Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 19) (bot |
|||
(363 intermediate revisions by 51 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{{Warning|1=This list is over a dozen edits out of date.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) |
|||
== Template-protected edit requests on 2 August 2020 == |
|||
: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) |
|||
{{Ping|Primefac|DMacks|Doc James|Seppi333|DePiep|Sceptre}} Recent editors: Greetings and felicitations. In both the Australian and the US "Pregnancy category" fields, there is a space between the category and the comment, e.g. in the [[Ibuprofen]] article, at least when it is used to add a reference. Unfortunately, I can't see where the problem is, even after checking the sub-templates. Would someone please be so kind as to fix this, or tell what other change should be made? —[[User:DocWatson42|DocWatson42]] ([[User talk:DocWatson42|talk]]) 04:38, 2 August 2020 (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. [[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) |
|||
* Re {{U|DocWatson42}}. The reason is that {{para|pregnancy_AU_comment}} (and so {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}}) can be used for comment (=add space) and reference (=no space). At the moment, distinguishing between those options is not possible or implemented. |
|||
== Edit request 15 November 2023 == |
|||
:Long term solution is to find a way to distinguish (preferred), add {{para|pregnancy_AU_ref}} (cumbersom for editor), or enter like {{para|1=pregnancy_AU|2=C<ref>...</ref>}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I think we should discuss ''why'' it's coded like that. Is {{para|pregnancy_AU_comment}} used for anything other than as a reference? If not, then the space should be removed. If so, it might be worth looking into having a "comment" para and a "ref" para. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Usage list through [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+drug TPU]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 15:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why? Because this redu es complexity. Also, I had in mind that we could distinguish input. This is recently became possible using {{tl|killMarkers}}-like modules. But it should be used (developed) carefully, for which I do not have the time right now. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, I suppose the other question is why it matters (specifically, if there's a space between the code and the comment). It's going to be a faff and a half to separate out refs from comments ''regardless'' of how we do it; is there a reason we can't just leave things as-is? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The reason we have this problem is that the MOS is "no space before a ref-marker" but obviously "need space to separate words or an open-paren from preceding text", and there isn't a way to pass leading whitespace in a template parameter-value. If we kept it as a unified field, how about regexp for <code>/^<ref/</code> to decide whether to render it without vs with space? |
|||
::: |
|||
:::Scanning by eye [[Special:Search/insource:"pregnancy US comment"]] for uses other than referencing, [[maprotiline]] seems to use _comment to hack around some uncertainty in the value itself that should probably be done differently, and [[valproate]] has a good use. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 20:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::For what it's worth I set up [[:Category:Pages using infobox drug with a pregnancy comment|a cat]] for the pages using the pregnancy comment. |
|||
::::The more I look into this, the more I wonder if the [[Template:Infobox drug/pregnancy category|entire template subpage]] shouldn't be reworked - basically the only reason there's {{para|pregnancy_XX}} and {{para|pregnancy_XX_comment}} is so that we can link to a country-specific section of [[Pregnancy category]]. Given that the label already does that, we're just duplicating links. I say we drop the linking for {{para|pregnancy_XX}}, and convert {{para|pregnancy_XX_comment}} into {{para|pregnancy_XX_ref}} for sole use as a reference. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{od}} re {{U|Primefac}} {{tq|1=why it matters}} &tc: you lost me. What do yoo actually say or propose? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm saying that we should get rid of the complexity of the subtemplate, have one parameter for the "type" and one parameter for the reference. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::??? Less complexity of subtemplate WHILE the request is to add diff between _comment and _ref? What do actualy you propose? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's exactly what I'm proposing; make it simple and convert _comment to _ref. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::duh, _comment to _ref is flipping, not solving. |
|||
