50.201.195.170 (talk) Selv-rv - assuming I did something objectionable. Tags: Undo Reverted |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 19) (bot |
||
(301 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Permanently protected}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WPBS| |
{{WPBS| |
||
Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
| algo=old(90d) |
| algo=old(90d) |
||
| archive=Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive %(counter)d |
| archive=Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive %(counter)d |
||
| counter= |
| counter=19 |
||
| maxarchivesize=150K |
| maxarchivesize=150K |
||
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
||
Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
:'''Changes log''' {{anchor|Log|Changes}} |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Infobox drug: Changes log|bg=#ccc}} |
{{collapse top|title=Infobox drug: Changes log|bg=#ccc}} |
||
* 2016-12-08: add ECHA InfoCard from Wikidata P2566 (// with Chembox) |
* 2016-12-08: add ECHA InfoCard from Wikidata P2566 (// with Chembox) |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
* 2019-04-22: add DTXSID, DTXSID2 for CompTox database el (uses P3117) |
* 2019-04-22: add DTXSID, DTXSID2 for CompTox database el (uses P3117) |
||
* 2020-07-05: [[:Category:Infobox-drug molecular-weight unexpected-character]]: +main other |
* 2020-07-05: [[:Category:Infobox-drug molecular-weight unexpected-character]]: +main other |
||
{{Warning|1=This list is over a dozen edits out of date. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug&action=history Template:Infobox_drug&action=history].}} |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
{{collapse bottom}} |
||
== Tolerance potential? == |
|||
I’m sort of puzzled why things like addiction liability and dependence liability are a thing in these info boxes for various drugs but tolerance potential/rate isn’t? I know there is a number of variables like dosage and rate of frequency and even individual enzyme properties, or maybe even receptor sensitivity, but the same is also evidently true for the other aforementioned potentials. From what I can clearly tell, some substances certainly have abnormally fast tolerance increases (such as opioids & amphetamines); whereas others can have pretty modest rate of increased tolerance. And even substances with potential for reverse-tolerance (like salvia and cannabis) should also have this mentioned in the infobox. [[User:Dexedream|Dexedream]] ([[User talk:Dexedream|talk]]) 04:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal: Add a regular line for International Non-proprietary Names== |
|||
:Interesting thoughts. Got sources? FYI, I'm working on adding an indicator on pages for drugs that have [[black box warnings]]. I found a source database but I'm struggling to figure out the correct edits to the templates. ([[Template talk:Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox]], and/or [[Template talk:Infobox drug/sandbox]]...) [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 04:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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 [[Wikipedia:Official_names#Rationale|official name]]", but I might be skeptic about the notion of a single offical name. |
|||
:Tolerance in and of itself isn't an even remotely notable drug property. To the extent that it plays a role in drug dependence, it's necessary to understand. And, for what it's worth, sensitization of drug reward is the biological process that mediates the development of addiction; drug tolerance doesn't play any role in its pathophysiology. IMO, if there are any notable drug effects that tend to undergo tolerance or sensitization with repeated use, content about that should be added to the article, not dumped into an infobox with limited context. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 05:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
== Edit request 15 November 2023 == |
|||
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. |
|||
{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}} |
|||
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. |
|||
'''Description of suggested change:''' |
|||
Thank you for your time.--[[User:TZubiri|TZubiri]] ([[User talk:TZubiri|talk]]) 05:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Edit the change I made (to the sandbox copy) to the legal_US= line into the template. I tested it in [[Template:Infobox drug/sandbox]] and it works. It will display [[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref> based on data I've begun adding to wikidata. I have buy-in at |
|||
: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 {{clc|Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title}}). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
[[WT:MED#Black_box_warnings_project]]. |
|||
::(keep live, do not archive). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
'''Diff:''' |
|||
== Add flag to identify as a stub-infobox when also have a chembox == |
|||
Current:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
Sandbox:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
On articles that have both {{tl|Chembox}} and {{tl|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 {{tlx|1=Infobox drug|2=image=|3=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. |
|||
([edit: I entered the code w/ Template:TextDiff as directed but it didn't display it properly in preview, so diff now manually displayed above. Help, appreciated, collapsed.) |
|||
We had a similar problem in Chembox when it was a secondary infobox, and in June, [[User:DePiep]] implemented |
|||
[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{tlx|1=Chembox|2=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. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 03:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot}} |
|||
:Good idea. Will take a look later on. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
(I entered the code as directed but it doesn't display properly in preview. If needed, view [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_drug&diff=next&oldid=1181456421 diff].) |
|||
:I tried putting <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> around the parms to the TextDiff above, and it produced this: |
|||
{{TextDiff|1=<nowiki>|legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}</nowiki>|2=<nowiki>|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}</nowiki> |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2020 === |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please perform these two edits: |
|||
:# All code from {{tl|Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} into {{tl|Infobox drug/maintenance categories}} (overwrite, {{diffsandbox|1=Template:Infobox drug/maintenance categories}}) |
|||
:# All code from {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{tl|Infobox drug}} (overwrite, {{diffsandbox|1=Template:Infobox drug}}) |
|||
;Changes |
|||
{{bulletlist |
|||
|1=Add {{para|container_only}} per [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Add_flag_to_identify_as_a_stub-infobox_when_also_have_a_chembox|this talk]]; will populate new {{cl|Infobox drug container only}} |
|||
|2=Remove unused, elaborate maintenance tracking options |
|||
|3=Remove minor and old comments |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
:[[User:Davemck|Davemck]] ([[User talk:Davemck|talk]]) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
;Background |
|||
'''Diff:''' |
|||
Discussion & consensus: [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Add_flag_to_identify_as_a_stub-infobox_when_also_have_a_chembox|this talk]] (following {{tl|Chembox}} in this) |
|||
Current:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
