→Background: no, *first* revert, *then* investigate off-mainspace. |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 19) (bot |
||
(181 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Permanently protected}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WPBS| |
{{WPBS| |
||
Line 37: | 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{{Warning|1=This list is over a dozen edits out of date.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? == |
||
This template is being used for articles on medicines with biosimilars, such as [[Rituxan]] and the drugs <sic> that are biosimilars for it. [[Template:Infobox_drug#Monoclonal_antibody_drugs]] is helpful. However, field '''synonyms''' (displayed as "Other names") isn't appropriate; biosimilars and generics aren't the same thing. I propose a new field: biosimilars. Consensus? --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:That is [[biosimilar]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 05:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::What? That article is about biosimilars, but so what? --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 07:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I was looking up what "biosimilar" is, and if we even have an article about it. And probably the article link will be the (left hand) label if this data is added. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ah, OK! Yes, that would be appropriate for the left hand table link. So do we have consensus? --[[Special:Contributions/50.201.195.170|50.201.195.170]] ([[User talk:50.201.195.170|talk]]) 07:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'd like to read more specialists (I am not, in med). |
|||
:::::For now, one could use this route: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rituximab&diff=1032447055&oldid=1031676042&diffmode=source]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
===Proposal=== |
|||
{{infobox drug/sandbox |
|||
|name=[[rituximab]] |
|||
|synonyms=synonyms |
|||
|biosimilars=rituximab-abbs, rituximab-pvvr, rituximab-arrx |
|||
|Drugs.com = {{drugs.com|monograph|rituximab}} |
|||
}} |
|||
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) |
|||
* Add data point/parameter "'''[[biosimilar]]s'''" (distinct from synonyms, trade maks etc.). Would take text input unedited (shows as entered). See [[Rituximab]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Between {{para|synonyms}} and {{para|Drugs.com}}, see demo → -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''support''' seems like a good idea--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 12:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 === |
|||
: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) |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please replace all code from {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{tl|Infobox drug}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug}}). |
|||
: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) |
|||
;Change |
|||
:Add parameter {{para|biosimilars}} by request {{slink||Biosimilars (and biologics)}}. [[Template:Infobox_drug/testcases#biosimilars|Testcase]]. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{to|DePiep|Ozzie10aaaa}} {{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>16:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::Applied in [[Rituxan]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
===doc=== |
|||
{{Re|DePiep}} Is the {{para|biosimilars}} parameter officially supported? I don't see it in the documentation. Thanks. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 04:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:It is, as used in article and as advocated above. So one can adjust the doc. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Edit request 15 November 2023 == |
||
{{ |
{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}} |
||
I recommend capitalizing the "what" in "what is this?" Regards [[User:Hildeoc|Hildeoc]] ([[User talk:Hildeoc|talk]]) 18:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit template-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ETp --> Similar annotations, like that applied by {{tl|Citation needed}} and similar templates, start with a lower-case letter. This may be a little different, in that it ends in a question mark, but {{tl|Compared to?}} and {{tl|From whom?}} also start with lower-case letters. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
'''Description of suggested change:''' |
|||
== Add HTTPS for chemspider == |
|||
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 |
|||
[[WT:MED#Black_box_warnings_project]]. |
|||
'''Diff:''' |
|||
Please use HTTPS for chemspider. For example, use<br /> |
|||
Current:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
https://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.44208824.html<br /> |
|||
instead of<br /> |
|||
http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.44208824.html<br /> |
|||
[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 22:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
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> |
|||