:::::[[User:Primefac]] -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::''Not that worse, I say''. Proposals & discussion welcome. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* That's {{clc|Pages using infobox drug with a pregnancy comment}}. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{U|DePiep}}: Thanks for the reply and the explanation. <sheepish> Hopefully the discussion I've unintentionally sparked will lead to improvements. </sheepish> —[[User:DocWatson42|DocWatson42]] ([[User talk:DocWatson42|talk]]) 05:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:Primefac]] please copy {{tl|Infobox drug/pregnancy category/sandbox}} into live code: use {{tlf|Main other}} to keep category clean. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:FWIW: in the 229 articles categorised, some five use the _comment starting with plain text; the others are a <ref>. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::That sounds like a great reason to convert {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}} to {{para|pregnancy_US_ref}} and modify the subpage to avoid overlinking. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not seeing any significant objection, so barring any in the next 24-48 hours I'll change everything over. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 00:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Similar changes should be made to the legal_XX_comment fields. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 04:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That one's not as clear-cut, as the label links to [[Regulation of therapeutic goods]] while the [[Template:Infobox drug/legal status|data value]] links to quite a few different pages based on input. That's not to say it's not possible, just not a simple "remove double links and clean up" issue. [[User:|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
{{U|Primefac}} Are there plans to expand the letters when other text exists in the field? The recent edits that moved the text from the {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}} field into the {{para|pregnancy_US}} field prevent the expansion of the specified letter. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miconazole&diff=next&oldid=970845304 this edit]:<br /> |
|||
before |
|||
{{quote|Pregnancy category |
|||
AU: A(when used topically) |
|||
US: C (Risk not ruled out)(for topical use)}} |
|||
after |
|||
{{quote|Pregnancy category |
|||
AU: A (when used topically) |
|||
US: C (for topical use)}} |
|||
{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}} |
|||
There were other edits that eliminated the expansion of one of the letters. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diclofenac&diff=974048415&oldid=972204245 for example] |
|||
-- [[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:For reference, the 15 edits are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Primefac&offset=20200820201000&limit=16&target=Primefac here]; to be completely honest I don't think it's worth worrying about - the "category" is just a general indication of the risks etc and if there are multiple categories for a single drug the usage and differences are more important. I will note, of course, that anything put in the ''_comment'' parameter didn't have the auto-added clarification either, so I would say either neither of them get the "risk" suffix or both do. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 02:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
'''Description of suggested change:''' |
|||
== Log of significant changes == |
|||
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:''' |
|||
The following change log (here with more standardized date formatting) was originally being kept inside the template code itself: |
|||
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> |
|||
'''Changes:''' |
|||
* 2016-12-08: add ECHA InfoCard from Wikidata P2566 (// with Chembox) |
|||
* 2017-02-14: add licence_CA, improve showing+link of DailyMedID. licence_US link broken at FDA site. |
|||
* 2017-02-16: PubChem (CID) add option 'none'. Shows & categorised (also: CASnr, Chemspider, ATCcode), simplyfy ATC/vet, fix ATC issues, always show PubChem SID, added licenSe_EU, licenSe_CA, general code cleanup |
|||
* 2017-02-16, indexes (2nd identifiers): use unbulleted list not <code><nowiki><br /></nowiki></code>, use /formatX subtemplates, use standard formatting, rename some index params (hard removal) |
|||
* 2017-02-16, tracking categories: track 2nd identifiers & indexes to help maintenance checking (incl. Wikidata), rename and deprecate some, redo the track subtemplate, add default tracking option (when no need for new category) |
|||
* 2017-05-10: add physiological data set (endogenous drugs); parameter metabolites possible in two sections. |
|||
* 2017-05-19: reorder to position of pronunciation in rare situation; metabolism maybe repeated in contexts; add option component #5. |
|||
* 2017-07-20: add new parameter legal_BR, legal_BR_comment with options (Brazil) |
|||
* 2017-08-18: add INN_EMA to allow EMA-licence showing for differently written INN. |
|||
* 2017-08-25: add local INN variants AAN, BAN, JAN, USAN as synonyms; move synonyms into clinical data section. |
|||
* 2017-10-15: add cat 'Drug has EMA link', rm cat 'Drug has EU (EMA) licence'. See {{plain link|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=EMA&prefix=Template+talk%3AInfobox+drug%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1|2=EMA talks}}. |
|||
* 2017-10-21: licence_EU and EMA: improve external link (see also [[Template:Infobox drug/licence|subtemplate]]) |
|||
* 2018-03-08: adjust TemplatePar error message |
|||
* 2018-03-31: add tracking physiologica data |
|||
* 2018-03-31: add section gene therapy; with 4 parameters; tracking |
|||
* 2018-03-31: add parameter gt_target_gene |
|||
* 2018-04-14: adjust labels in gene therapy (gt_*) |
|||
* 2018-04-18: add links 'edit at WD' to E-number and ECHA chart ID |
|||
* 2018-08-20: vaccine_type: allow free text |
|||
* 2019-04-22: add DTXSID, DTXSID2 for CompTox database el (uses P3117) |
|||
* 2020-07-05: [[:Category:Infobox-drug molecular-weight unexpected-character]]: +main other |
|||
([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.) |
|||