Sandbox:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
Tested: see [[Template:Infobox_drug/testcases9#Container_only|/testcases9]] and [[Niacin]] live (by preview) |
|||
:I have fixed the code display for you. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 02:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
: {{not done}} See below. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Re-opening. I asked several questions below that have gone un-answered for several days. --[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 09:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Post-edit check: the demo article is [[Niacin]]. One can check this article, right after these edits, for any disruption. |
|||
:[[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] |
|||
:1. If I add the same URL to the thousands of wikidata entries (which I think is a bad idea) then you'll do the migration? That's worse than making the source info visible here, as my code does. |
|||
:2. Did you notice that the code you're refusing to add contains a full citation for the data? |
|||
:3. It does, do doesn't WP:NOTBEUC apply? |
|||
:Hello? |
|||
:-- [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 06:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]], would you mind hopping up to this section and explaining why you think that [[Module:WikidataIB]] needs to be used, given that the source is being supplied here? I understand not wanted "Boxed warning"; I want to know why you are insisting on "Boxed warning{{dummy ref|Wikipedia source}}{{dummy ref|Copy of same source from Wikidata}}". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have not objected to this section. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, someone using your account [[Template talk:Infobox drug#c-Jonesey95-20231115024000-Unreferenced data is being pulled from Wikidata|wrote]] "The code in the above edit request should also use [[Module:WikidataIB]]" below. That [[Template talk:Infobox drug#c-Pppery-20231119023000-Jonesey95-20231115024000|has been interpreted as an objection]] to this change. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::A small fraction of it is probably unsourceable; I doubt there are any sources out there that say whether [[Measles]] should be listed as an instance of Q12136, Q112193867, or Q112193769 (three variations on saying that it's a 'disease'). Therefore having some fraction unsourced is of no particular concern to me; some of it will be obviously correct in its real-world meaning, even if editors can differ over the ideal item number to represent the obvious fact that it's a disease. |
|||
::::::In this instance, Rudolfo and I have been talking about the advantages of setting a bot as a sentinel over the items. Sources do not prevent vandalism. Auto-revert bots do. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Glad to see it's been clarified that there's no objection. |
|||
::::It's not appropriate that this was derailed. It's not appropriate to demand I try to make or push for someone's unrelated changes that are not even in my wheelhouse. |
|||
{{adminhelp|answered=yes}} |
|||
::::Dear admin: |
|||
::::I'm asking that the above-requested template change be made. (In other words, I'm asking that [[Template:Drugboxwarns]] be copied to [[Template:Infobox drug]]. That will modify the one line of [[Template:Infobox drug]] exactly as I've asked that it be modified. The only difference is that the sandbox template also has some other changes that I presume make the sandbox work better, but shouldn't be copied to the live template.) Using the <nowiki>{{adminhelp}}</nowiki> template, as it's been over a week with no action, and I think it's been clarified that there's no objection. As a bonus, warning of these particularly important safety issues may, just perhaps, thereafter regularly prevent iatrogenic catastrophes. (Yeah, I know, [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer|Disclaimer]].) [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 03:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I resolved the accessibility issue, [[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]]. Switched to CSS: [[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 07:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]], you wrote, I will not move [[Template:Infobox drug/sandbox]] to [[Template:Infobox drug]] because I believe that you should not be using math markup for presentation for reasons of accessibility. |
|||
::::::Will you move it now? I removed the math markup and resolved the accessibility problem. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 01:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::<hr>Hello? Feedback please! [[User:Arthurfragoso]], @[[User:Wostr|Wostr]], '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|P.I. Ellsworth]]''''', @[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], {{ping|User:Redrose64}} do you see any showstoppers? We currently have many articles that warn about minor side effects but fail to higlight black box warnings. It's a bad situation that we need to fix, pronto, IMO. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 03:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't see any showstoppers. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Will you move my edit live? If not, what holds you back? --[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 03:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Like you, I don't have the necessary user rights to edit the page. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
I've {{done}} the original edit request, since it seems to now be uncontested. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===Next steps=== |
|||
:Yay! Bravo, all. There's still work for me/us left - e.g. NIRMATRELVIR AND RITONAVIR ([[Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir]] is one of the drugs I/OpenRefine failed to mark in wikidata; not sure why. Need to get the import/match to work better. I wonder how many pages the warning is displayed on. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on [[clonidine]], I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is '''for this drug'''. It is barely helpful to know that there ''exists'' a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Adding information about the specific warning would require a lot more work. This may be a step towards that, but the goal here was just to say that the drug had earned a boxed warning. |
|||
:::If we reach that greater goal in the future, I might suggest [[DailyMed]] as a standardized source ([https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=ada02f1f-ae78-4435-879e-492ae862d504 clonidine], which has two boxed warnings). But it might also be better to have this in the article itself, cited to whatever the best sources are the editors choose. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The file is a .csv file, so your computer will probably open it as a spreadsheet. That means that it's both searchable and filterable. |
|||
