccine

Target disease influenza virus

• Cholera vaccine

Target disease Cholera

• Diphtheria vaccine

Target disease Corynebacterium diphtheriae

• Hib vaccine

Target disease Haemophilus influenzae type b

• Meningococcal vaccine

Target disease Neisseria meningitidis

• Pertussis vaccine

Target disease Whooping cough

• rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine

Target disease Ebola virus

• Hepatitis A vaccine

Target disease Hepatitis A

• Hepatitis B vaccine

Target disease Hepatitis B virus

• HPV vaccine

Target disease Human papillomavirus (HPV)

• Measles vaccine

Target disease Measles virus

• Polio vaccine

Target disease Poliomyelitis

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

• Please replace all code {{Infobox drug}} with sandbox code (diff)

Change: fix label5 text, per request #Vaccine target. DePiep (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: storage conditions

I would like to propose these new fields for storage conditions:

| storage_conditions  =
| storage_temperature = 
| storage_humidity    = 
| storage_dark        = 

To be rendered as:

 | label1  = Storage conditions
 | data1   = {{{storage_conditions|}}}
 | header2 = {{#if:{{{storage_temperature|}}}{{{storage_humidity|}}}{{{storage_dark|}}}|Storage conditions}}
 | label3  = Temperature
 | data3   = {{{storage_temperature|}}}
 | label4  = Relative humidity
 | data4   = {{{storage_humidity|}}}
 | label5  = Light level
 | data5   = {{#switch:{{lc:{{{storage_dark|}}}}}
  | yes      = Dark
  | no       = Any
  | #default = {{{storage_dark}}}
 }}
 

The storage_conditions field would be used for short or non-standard descriptions, otherwise the other fields would be preferred. Usage examples:

Storage conditions	Cold, dry, dark

| storage_conditions = Cold, dry, dark

Storage conditions	5 °C, 50% RH, dark

| storage_conditions = 5 °C, 50% RH, dark

Storage conditions	2-8 °C, 40-60% RH, dark

| storage_conditions = 2-8 °C, 40-60% RH, dark

Storage conditions	Ambient

| storage_conditions = Ambient

Storage conditions	Dry

| storage_conditions = Dry

Storage conditions
Temperature	Cold
Relative humidity	Dry
Light level	Dark

| storage_temperature = Cold
| storage_humidity    = Dry
| storage_dark        = yes

Storage conditions
Temperature	2-8 °C
Relative humidity	<60%
Light level	No sunlight

| storage_temperature = 2-8 °C
| storage_humidity    = <60%
| storage_dark        = No sunlight

Storage conditions
Temperature	2–8 °C (36–46 °F)
Relative humidity	40-60%
Light level	Avoid light

| storage_temperature = 2–8 °C (36–46 °F)
| storage_humidity    = 40-60%
| storage_dark        = Avoid light

Storage conditions
Temperature	Ambient

| storage_temperature = Ambient

Storage conditions
Relative humidity	<60%

| storage_humidity = <60%

Drug specifications vary slightly depending on the country. For example, it is unusual to specify a lower humidity limit, even when it has one, because low humidity is rare in many regions. For drugs with less stringent requirements, it is common to provide only a description instead of specific values for temperature and humidity. Most medications should be kept out of direct sunlight and light in general, so non-default values for storage_dark should be rare.

What do you think? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not enthousiastic. See WP:NOTHOWTO #1: encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. If storage temp is excessive (as with some corona vaccins), this could be in the body text all right (+explanation: "because ..."). But still not in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The infobox alreadly sufficiently confuses active substance with pharmaceutical product. No need to take it further. Storage and handling requirements vary per product/formulation (e.g., tablets vs solution for injection vs dermal patch) and per country (regulatory differences are particularly visible in the case of biological products, gene therapies etc.).

If sometime we agree to move all the chemical data to Wikidata and to keep only product-focused information in the infobox, then it may make sense. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)