I've moved it to the talk page, since injecting material like this directly into templates is abnormal and not useful, as well being a parsing burden. Talk pages (in which one can link and format) exist for a reason, and so does the edit-history feature. {{ping|DePiep|Primefac}} pinging known-interested editors. PS: If it is desired to keep this as a perpetual running list, see similar solution at the top of [[WT:MOS]], including "archive bot defeater". Another solution is using {{tlx|To do}}: |
|||
[[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<pre><nowiki> |
|||
{{cot}} |
|||
{{To do |To-do=Log of significant changes |collapsed=yes |inner= |
|||
(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].) |
|||
* List |
|||
:I tried putting <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> around the parms to the TextDiff above, and it produced this: |
|||
* Items |
|||
* Here |
|||
}}</nowiki></pre> |
|||
<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<small>Pinging also {{U|Izno}}, who chimed in on [[User talk:SMcCandlish#If you think that's bad...|the original thread]], but I didn't notice until now. Has related tracking ideas for the citation templates. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:Looks good, thanks! [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::No thanks. Bad approach. How is this a "logging" feature? Anyway, you are supposed to ''discuss-before-TPE-enforce-change''. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm finding it difficult to believe you are unfamiliar with the term ''[[changelog]]'', which is what this is a classic example of. Whether I'm complying with [[WP:TPE]] is a behavioral matter already under separate discussion at [[User talk:SMcCandlish]], and has nothing to do with the content or output of this template or the content of my edit to it, so it is off-topic here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* How ''significant'' changes; what is ''unsignificant''? And how will this section be maintained & updated? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:I don't care what the wording is. I just noticed that only big changes were being logged, so named the discussion to reflect that. I don't really understand your second question. I've already provided two ways to maintain it, assuming it is wanted at all. Personally, I don't think it is very useful or we would do this at all templates. That's why I simply removed it originally. But you objected, and demanded discussion, so here we are, discussing, and with the content restored (and improved), and two equally viable options for doing something with it, instead of just letting it archive away eventually. As for "how", well, by editing the page, of course, same as with the original changes log. It's simply on this page instead of jammed into the actual template code where commentary and personal note-taking don't belong. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|left=y|bg=LightGrey|width=95%|title=Off-topic behavioral discussion that belongs in userspace and has already been hashed out there.|expand=yes}} |
|||
*:DePiep, I get the feeling you are arguing for argument's sake, feigning inability to understand, and have no substantive objection, only a bureaucratic, [[WP:WIKILAWYER]] one which doesn't belong on this page. I do not understand where your hostility is coming from, but that, too is a user-talk matter. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*::Again, {{re|SMcCandlish}}. The point you skip is: had you started a talk, no issue had happened. But. Your behaviour, including TPE trespassing and personal attacks (ouch!) and 'what do you mean' and whatever you write here: ''had you started a talk, no problem would have happened''. While this way, you playing ignorant, you leave it to other maintaining editors (including me) to 'argue' back uphill. Let's not forget this post does not help serious maintenence, one of us is involved with serioously. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*You removed it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug&diff=971149154&oldid=966200741&diffmode=source 13:26 4 Aug]. I protested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=prev&oldid=971201078&diffmode=source 19:03]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_drug&diff=971356834&oldid=970944742&diffmode=source 16:40 5 Aug] you started this thread. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:DePiep, please just drop it; this is not a hill worth dying on. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 00:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*::Allow me to disagree. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 01:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*::[[User:Primefac]], I have been threatened with the "boomerang" argument, and nothing else, by -otherwise- serious editors. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 01:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Already addressed at the thread at my talk page, as you already know. Again, this stuff is off-topic here; it has nothing to do with the code of this template, and {{em|that}} is what this talk page is for. To the extent your concerns can even be partially discerned, there is no way to address them without a time machine, so I'm simply going to move on. The more you post about this, the more it looks like trolling. We all have better things to do than engage in circular arguments. You wanted a discussion, I opened one, and you have simply tried your hardest to poison it. It's weird nonsense, and I have had way more than enough of it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{od}} You wrote 'boomerang' as an "argument" (I perceive it as a threat) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=971436530&oldid=971433972&diffmode=source]. Sure you'd want me to drop it. You even closed, after ridiculing me, the 'discussion' one-sidedly. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 01:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh and btw, [[User:SMcCandlish]] (who I respected seriously until recently): After ridiculing me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=next&oldid=971430049&diffmode=source] you choose to close the discussion early [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=next&oldid=971639536&diffmode=source]. So I see no reason to reply more seriously here now (IOW, you are disingeneous). Have a nice edit. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 01:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