:::::The DailyMed id numbers are not intuitive (e.g., <code>setid=ada02f1f-ae78-4435-879e-492ae862d504</code>), and I believe there is a different one for every single formulation by each manufacturer. See https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?query=clonidine&searchdb=all&labeltype=all&sortby=rel&audience=professional&page=1&pagesize=200 – but I think that only these four: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?adv=1&labeltype=all&pagesize=200&page=1&query=34066-1%3A%28clonidine%29+ have boxed warnings. They'd have to be matched up by hand. This is possible but hours of work. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I see this as an incremental improvement. It took us years to reach this point, and it only happened because of a couple of months of work by @[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]]. The next step will be more complex, but maybe we'll be able to manage that some day, too. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I do see the value in this, and my first reaction was one of letting perfect be the enemy of good, mixed with the aesthetically-unappealing presentation in the infobox of the "bulky" [WARNING] text ''before'' the Rx-only phrase (not that I can think of a better way to do this at the moment). It is indeed a step towards making sure that black box warnings make their way into articles. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I wouldn't want you to think of your reaction as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather that you think of it the way I do, which is helpfully advocating that we not stop here, but continue to look for even greater improvements. <code>:-)</code> [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Also, unless I'm missing something, [https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 the link] in the autogenerated citation seems to only list drugs whose generic names fall in the range "A"{{endash}}"C" (I checked [[lamotrigine]] to make sure that the "A"{{endash}}"C" link wasn't specific to clonidine, which begins with a "c", and the same link is on that page). [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page. As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I see 15 pages. Page 1 starts at "A" and page 15 starts at "C", hence my comment. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The citation says to use the "Download" button. It's >10MB, which would not be a friendly thing to dump on unsuspecting readers. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::A week ago, [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Mismatch_Finder/Collaboration/Purdue_Summer_of_Data_2024&diff=prev&oldid=2021715311&diffmode=source here], I had already proposed/made a request for help for doing essentially what Kimen8 is suggesting. I wrote in part, {{tq|The text of each warning is generally concise and consists only of the most import warnings, so it may be worth [importing from the FDALabel database,] storing [in Wikidata] and adding to articles via wikidata.}} I'm flattered. :-) |
|||
:::Regarding linking to a viewable page with the warnings: There's already code in the template to link to dailymed for some drugs. Perhaps we could use that, but my concerns include that the dailymed data may be less accurate than the FDAs, and strictly speaking, it would not be truthful to say dailymed is the source of the info. |
|||
:::I think we can and should do the import of the warnings themselves. But we'd be want them to appear in the '''body''' of articles, right? I think so... |
|||
:::Also, see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Template-protected_edit_request_on_9_December_2023 new edit request below]; the wrong code was migrated. |
|||
:::And "(Use ''Download Full Results'' and ''View Query'' links.)" is in the footnote, as [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] noted. We could add the formatting I added. |
|||
:::[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 04:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Kimen8, |
|||
::::I welcome your further thoughts on next steps. |
|||
::::The bulky warning box is fixed. (Obsolete code was migrated due to miscommunication.) I put the (now-smaller) box before the Rx-only phrase intentionally, but if there's consensus, it can be moved. |
|||
::::Let's discuss this further at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Black box warnings 2nd project]], at least if it's not about the Infobox. --[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 02:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::My personal opinion is that the Warning should be after the Rx-only phrase (such as {{green|Rx-only ([WARNING])}} or along those lines), because the order in which I deem the information important is: The infobox parameter is about legality/scheduling so the legality/schedule should go first; the black box warning is auxiliary information and should go second. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} The WARNING doesn't belong in the legal section. It is part of the FDA label and not a legal status. Its placement is annoying and distracting. The black box warning is not in the article. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== "Solubility in water" == |
|||
: [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EP --> An editor requested more thinking. When ready, a new request will be made. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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!), {{para|container_only|y}} will inhibit all tracking of missing fields, which means {{para|legal_*}}, {{para|ATC_}}, and {{para|license_*}} among others. I don't think that is the correct behavior, because those fields would not be covered by {{tl|chembox}}. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 19:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|DMacks}} so I paused this one, since discussion is not clear allright. My thoughts were: make it work, refine afterward. (as Chembox needs too). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It looks like filling in the <code>|solubility=</code> parameter renders as "Solubility in water". If instead one wanted to say something along the lines of "slightly soluble in ethanol, highly soluble in 2-propanol", is there a way to put this into the infobox? I figured out setting the <code>|sol_units=</code> to "&nbsp;" at least removes the suffix "g/mL" part. [[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*Restart. Many tracking categories in {{tlf|Chembox}} and {{tlf|Drugbox}} overlap, but not all. My current {{para|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? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::"would not be covered by {{tlf|chembox}}"? I don't understand. Which categories should we (systematically) suppress and which not? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 03:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Template:Chembox]] has: |
|||
:{{od}} I have changed the setup for {{para|container only|yes}}. I cannot exactly reproduce the {{tlf|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. {{tlf|Infobox drug}} however we can fine-tune. This is what the sandboxes have now: |
|||
:| SolubleOther = |
|||
:| Solvent = |
|||
:but I don't know if that's supported here. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 9 December 2023 == |
|||
:#Categorise in {{cl|Infobox drug container only}} |
|||
:#Do ''not'' categorise the negative tests: "image missing", "CAS number missing", "no legal status", [[:Category:Drugs missing an ATC code|Drugs missing ATC]], ... This is the main reason to introduce {{para|container only}}. |
|||
:#Keep categorising parameter tests, when parameter value is entered (eg, analyse {{para|Legal_US}} when there is an issue with its actual input). |
|||
:#Bot Validation effects are kept (CheMoBot adding and setting the {{tl|cascite}}-type templates for {{para|CAS number_Ref}}: as intended, and not added anyway if CAS number is absent so no undesired effect). |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
:One can check in code: |
|||
The current boxed warning indication uses LaTeX, which is just plain silly. LaTeX causes a whole image (with ''italicized text'') to be added to the article for no good reason. Can't we stick with text? |
|||
:::{{tl|Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} -- regular categorisations |
|||
Replace |
|||
:::{{tl|Infobox drug/maintenance categories/container only}} -- new routine, called when {{para|container only|yes}}. See the <code>-xxx-></code> lines that ''cancelles'' (=comments out) categories. |