:{{Re|DePiep}} Any plans to make this change? Thanks. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 04:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::When read as a question, the answer is: shortly, hadn't noticed this one before. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{done}} ([[Template talk:Infobox drug/formatChemSpider#Template-protected edit request on 30 December 2021|30 Dec]]) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
([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.) |
|||
== URLencode dailymed == |
|||
[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot}} |
|||
(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> |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug/licence|answered=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
Multi-word queries containing spaces currently don't work. As a result, pages like [[Bismuth subcitrate/metronidazole/tetracycline]] are using underlines as the word separator, with the very visible side effect of getting a super wide infobox. |
|||
:[[User:Davemck|Davemck]] ([[User talk:Davemck|talk]]) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''Diff:''' |
|||
replace |
|||
Current:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
<pre> |
|||
{{#if:{{{DailyMedID|}}} | |
|||
* <small>{{abbr|US|United States|class=country-name}}</small> [[DailyMed]]: <span title="dailymed.nlm.nih.gov">[https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?labeltype=all&query={{{DailyMedID}}} {{{DailyMedID}}}]</span> }} |
|||
</pre> |
|||
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> |
|||
with |
|||
:I have fixed the code display for you. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 02:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<pre> |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
{{#if:{{{DailyMedID|}}} | |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
* <small>{{abbr|US|United States|class=country-name}}</small> [[DailyMed]]: <span title="dailymed.nlm.nih.gov">[https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?labeltype=all&query={{urlencode:{{{DailyMedID}}}}} {{{DailyMedID}}}]</span> }} |
|||
: {{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|Artoria2e5}} {{done}} [[Special:Diff/1063941924/prev|1063941924]] —[[User:Uzume|Uzume]] ([[User talk:Uzume|talk]]) 18:40, 5 January 2022 (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) |
|||
== todo: GHS? == |
|||
:[[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" == |
|||
Maybe {{tl|GHS phrases}} could be added. (hazard & precaution label texts, warning symbols). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Like, "P302+P334: IF ON SKIN: Immerse in cool water or wrap in wet bandages". More [[Occupational safety and health]] (OHS) related, and professional handling. Don't know if many drug chemicals have such a warning/danger set. |
|||
:Also, don't see much spare time for this imn my own, new, calendar (was empty when I bought it some time ago...). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (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) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2022 == |
|||
:[[Template:Chembox]] has: |
|||
:| 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 == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=yes}} |
||
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? |
|||
'''Please copy''' all code from {{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} ''into'' {{tl|Infobox drug}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug}}) |
|||
Replace |
|||
''Change:'' Default behaviour: when the article has a corresponding data page (name pattern: <code><nowiki>"{{FULLPAGENAME}} (data page)"</nowiki></code>), the IB adds a direct link to that page. For example, see [[Cocaine]] <=> [[Cocaine (data page)]]. All fine. The change is: |
|||
<pre> |
|||
:1. When {{para|data page|none}} ''suppress'' the link (do not show). |
|||
|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|}}} |
|||
:2. When the target page is a ''redirect'', do not show the link. |
|||
</pre> |
|||
:3. Bugfix: When {{para|data page|Nonstandard data page name}} → link to ''that'' page. |
|||
::Also works when the page is entered with brackets {{para|data page|<nowiki>[[pagename]]</nowiki>}}. |
|||
:4. Bugfix: {{para|data page|<blank>}} (param is present), do as default. |
|||
With |
|||
:new template: {{tl|Infobox drug/data page link}} (internal only) |
|||
<pre> |
|||
''Tests:'' |
|||
| 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|}}} |
|||
:[[:Template:Infobox_drug/testcases11#(data_page)|/testcases11#(data_page)]] |
|||
</pre> |
|||
:[[:Template:Infobox_drug/testcases10#(data_page)|/testcases10#(data_page)]] (page .../testcases10 (data_page) is a redirect). |
|||
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) |
|||
''Support:'' |
|||
:Same setup as {{tl|Chembox}} has for data pages. Bugfix, and options are more obvious. Currently some 6 articles are affected. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 07:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{done}} [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 03:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== Nomination of [[:Caffeine (data page)]] for deletion == |
|||
:: 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) |
|||
<div class="afd-notice"> |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Caffeine (data page)]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]]. |
|||