{{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> |
|||
===Made more permanent=== |
|||
I have copied the Log to header, thread be archived as usual. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal: Add a regular line for International Non-proprietary Names== |
|||
Suppose I want to know more about Viagra, I search with the term viagra because that's the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. I find that the title page is Sildenafil and it's the first name suggested in the first sentence, if I wish to find information about the origin of Sildenafil, the infobox shows that it is the name used by the FDA, and that it appears in the chemical nomenclature of its metabolite, but nothing else, I suspect the name comes from the FDA, but I cannot be sure. I assumes that Sildenafil is "the [[Wikipedia:Official_names#Rationale|official name]]", but I might be skeptic about the notion of a single offical name. |
|||
I tried to add a line " INN = Sildenafil" but that just causes a tooltip to appear beneath the title of the infobox, since they are both the same, it looks weird. |
|||
I understand that by default, the policy is to name the article according to the INN, but this is not transparent to most users, who cannot navigate through wikipedia's policy to finally understand that the name comes from this thing called the INN. |
|||
If I could just add a field "INN= Sildenafil" to the infobox, it would make the naming convention explicit, and it would allow regular users to explore the concept of INN. It would also allow editors to add sources regarding INN nomenclature. |
|||
Thank you for your time.--[[User:TZubiri|TZubiri]] ([[User talk:TZubiri|talk]]) 05:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I support this proposal. Sure our guideline is: "article title = INN", but that does not ''show'' what the INN is. Will reply more later on. (exceptions: see {{clc|Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title}}). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::(keep live, do not archive). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== License links == |
|||
{{hatnote|1=Useful links, general}} |
|||
::{{section link|Template:Infobox_drug|Licensing_information}} |
|||
The CA, EU, and US FDA license links are broken. It looks like the CA one is no longer displayed. We should disable or fix the others. What about adding one for AU? |
|||
;CA |
|||
Are there plans to fix {{para|licence_CA}}? It not, the documentation should be updated to remove {{para|licence_CA}} and/or indicate that it is disabled. |
|||
;US |
|||
It looks like the link for {{para|licence_US}} needs to be implemented as a POST request. Can that be done in a Wikipedia template? See [[Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 17#US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work|US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work]] in the archives. |
|||
;EU |
|||
The EMA can be searched using something like https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/ema_group_types/ema_medicine/search_api_aggregation_ema_active_substance_and_inn_common_name/tadalafil and EPARs can be directly accessed using the brand name https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/cialis |
|||
;CA |
|||
There are CA search options at https://health-products.canada.ca/dpd-bdpp/index-eng.jsp and https://health-products.canada.ca/noc-ac/index-eng.jsp but it looks like they require using POST. |
|||
;AU |
|||
The AU ARTG can be searched using something like https://tga-search.clients.funnelback.com/s/search.html?query=Tadalafil&collection=tga-artg or just the PI and CMI can be searched using something like https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/PICMI?OpenForm&t=pi&q=Tadalafil |
|||
--[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 05:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The Drugs@FDA site still uses GET requests with an application number parameter (three to six digits including all of the digits for the NDA, ANDA, or BLA number) |
|||
:https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=021368 |
|||
:We could create a bot that grabs the [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/drugsfda-data-files weekly data files from the Drugs@FDA site] and populates {{para|licence_US}} with the application number in the infobox. |
|||
:We could ask them [https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/email/cder/commentdrugcat.cfm via the Drugs@FDA Contact Form] to add a GET request for Wikipedia pages to use. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 17:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:We could add {{para|licence_UK}} too. It uses an ID in the URL |
|||
:https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/7432/smpc |
|||