|||
:{{U|DMacks}}, have I made things clear? Any questions? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 === |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=y}} |
|||
Please perform these two edits: |
|||
:# All code from {{tl|Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} into {{tl|Infobox drug/maintenance categories}} (overwrite, {{diffsandbox|1=Template:Infobox drug/maintenance categories}}) |
|||
:# All code from {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{tl|Infobox drug}} (overwrite, {{diffsandbox|1=Template:Infobox drug}}) |
|||
;Changes |
|||
{{bulletlist |
|||
|1=Add {{para|container_only}} per [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Add_flag_to_identify_as_a_stub-infobox_when_also_have_a_chembox|this talk]]; will populate new {{cl|Infobox drug container only}} |
|||
|2=Remove unused maintenance tracking options |
|||
|3=Remove minor and old comments |
|||
}} |
|||
;Background |
|||
Discussion & consensus: Following {{tl|Chembox}} in this. See [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Add_flag_to_identify_as_a_stub-infobox_when_also_have_a_chembox|#this talk]] and [[#Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2020|#this withdrawn request]] with extended discussion. {{ping|DMacks}}. |
|||
Tested: see [[Template:Infobox_drug/testcases9#Container_only|/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. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 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 ;-) {{ping|Whywhenwhohow}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Metalindustrien|Metalindustrien]] ([[User talk:Metalindustrien|talk]]) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Will take a look. Could you add example article(s)? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Example articles of what? I'm looking directly at the infobox's source code. --[[User:Metalindustrien|Metalindustrien]] ([[User talk: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?). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Background: parameters involved|bg=#ccc}} |
|||
* Background from /doc. Parameters {{para|source...}}, {{para|target...|}}: |
|||
:Fact 1, the parameters: |
|||
: [[Template:Infobox_drug#Monoclonal_antibody_drugs_(type=mab)|#Monoclonal antibody drugs (type=mab)]] |
|||
<pre> |
<pre> |
||
|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}} |
|||
<!-- type=mab: ----- ----- --> |
|||
| type = mab |
|||
| mab_type = |
|||
| source = |
|||
| target = |
|||
</pre> |
</pre> |
||
:[[Template:Infobox_drug#Physiological_data_(endogenous_drugs)|#Physiological_data]]: |
|||
With |
|||
<pre> |
<pre> |
||
| legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}} |
|||
<!-- Physiological data --> |
|||
| source_tissues = |
|||
| target_tissues = |
|||
... |
|||
| metabolism = <!-- same parameter as in pharmacokinetic data --> |
|||
</pre> |
</pre> |
||
So we can see [[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]] instead of [[Boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>]]. Looking at the previous discussion, it seems that the CSS approach I want is the final consensus, but it didn't replace the initial TeX version in the sandbox for some reason. As a result, the wrong version was applied. --[[User:Artoria2e5|Artoria]][[User talk:Artoria2e5|2e5]] <small style="font-weight:lighter">[[Special:Contributions/Artoria2e5|🌉]]</small> 06:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Fact 2: section [[Monoclonal antibody]] with {{para|source|}}, {{para|target|}} ''only shows when {{para|type|mab}}''. Outside of this, there is no logic between them. Maybe the question stems from this: issue when {{para|source|something}} ''but'' {{para|type|?}} ({{para|type|<s>mab</s>}}). |
|||
:-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
:: {{ping|DePiep}} But it looks like |data58= looks for "source'''s'''", not source, and the context seems to specifically be about the source_tissue? (same with targets) --[[User:Metalindustrien|Metalindustrien]] ([[User talk: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 on 7 November 2020|Template-protected edit request]] is performed, /sandbox is now occupied. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Checked, using {{Template parameter usage|Infobox drug|label=for}} (Look for parameters {{para|source_tissues, target_tissues}} in there, lists 10 articles). It appears that, in spite of the two misnamed parameters, the #if-clause in <code><nowiki>|data58=</nowiki></code> ''does'' fire correctly because of other parameters having data. So, at the moment no errors in articles. Of course, we will fix the issue. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 19 November 2020 === |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please replace all live code with /sandbox code: |
|||
:{{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{tl|Infobox drug}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:infobox drug}}) |
|||
Change: replace {{para|<s>sources</s>|}}, {{para|<s>targets</s>|}} with {{para|source_tissues|}}, {{para|target_tissues|}}. Replace non-existant parameter names. |
|||
Talk & test: Old code error. See above [[#Is sources == source_tissues and targets == target_tissues?|#Is sources ... source_tissues ... ?]]; F3 and visual checks. h/t {{ping|Metalindustrien}} [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{to|DePiep|Metalindustrien}} {{done|done}}, and thank you very much''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''' [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r there</sup>]] <small>04:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2020 == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=pause}} |
|||
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 (Singapore)|Misuse of Drugs Act]] (OTC, Rx-only, Schedule I, II, III or Unscheduled) first enacted in 1973. Thank you! [[User:BelfastBrooks|BelfastBrooks]] ([[User talk:BelfastBrooks|talk]]) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*{{para|legal_SG}} |
|||
*{{para|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?). {{re|BelfastBrooks}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Input options, recognised: {{para|legal_SG|2=otc / prescription only, rx-only, rx only / s1, schedule i, schedule 1 / s2, schedule ii, schedule 2 / s3, schedule iii, schedule 3 }}. Not recognised → {{cl|Drugs with non-standard legal status}} under "G". |
|||
:::{{para|legal_SG_comment|any text}}, will show unedited after a space (consider using brackets). |
|||
:::Testcases: see [[:Template:Infobox_drug/testcases3#Legal_for_SG|/testcases3#Legal for SG]]. |
|||
:::{{re|BelfastBrooks}} please check the testcases and its links. (Good plan to have the 'schedule's only, not the details). OK? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{re|DePiep}} Looks good to me! [[User:BelfastBrooks|BelfastBrooks]] ([[User talk:BelfastBrooks|talk]]) 01:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Fleshed out: sandbox works, discussion on number of countries listed to be separate. Will reactivate. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Request''': Please replace all live code with all sandbox code, twice: |
|||
::{{tl|Infobox drug}} ← {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug}}) |
|||
::{{tl|Infobox drug/legal status}} ← {{tl|Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug/legal status}}) |
|||
:Changes: Options SG (Singapore) added to Legal status. |
|||