== What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? == |
|||
The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page)]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. |
|||
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? [[User:Abhiramakella|Abhiramakella]] ([[User talk:Abhiramakella|talk]]) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. |
|||
<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Black Box Warning == |
||
{{Infobox drug |
|||
| CAS_number = 121268-17-5 |
|||
}} |
|||
I had a question regarding how the Black Box warning code is implemented and if the following is possible. |
|||
I have noticed that {{tl|infobox drug}} has started to emit citation template errors. For example, when editing the lead section of [[Ridaforolimus]], the error message "Script warning: One or more citation templates have errors" is displayed. If one removes the {{para|CAS_number}} parameter, the error message goes away. Looking at the {{tl|infobox drug}} script code, it is not obvious to me why this error message is being generated. Any ideas? [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 14:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I have added an extremely abbreviated {{tlx|infobox drug}} that I lifted from [[Alendronic acid]]. If this section is previewed, there is no citation template error message in the preview message box. If you copy the abbreviated {{tld|infobox drug}} and replace the entire content of the [[Ridaforolimus]], or replace the entire content of [[Alendronic acid]] with the abbreviated infobox and then preview (don't save), you should see the error message. Pick a random non-chemistry article (I used [[USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659)]]) and replace its entire content with the abbreviated infobox and preview: no preview error message. Also, in none of these examples does the infobox actually render a visible citation. Because this issue seems tied to chemistry articles only, I wonder if this has something to do with wikidata. |
|||
: |
|||
:Poking around in [[Module:Citation/CS1]], I think that I can see the offending {{tlx|citation}} rendering: |
|||
::<syntaxhighlight lang="html+handlebars"><cite id=\"CITEREFFood_and_Drug_Administration\" class=\"citation cs2\">[[Food and Drug Administration]] (ed.), ''ridaforolimus'', UNII 48Z35KB15K, [[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]] [[:d:Q6593799|Q6593799]]</cite><span title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=ridaforolimus&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ARidaforolimus\" class=\"Z3988\"></span> <span class=\"cs1-visible-error citation-comment\"><code class=\"cs1-code\">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class=\"cs1-visible-error citation-comment\"><code class=\"cs1-code\">|access-date=</code> requires <code class=\"cs1-code\">|url=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#accessdate_missing_url|help]])</span>[[Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL]]</syntaxhighlight> |
|||
:::<cite id=\"CITEREFFood_and_Drug_Administration\" class=\"citation cs2\">[[Food and Drug Administration]] (ed.), ''ridaforolimus'', UNII 48Z35KB15K, [[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]] [[:d:Q6593799|Q6593799]]</cite><span title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=ridaforolimus&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ARidaforolimus\" class=\"Z3988\"></span> <span class=\"cs1-visible-error citation-comment\"><code class=\"cs1-code\">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class=\"cs1-visible-error citation-comment\"><code class=\"cs1-code\">|access-date=</code> requires <code class=\"cs1-code\">|url=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#accessdate_missing_url|help]])</span><!-- [[Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL]] --> |
|||
:::{{small|category commented out; error message not styled because at the place that I extracted this citation, template styles has not yet been included in the rendering.}} |
|||
:{{tlx|cite q}} is transcluded by the infobox, so perhaps this citation is that case but whatever is calling {{tld|cite q}} is not returning the rendered citation. I suspect {{tld|cite q}} because that template always includes the wikidata qid and {{tld|cite q}} is a wrapper template around {{tld|citation}}. |
|||
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|Trappist the monk|Boghog}} |
|||
::Suspected edit re {{para|CAS_number}}(May 2021): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/formatCASnumber&diff=1021645226&oldid=1015759532&diffmode=source] in {{tl|Infobox drug/formatCASnumber}}. To '''revert''' (but do keep 'www' removed). |
|||
::I do not understand (nor was it discussed/announced) what improvement was intended. I am not sure that "wd-source" route is the way to go anyway. |
|||
::Same and worse: In sister IB {{tl|Chembox}}, same day same editor {{U|Leyo}} same edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chembox_CASNo/format&diff=1021643641&oldid=1019264633&diffmode=source] had to be revered. Even worse, after that similar edit, Leyo inserted a sandbox [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chembox_CASNo/format&diff=next&oldid=1021643641&diffmode=source] (?!), also reverted. |
|||