:--[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 18:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{U|Primefac}}, {{U|DePiep}} any thoughts? Thanks. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 02:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::No idea, other than the edit request further up the page I've never really dealt with this template. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*Below, I have started a structure to discuss and develop this per governing institute. HTH -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::OP remarks by [[User:Whywhenwhohow]] are quoted. CA link is not shown, so rm from /doc as requested. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===On licenses (in general)=== |
|||
{{hatnote|1=Our general ideas and aims for this topic}} |
|||
:{{section link|1=Template:Infobox_drug/doc|2=Licensing_information}} |
|||
:Parameter: {{para|licence_XX}}, {{para|license_XX}} (so -c- and -s- are equally usable, whatever the formal ENGVAR) |
|||
*Question: How is {{para|DailyMedID}} related to the license? Or is it consumer info? IOW, do we have to keep {{para|DailyMedID}} within this discussion? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===License ARTG (AU)=== |
|||
{{hatnote|1=Useful links [[Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods|ARTG]] Australia}} |
|||
:{{website|1=https://www.tga.gov.au/australian-register-therapeutic-goods}} |
|||
* {{quote|text=The AU ARTG can be searched using something like https://tga-search.clients.funnelback.com/s/search.html?query=Tadalafil&collection=tga-artg or just the PI and CMI can be searched using something like https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/PICMI?OpenForm&t=pi&q=Tadalafil |
|||
|author=Whywhenwhohow |style=background:#eee}} |
|||
::So, it is proposed to add ARTG to this set (Australian license, {{para|license_AU}}). However, since neither [[Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods]] nor [[ARTG]] exist (redlinks now), there is no need to consider this. The question can be reopened when the article exists. (Then I will raise the question: by what criteria do we include any of the ~200 countries?). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===License HC (CA)=== |
|||
{{hatnote|1=Useful links [[Health Canada]] Canada <small>(French: Santé Canada, SC)</small>}} |
|||
:{{website|1=www.hc-sc.gc.ca}} |
|||
:See also {{section link|1=Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_16|2=#licence_CA}} |
|||
* {{quote|text=There are CA search options at https://health-products.canada.ca/dpd-bdpp/index-eng.jsp and https://health-products.canada.ca/noc-ac/index-eng.jsp but it looks like they require using POST.|author=Whywhenwhohow |style=background:#eee}} |
|||
::A discussion is at [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_16#licence_CA|Archive 16 # licence_CA]] (2017). {{U|Garzfoth}}, do you know more about this, as of today? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===License EMA (EU)=== |
|||
{{hatnote|1=Useful links [[European Medicines Agency|EMA]] (European Union)}} |
|||
:{{website|1=https://www.ema.europa.eu/en}} |
|||
:{{section link|1=Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_17|2=EMA_licence_link}} ''(2019 EMA API change)'' |
|||
: EPAR: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/download-medicine-data#european-public-assessment-reports-(epar)-section |
|||
* {{quote|text=The EMA can be searched using something like https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/ema_group_types/ema_medicine/search_api_aggregation_ema_active_substance_and_inn_common_name/tadalafil and EPARs can be directly accessed using the brand name https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/cialis|author=Whywhenwhohow |style=background:#eee}} |
|||
::EMA has changed the API two years ago, the infobox can no longer use INN. There are new options though. [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_17#EMA_licence_link|Archive 17]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* EPAR (european public assessment report) overview is downloadable from here: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/download-medicine-data#european-public-assessment-reports-(epar)-section (xls spreadsheet). Has human and vet med listed. Today 1726 records (data rows). <small>(late sign:)</small> -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===License FDA (US)=== |
|||
{{hatnote|1=Useful links [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]] (US)}} |
|||
:{{website|1=www.fda.gov}} |
|||
:{{Section link|1=Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 17|2=US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work}} -- ''(issue recently analysed by Whywhenwhohow)'' |
|||
* {{quote|text=It looks like the link for {{para|licence_US}} needs to be implemented as a POST request. Can that be done in a Wikipedia template? See [[Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 17#US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work|US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work]] in the archives.|author=Whywhenwhohow |style=background:#eee}} |
|||
::{{U|Whywhenwhohow}}, I have reread [[Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 17#US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work|Archive 17]] on this. Skipping the POST/GET too-tech difference: is it possible to make this FDA link working automated with a parameter (infobox drug input parameter)? If so, what (sort of) parameter is required? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Re|DePiep}} The parameter that would work is the application number. Something like |
|||
:::https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=XXXXXX |
|||