:Discuss and test: see above, and [[:Template:Infobox_drug/testcases3#Legal_for_SG|/testcases3#Legal for SG]] (now defunct). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tq|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? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk: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]]? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk: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 [[medication package insert|package insert]] for conveniance (so split out into a section is a solution). Can you agree to split the discussion? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What do you mean by split? As in add this now, and discuss inclusion criteria later? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk: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'). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== UNII formatter URL == |
|||
The {{tl|Infobox drug/formatUNII}} formatter URL currently differs from the {{property|652}} formatter URL. This infobox appears less correct. [[User:Int21h|int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Int21h|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Int21h|email]]) 04:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Put it in /sandbox: See {{diffsandbox|1=Template:Infobox drug/formatUNII}}. (todo: test). |
|||
:One question: the WD {{property|P1630}} (as in {{property|652}}), has an !exclamation mark notice, noting an issue. Is that issue relevant in this (is it limiting)? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. No I don't think the [[wikidata:Help:Property constraints portal/Qualifiers|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.) [[User:Int21h|int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Int21h|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Int21h|email]]) 02:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* Test {{tl|Infobox drug/formatUNII}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Template%3AInfobox+drug%2FformatUNII&rev1=870196756&page2=Template%3AInfobox+drug%2FformatUNII%2Fsandbox&rev2=994458860&action=&diffonly=&unhide=&diffmode=source diff permanent], for [[aspirine]]: |
|||
;live |
|||
:Current enwiki [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/formatUNII&oldid=870196756]: {{Infobox drug/formatUNII|localValue=R16CO5Y76E}} |
|||
;sandbox |
|||
:WD url formatter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/formatUNII/sandbox&oldid=994458860]: {{Infobox drug/formatUNII/sandbox|localValue=R16CO5Y76E}} |
|||
Obviously, the enwiki url is redirected to the WD url, so the change is due. Will make the editrequest. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 16 December 2020 === |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please put all code from in {{tl|Infobox drug/formatUNII/sandbox}} into {{tl|Infobox drug/formatUNII}} (full replacement), {{diffsandbox|template:Infobox drug/formatUNII}}. |
|||
Change, talk & test: External link URL format updated. See [[#UNII formatter URL]] above. ping {{ping|int21h}} [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks{{hidden ping|DePiep}}! [[User:Int21h|int21h]] ([[User talk:Int21h|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Int21h|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Int21h|email]]) 18:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Pregnancy_US parameter == |
|||
We should remove the {{para|pregnancy_US}} parameter since the [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/labeling-information-drug-products/pregnancy-and-lactation-labeling-drugs-final-rule 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: |
|||
{{quote|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.|source=https://www.drugs.com/pregnancy-categories.html}} |
|||
By the way, when 'N' is used for {{para|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'. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tlf|Infobox drug}} also has {{para|PLLR}}, free text input ([[Pregnancy_category#Pregnancy_and_Lactation_Labeling_Rule_of_December_2014|label link]]). Was added 2015, see also [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_11#Add_PLLR_(US,_pregnancy)|this talk]]. |
|||
::{{template parameter usage|Infobox drug}} |
|||
::{{para|Pregnancy_US}} 1315 articles (mainspace) |
|||
::{{para|PLLR}} 0 articles (mainspace) |
|||
::{{re|Whywhenwhohow}} Remove both? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Re|DePiep}} Some articles use {{para|pregnancy_category}} instead of {{para|pregnancy_US}}. I think it makes sense to remove {{para|pregnancy_US}}, {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}}, {{para|pregnancy_category}}, and {{para|PLLR}}. Australia still assigns category letters to medicines. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::We'll remove {{para|pregnancy_US}}, {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}}, {{para|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). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That is: {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}} is used as a reference input (added unspaced). Todo: {{tl|Chembox}} too. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020 === |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please replace all code with all sandbox code, in these two templates: |
|||
* {{tl|Infobox drug}} ← {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug}}) |
|||
* {{tl|Infobox drug/pregnancy category}} ← {{tl|Infobox drug/pregnancy category/sandbox}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug/pregnancy category}}) |
|||
Changes, talk and test: See {{slink||Pregnancy_US_parameter}}; US pregnancy category code abolished, so no showing. [[Template:Infobox_drug/testcases3#Remove_pregnancy_US_code_letter|/testcases3]]. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{to|DePiep|Whywhenwhohow}} {{done|done}}, Happy New Year and thank you both very much''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''' [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r there</sup>]] <small>02:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::Thanks, [[User:Paine Ellsworth]], and best wishes to you, all year long! Nice to ping WWWH btw, and Have Nice Edits In 2021 :-) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 02:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== DrugBank == |
|||
FYI, DrugBank changed domains from drugbank.ca to drugbank.com. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 04:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I am a bit confused. Official website seems to be: |
|||
::{{url|1=go.drugbank.com}} (https) |
|||
:Formatter for {{Property|P715}} says: |
|||
:: https://www.drugbank.ca/r/DB$1 [https://twitter.com/DrugBankDB/status/1267490002906185728 Jun 2020], "/r/" for resolve |
|||
:and |
|||
:: https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB$1 |
|||
:What to use in code? |
|||
::See also: {{tl|DrugBank}}, WD: {{Q|Q1122544}}, {{Property|P715}} |
|||
::WD not used, here for reference: |
|||
<!-- Apologies, editing to avoid Multiline table in list lint error and indent leak to end of page, while nearly preserving appearance. —Anomalocaris |
|||
:{{left|1={{Tracks Wikidata|P715|}}}} --> |
|||
{| |
|||
|{{Tracks Wikidata|P715|}} |
|||
|} |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
:Plus, we could think of adding the WD link automatically (with overrule by local enwiki input). |
|||
:-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
The official website is now https://www.drugbank.com/ and any drug detail pages using the hostname {{tq|www.drugbank.ca}} are redirected to use the hostname {{tq|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 {{tq|www.drugbank.ca}} to {{tq|go.drugbank.com}}. |
|||
Do we support using {{para|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. |
|||
--[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 05:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Is {{para|Drugbank}} used in the {{template|Chembox}}? If so, it would need to be updated too. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk: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 |