::so: Revert partially, and don't spend time on searching intention. Thanks for the reports. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (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. |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 14 February 2022 === |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=no}} |
|||
Please '''revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/formatCASnumber&diff=1021645226&oldid=1015759532&diffmode=source this] edit''' partially, ''do keep <s>{{code|1=<nowiki>www.</nowiki>}}</s> removed''. In {{tl|Infobox drug/formatCASnumber}}, the latest edit, 5 May 2021. |
|||
:::(<small>In other words, to edit:</small> |
|||
:::<small>1. revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/formatCASnumber&diff=1021645226&oldid=1015759532&diffmode=source this] edit</small> |
|||
:::<small>2. remove {{code|1=<nowiki>www.</nowiki>}} from the url</small> |
|||
:::<small>HTH -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)</small>) |
|||
:Change: bugfix. See report at {{slink||Emitting citation template errors}}: engaging wikidata this way introduced citation errors. |
|||
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. |
|||
:Background: See bug research above. Change was not discussed or tested. Similar issue happened at {{tlf|Chembox}} ([[Template_talk:Chembox#Title_not_showing?|talk]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chembox_CASNo/format&diff=1021643641&oldid=1019264633&diffmode=source] &tc.). I note that no such change or edit can be made without propor discussion, sandboxing and testing beforehand. |
|||
I was going to ask on {{u|RudolfoMD}}'s page but it seems they are indefinitely blocked. |
|||
: {{ping|Boghog|Trappist the monk}} thanks for the reports. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Background=== |
|||
The edit you would like to revert was made 9 months ago and hasn't caused any citation errors until very recently. Therefore, it is likely that the error occurred due to a change of another template or module. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 22:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{U|Leyo}}, about the bug: you have not disproven the bug; just an assumption. It's just that the ''report'' by {{u|boghog}} appeared recently. {{ping|Trappist the monk}} convincingly showed, above, that this invoking Wikidata was the cause. No related edits were made since. As noted, on that same day May 2021, you introduced the ''similar'' error in {{tl|Chembox CASNo/format}} (overwritten by you with your sandbox page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chembox_CASNo/format&diff=1022835688&oldid=1021643641&diffmode=source]?!). In this debugging process, you were pinged, already weeks ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Chembox_CASNo/format&diff=1067801274&oldid=1024545889&diffmode=source]. Conclusion: it is a bug, to be fixed, and you have not convinced otherwise. |
|||
::{{U|Leyo}}, about your edits and posts: I have re-opened this Edit Request. By now, I conclude that you have ''introduced'' a bug and are ''unwilling to acknowledge, and unwilling engage in discussion, and obstructing the bugfix''. With this, cancelling this Edit Request as you did is disruptive. To make the edits, you had to use your [[WP:TPE]] rights. You did not sandbox, not test, not discuss your edits befoe or after. That is an abuse of TPE right twice (no consesus seeked, not debug known bug=keep disruption). If you persist in this disruption in any way, be it on talkpage or in editing, that could be a reason to have your TPE bit be revoked. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: I take note of your view. I couldn't react earlier as I was almost entirely offline for the last few weeks. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 08:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I now actually reactivated the edit request (as I intended) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_drug&diff=1071994441&oldid=1071967532&diffmode=source]. Why on earth was the Edit Request template ''commented out'' at all, Leyo? -12:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Well, there is no need to rush since readers are not affected. The reason why this error only occurs now, i.e. after several months, should be investigated first. Moreover, how many articles are affected? --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 15:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3A%22Infobox+drug%22+insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+%2ACAS_number+%2A%3D+%2A%5BA-Za-z0-9%5D%2F&title=Special:Search&go=Go&ns0=1&searchToken=epaiby512zplig9tmq1q379hb This search] suggests that approximately 7700 articles are affected. This error became noticeable following the most recent update to the cs1|2 module suite which was completed 2022-01-26. Before then, cs1|2 was not capable of separately reporting errors via the preview message box. |
|||
::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::No {{U|Leyo}}, not "investigated first". '''It is a bug''', so revert first. After that, there is space & time for inverstigation and whatever (but not in live templates). I'd expoect a template TPE editor to understand & agree. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:11, 15 February 2022 (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.