:::where XXXXXX is the application number. An application number is three to six digits including all of the digits for the NDA, ANDA, or BLA number. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 02:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Re|DePiep}} I am not familiar with the implementation and rendering of a WP template. When the infobox drug template is rendered does it have the ability to make a query and then use the results of that query to generate and format a displayable URL link? I assume that it does something like that to generate the displayed fields that are not specified in the template (e.g. CompTox Dashboard (EPA), ECHA InfoCard). If so, then the brand name or generic name could be used as the infobox drug input parameter and the template could get the application number to use for the link in a JSON result via the Drugs@FDA API. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 02:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't know if that 2-step is feasible. But I can note: vlaues for CompTox Dashboard (EPA) and ECHA InfoCard are read from Wikidata, so no local (enwiki) parameter input is required. This means that the values are entered in Wikidata (i.e., by Wikipedia editors). Wikidata has options to mass-import data. If that is the route to go, we can do it. Collect NDA ID numbers manually or automated ... |
|||
::::But there is an other issue: the NDA is an ''application'' of an active ingredient (say, the INN stuff). One INN can have many applications. Example: Lipitor (active ingredient INN = [[Atorvastatin]]), NDA=020702, list link: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&varApplNo=020702. Is this the page we want to show, listing applications & trade names? Or is there a general Atorvastatin (INN) info page? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::... or the Drug Safety-related Labeling Changes (SrLC)? Searching for Atorvastatin [https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/safetylabelingchanges/ 1. search page], 2. returns -- cannot be done by url. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::: 020702 is the NDA number for Lipitor. There are many ANDA numbers for the generic atorvastatin calcium |
|||
::::: |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #076477 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | SUN PHARM INDS LTD |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #077575 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | SANDOZ INC |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #078773 | TABLET;ORAL | Discontinued | TEVA PHARMS |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #090548 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | APOTEX INC |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #091226 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | MYLAN PHARMS INC |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #091624 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | LANNETT CO INC |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #091650 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | DR REDDYS LABS LTD |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #202357 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | DR REDDYS LABS LTD |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #204846 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | INVAGEN PHARMS |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #204991 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | LUPIN LTD |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #205300 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | TEVA PHARMS USA |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #205519 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | SCIEGEN PHARMS INC |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #205945 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | MICRO LABS LTD INDIA |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #206536 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | ZYDUS PHARMS |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #207687 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | ACCORD HLTHCARE |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #208478 | TABLET;ORAL | Discontinued | PERRIGO R AND D |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #209288 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | THEPHARMANETWORK LLC |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #209912 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | GRAVITI PHARMS |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #211933 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | MSN |
|||
::::: ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) | ANDA #213853 | TABLET;ORAL | Prescription | UMEDICA LABS PVT LTD |
|||
::::: |
|||
::::: --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 21:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::: The NDA can also be used to access entries in the [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/approved-drug-products-therapeutic-equivalence-evaluations-orange-book FDA Orange Book]. |
|||
::::: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/results_product.cfm?Appl_Type=N&Appl_No=020702 |
|||
::::: --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 00:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"ANDA" = abbreviated new drug applications; NDA = New Drug Application. Is NDA the ID to link to? |
|||
::::::Which inforemation (-page) do we want to link to? Options: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases I guess through Drugs@FDA (FDA-Approved Drugs) is the route? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*So. enwiki articles are by INN: [[Atorvastatin]] |
|||
::'Atorvastatin' in Drugs@FDA returns https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=BasicSearch.process (six entries), kinked but not specified. |