|||
--[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 05:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok then, {{mono|/drugs/}} seems to do the job. Will work on this. Chembox to be checked. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 30 January 2021 == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please replace all code {{tl|Infobox drug}} ← {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug}}). |
|||
:Change: re-insert three parameters into the whitelist, to prevent excessive error categorising. No effect in mainspace rendering. |
|||
:Background: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug&diff=997118000&oldid=989642571&diffmode=source 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 {{tlf|Infobox drug}} articles, ~5500, into the {{clc|Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Infobox drug}} making it useless ;-( |
|||
:Seconded. Correct. I (oddly!) didn't notice that [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] did the original edit request, instead of the the edit request as it existed when they edited the template and marked the request done. But note: we may have further improvement come out of discussion with [[User:Kimen8]] soon. -- [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 04:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Consensus: administrative (maintenance) change only, no effect in Mainspace. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: What I actually did was base off the code in the sandbox, and didn't even notice the midstream edits you made to the talk page on 2 December (yes, you did point them out, but there was so much noise in that discussion that I didn't see them). Anyway, {{done}} [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 05:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? == |
|||
== WP:MED: Infobox drug - redesign talk == |
|||
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? [[User:Abhiramakella|Abhiramakella]] ([[User talk:Abhiramakella|talk]]) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
See this discussion about '''redisigning {{tlf|Infobox drug}}''' at [[WT:MED]]: {{slink|nopage=yes|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine|A_slimmer,_more_reader-friendly_drugbox?}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Black Box Warning == |
|||
== Date(s) of patent/patent expiration/generic potential availability == |
|||
<'''revived/highlights of past discussion'''; {{See|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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/63.247.31.113|63.247.31.113]] ([[User talk:63.247.31.113|talk]]) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::Yes good idea.--[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]), 2011 |
|||
I had a question regarding how the Black Box warning code is implemented and if the following is possible. |
|||
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/63.247.31.123|63.247.31.123]] ([[User talk:63.247.31.123|talk]]), 2011 </span> |
|||
: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. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]), 2011 |
|||
:::How 'bout https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/p/graph/index.php?graphname=patentbytradename&step=byyear&tradename=MAVENCLAD ? --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 22:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Many drugs have Black Box warnings only for certain preparations of the drug. Is there a preferred way to mention this? I thought about putting the sentence "The US FDA Black Box warning only applies to certain preparations of the drug, including ___, where the warning says: ___" or something along those lines, but it's clunky. |
|||
::: While the following estimates are for the US, they may also give a rough indication of when generics might become available in other countries: |
|||
:::* {{cite web | url = http://www.medcohealth.com/art/corporate/anticipatedfirsttime_generics.pdf | title = Estimated Dates of Possible First Time Generic/ Rx-to-OTC Market Entry | author = | date = 2011 | format = pdf | publisher = Medco Health Solutions, Inc | accessdate = 2011-08-30 }} [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]), 2011 |
|||
For example with [[baclofen]], neither the preparations Lyvispah oral granules, nor Ozobax oral solution have black box warnings, but Lioresal intrathecal does. In the case of this particular article, the contents of the black box warning are mentioned in the Adverse Effects section, but there is no explicit clarity if someone sees the Black Box Warning symbol in the infobox and goes to the article body to try to see the details of that. |
|||
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.''' 10 years have passed! |
|||
I was going to ask on {{u|RudolfoMD}}'s page but it seems they are indefinitely blocked. |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=no}} |
|||
Add field year1stPatentEnds [edit or if more standard: year_patent1_ends seems more consistent] to the template. Feel free to be more ambitious, but I'm just requesting a simple static field that accepts a number. [[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::LOL - ec - was trying to ping you. What's wrong with the layout of what, specifically - this section? Complaining doesn't help. You clearly have a minority view if you're saying no date(s) of patent/patent expiration/generic potential availability at all. --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 22:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:53, 2 March 2024
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infobox drug: Changes log
|
---|
|
Tolerance potential?
I’m sort of puzzled why things like addiction liability and dependence liability are a thing in these info boxes for various drugs but tolerance potential/rate isn’t? I know there is a number of variables like dosage and rate of frequency and even individual enzyme properties, or maybe even receptor sensitivity, but the same is also evidently true for the other aforementioned potentials. From what I can clearly tell, some substances certainly have abnormally fast tolerance increases (such as opioids & amphetamines); whereas others can have pretty modest rate of increased tolerance. And even substances with potential for reverse-tolerance (like salvia and cannabis) should also have this mentioned in the infobox. Dexedream (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting thoughts. Got sources? FYI, I'm working on adding an indicator on pages for drugs that have black box warnings. I found a source database but I'm struggling to figure out the correct edits to the templates. (Template talk:Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox, and/or Template talk:Infobox drug/sandbox...) RudolfoMD (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Tolerance in and of itself isn't an even remotely notable drug property. To the extent that it plays a role in drug dependence, it's necessary to understand. And, for what it's worth, sensitization of drug reward is the biological process that mediates the development of addiction; drug tolerance doesn't play any role in its pathophysiology. IMO, if there are any notable drug effects that tend to undergo tolerance or sensitization with repeated use, content about that should be added to the article, not dumped into an infobox with limited context. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Edit request 15 November 2023
Description of suggested change: Edit the change I made (to the sandbox copy) to the legal_US= line into the template. I tested it in Template:Infobox drug/sandbox and it works. It will display WARNING[1] based on data I've begun adding to wikidata. I have buy-in at WT:MED#Black_box_warnings_project.
Diff:
Current:
legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}
Sandbox:
legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
([edit: I entered the code w/ Template:TextDiff as directed but it didn't display it properly in preview, so diff now manually displayed above. Help, appreciated, collapsed.) RudolfoMD (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
(I entered the code as directed but it doesn't display properly in preview. If needed, view diff.)
Diff: Current:legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}
legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
|
References
- ^ "FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.)". nctr-crs.fda.gov. FDA. Retrieved 22 Oct 2023.
Not done See below. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- * Pppery *
- 1. If I add the same URL to the thousands of wikidata entries (which I think is a bad idea) then you'll do the migration? That's worse than making the source info visible here, as my code does.
- 2. Did you notice that the code you're refusing to add contains a full citation for the data?
- 3. It does, do doesn't WP:NOTBEUC apply?
- Hello?
- -- RudolfoMD (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95, would you mind hopping up to this section and explaining why you think that Module:WikidataIB needs to be used, given that the source is being supplied here? I understand not wanted "Boxed warning"; I want to know why you are insisting on "Boxed warning[Wikipedia source][Copy of same source from Wikidata]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have not objected to this section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, someone using your account wrote "The code in the above edit request should also use Module:WikidataIB" below. That has been interpreted as an objection to this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- A small fraction of it is probably unsourceable; I doubt there are any sources out there that say whether Measles should be listed as an instance of Q12136, Q112193867, or Q112193769 (three variations on saying that it's a 'disease'). Therefore having some fraction unsourced is of no particular concern to me; some of it will be obviously correct in its real-world meaning, even if editors can differ over the ideal item number to represent the obvious fact that it's a disease.
- In this instance, Rudolfo and I have been talking about the advantages of setting a bot as a sentinel over the items. Sources do not prevent vandalism. Auto-revert bots do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Glad to see it's been clarified that there's no objection.
- It's not appropriate that this was derailed. It's not appropriate to demand I try to make or push for someone's unrelated changes that are not even in my wheelhouse.
- Well, someone using your account wrote "The code in the above edit request should also use Module:WikidataIB" below. That has been interpreted as an objection to this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have not objected to this section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95, would you mind hopping up to this section and explaining why you think that Module:WikidataIB needs to be used, given that the source is being supplied here? I understand not wanted "Boxed warning"; I want to know why you are insisting on "Boxed warning[Wikipedia source][Copy of same source from Wikidata]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dear admin:
- I'm asking that the above-requested template change be made. (In other words, I'm asking that Template:Drugboxwarns be copied to Template:Infobox drug. That will modify the one line of Template:Infobox drug exactly as I've asked that it be modified. The only difference is that the sandbox template also has some other changes that I presume make the sandbox work better, but shouldn't be copied to the live template.) Using the {{adminhelp}} template, as it's been over a week with no action, and I think it's been clarified that there's no objection. As a bonus, warning of these particularly important safety issues may, just perhaps, thereafter regularly prevent iatrogenic catastrophes. (Yeah, I know, Disclaimer.) RudolfoMD (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I resolved the accessibility issue, Trappist the monk. Switched to CSS: WARNING. RudolfoMD (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Trappist the monk, you wrote, I will not move Template:Infobox drug/sandbox to Template:Infobox drug because I believe that you should not be using math markup for presentation for reasons of accessibility.
- Will you move it now? I removed the math markup and resolved the accessibility problem. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello? Feedback please! User:Arthurfragoso, @Wostr, P.I. Ellsworth, @WhatamIdoing, @Redrose64: do you see any showstoppers? We currently have many articles that warn about minor side effects but fail to higlight black box warnings. It's a bad situation that we need to fix, pronto, IMO. RudolfoMD (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)- I don't see any showstoppers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Will you move my edit live? If not, what holds you back? --RudolfoMD (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Like you, I don't have the necessary user rights to edit the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I resolved the accessibility issue, Trappist the monk. Switched to CSS: WARNING. RudolfoMD (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I've Done the original edit request, since it seems to now be uncontested. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Next steps
- Yay! Bravo, all. There's still work for me/us left - e.g. NIRMATRELVIR AND RITONAVIR (Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is one of the drugs I/OpenRefine failed to mark in wikidata; not sure why. Need to get the import/match to work better. I wonder how many pages the warning is displayed on. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on clonidine, I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is for this drug. It is barely helpful to know that there exists a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. Kimen8 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Adding information about the specific warning would require a lot more work. This may be a step towards that, but the goal here was just to say that the drug had earned a boxed warning.
- If we reach that greater goal in the future, I might suggest DailyMed as a standardized source (clonidine, which has two boxed warnings). But it might also be better to have this in the article itself, cited to whatever the best sources are the editors choose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. Kimen8 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- The file is a .csv file, so your computer will probably open it as a spreadsheet. That means that it's both searchable and filterable.
- The DailyMed id numbers are not intuitive (e.g.,
setid=ada02f1f-ae78-4435-879e-492ae862d504
), and I believe there is a different one for every single formulation by each manufacturer. See https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?query=clonidine&searchdb=all&labeltype=all&sortby=rel&audience=professional&page=1&pagesize=200 – but I think that only these four: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?adv=1&labeltype=all&pagesize=200&page=1&query=34066-1%3A%28clonidine%29+ have boxed warnings. They'd have to be matched up by hand. This is possible but hours of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)- Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. Kimen8 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see this as an incremental improvement. It took us years to reach this point, and it only happened because of a couple of months of work by @RudolfoMD. The next step will be more complex, but maybe we'll be able to manage that some day, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I do see the value in this, and my first reaction was one of letting perfect be the enemy of good, mixed with the aesthetically-unappealing presentation in the infobox of the "bulky" [WARNING] text before the Rx-only phrase (not that I can think of a better way to do this at the moment). It is indeed a step towards making sure that black box warnings make their way into articles. Kimen8 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want you to think of your reaction as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather that you think of it the way I do, which is helpfully advocating that we not stop here, but continue to look for even greater improvements.
:-)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want you to think of your reaction as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather that you think of it the way I do, which is helpfully advocating that we not stop here, but continue to look for even greater improvements.
- I do see the value in this, and my first reaction was one of letting perfect be the enemy of good, mixed with the aesthetically-unappealing presentation in the infobox of the "bulky" [WARNING] text before the Rx-only phrase (not that I can think of a better way to do this at the moment). It is indeed a step towards making sure that black box warnings make their way into articles. Kimen8 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see this as an incremental improvement. It took us years to reach this point, and it only happened because of a couple of months of work by @RudolfoMD. The next step will be more complex, but maybe we'll be able to manage that some day, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. Kimen8 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. Kimen8 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, unless I'm missing something, the link in the autogenerated citation seems to only list drugs whose generic names fall in the range "A"–"C" (I checked lamotrigine to make sure that the "A"–"C" link wasn't specific to clonidine, which begins with a "c", and the same link is on that page). Kimen8 (talk) Kimen8 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page. As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see 15 pages. Page 1 starts at "A" and page 15 starts at "C", hence my comment. Kimen8 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- The citation says to use the "Download" button. It's >10MB, which would not be a friendly thing to dump on unsuspecting readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see 15 pages. Page 1 starts at "A" and page 15 starts at "C", hence my comment. Kimen8 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- A week ago, here, I had already proposed/made a request for help for doing essentially what Kimen8 is suggesting. I wrote in part,
The text of each warning is generally concise and consists only of the most import warnings, so it may be worth [importing from the FDALabel database,] storing [in Wikidata] and adding to articles via wikidata.
I'm flattered. :-) - Regarding linking to a viewable page with the warnings: There's already code in the template to link to dailymed for some drugs. Perhaps we could use that, but my concerns include that the dailymed data may be less accurate than the FDAs, and strictly speaking, it would not be truthful to say dailymed is the source of the info.
- I think we can and should do the import of the warnings themselves. But we'd be want them to appear in the body of articles, right? I think so...
- Also, see the new edit request below; the wrong code was migrated.
- And "(Use Download Full Results and View Query links.)" is in the footnote, as WhatamIdoing noted. We could add the formatting I added.
- RudolfoMD (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kimen8,
- I welcome your further thoughts on next steps.
- The bulky warning box is fixed. (Obsolete code was migrated due to miscommunication.) I put the (now-smaller) box before the Rx-only phrase intentionally, but if there's consensus, it can be moved.
- Let's discuss this further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Black box warnings 2nd project, at least if it's not about the Infobox. --RudolfoMD (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that the Warning should be after the Rx-only phrase (such as Rx-only ([WARNING]) or along those lines), because the order in which I deem the information important is: The infobox parameter is about legality/scheduling so the legality/schedule should go first; the black box warning is auxiliary information and should go second. Kimen8 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page. As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on clonidine, I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is for this drug. It is barely helpful to know that there exists a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. Kimen8 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The WARNING doesn't belong in the legal section. It is part of the FDA label and not a legal status. Its placement is annoying and distracting. The black box warning is not in the article. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
"Solubility in water"
It looks like filling in the |solubility=
parameter renders as "Solubility in water". If instead one wanted to say something along the lines of "slightly soluble in ethanol, highly soluble in 2-propanol", is there a way to put this into the infobox? I figured out setting the |sol_units=
to " " at least removes the suffix "g/mL" part. Kimen8 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Chembox has:
- | SolubleOther =
- | Solvent =
- but I don't know if that's supported here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 9 December 2023
The current boxed warning indication uses LaTeX, which is just plain silly. LaTeX causes a whole image (with italicized text) to be added to the article for no good reason. Can't we stick with text?
Replace
|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
With
| legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
So we can see WARNING instead of . Looking at the previous discussion, it seems that the CSS approach I want is the final consensus, but it didn't replace the initial TeX version in the sandbox for some reason. As a result, the wrong version was applied. --Artoria2e5 🌉 06:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Seconded. Correct. I (oddly!) didn't notice that * Pppery * did the original edit request, instead of the the edit request as it existed when they edited the template and marked the request done. But note: we may have further improvement come out of discussion with User:Kimen8 soon. -- RudolfoMD (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- What I actually did was base off the code in the sandbox, and didn't even notice the midstream edits you made to the talk page on 2 December (yes, you did point them out, but there was so much noise in that discussion that I didn't see them). Anyway,
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- What I actually did was base off the code in the sandbox, and didn't even notice the midstream edits you made to the talk page on 2 December (yes, you did point them out, but there was so much noise in that discussion that I didn't see them). Anyway,
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug?
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? Abhiramakella (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Black Box Warning
I had a question regarding how the Black Box warning code is implemented and if the following is possible.
Many drugs have Black Box warnings only for certain preparations of the drug. Is there a preferred way to mention this? I thought about putting the sentence "The US FDA Black Box warning only applies to certain preparations of the drug, including ___, where the warning says: ___" or something along those lines, but it's clunky.
For example with baclofen, neither the preparations Lyvispah oral granules, nor Ozobax oral solution have black box warnings, but Lioresal intrathecal does. In the case of this particular article, the contents of the black box warning are mentioned in the Adverse Effects section, but there is no explicit clarity if someone sees the Black Box Warning symbol in the infobox and goes to the article body to try to see the details of that.
I was going to ask on RudolfoMD's page but it seems they are indefinitely blocked.