|||
<pre> |
|||
AMLODIPINE BESYLATE AND ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM |
|||
ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM |
|||
CADUET |
|||
EZETIMIBE AND ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM |
|||
LIPITOR |
|||
LIPTRUZET |
|||
</pre> |
|||
::What do we want to show to the Reader? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Add support for biologicals to legal_AU == |
|||
The infobox does not recognize values like C1, C2, C3, C4 in the {{param|legal_AU}} parameter for Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 biologicals. |
|||
https://www.tga.gov.au/classification-biologicals |
|||
--[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 21:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Currently, codes are available as listed in SUSMP [[Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons]]. The link you provide uses "Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990". Should this be changed? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::We should add the biological classifications. More info at |
|||
::[https://www.tga.gov.au/inclusions-new-biologicals Inclusions of new biologicals] |
|||
::[https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/australian-regulatory-guidelines-biologicals-argb Australian regulatory guidelines for biologicals (ARGB)] |
|||
:: Example Class 4 Biological: |
|||
::[http://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent&id=CP-2020-PI-01410-1 Yescarta PI] |
|||
:: --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 03:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Add support for additional components in a combination drug == |
|||
The template doesn't accept more than five component/class parameters type=combo. It would be useful to support at least six. The [[hexavalent vaccine]] contains six components. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 16:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, as a follow-up to our earlier discussion about [[Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_17#Multiple entries for various parameters|multiple entries for various parameters]], there are some errors for the [[Dengue vaccine]] article: |
|||
: |
|||
:{{quote|Error in template * unknown parameter name (Template:Infobox_drug): 'UNII3; UNII5; index3_label; index4_label; UNII4; UNII5_Ref; UNII3_Ref; index5_label; UNII4_Ref'}} |
|||
:--[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: I reactivated the multiple entries for various parameters edit request. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 21:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Add flag to identify as a stub-infobox when also have a chembox == |
|||
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. |
|||
We had a similar problem in Chembox when it was a secondary infobox, and in June, [[User:DePiep]] implemented |
|||
{{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) |
|||
:Good idea. Will take a look later on. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== 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). |
|||
:One can check in code: |
|||
:::{{tl|Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} -- regular categorisations |
|||
:::{{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) |
|||
== PDB == |
|||
The RCSB PDB links appears to be broken. |
|||
For example, for F9E it generates the following URL which fails to work. |
|||
http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/search/smartSubquery.do?smartSearchSubtype=ChemCompIdQuery&chemCompId=F9E&polymericType=Any |
|||
It looks like the correct URL should something like this |
|||
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/F9E |
|||
or this |
|||
<nowiki> |
|||
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"F9E"}%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409"}} |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
--[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 03:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Some background. Examples: [[MDMA]], [[Paracetamol]], [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?action=paramlinks&wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+drug¶m=PDB_ligand list all] (ca. 145). The first el (PDBe) seems to work OK as is. |
|||
:Sidenote: probably the lefthand label link should be a single one: [[Protein Data Bank|PDB ligand]]. No need to explain ligands here. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: There are two links in the PDB field. The first one works and the second one (RCSB PDB) is broken. |
|||
The F9E example I provided above is for [[Valganciclovir]]. For MDMA, the second one (RCSB PDB) should be |
|||
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/B41 |
|||
or |
|||
<nowiki> |
|||
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"B41"}%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"246d5e4721efa28968e77026dc51de67"}} |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
For Paracetamol, the second one (RCSB PDB) should be |
|||
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/TYL |
|||
or |
|||
<nowiki> |
|||
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"TYL"}%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"9228d1d289499c18e4c10fe3bb429ff3"}} |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
--[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::(ec) The second, long url (for F9E) humanreads like this: <code>https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query":{"parameters":{"value":"F9E"},"service":"text","type":"terminal","node_id":0},"return_type":"entry","request_options":{"pager":{"start":0,"rows":100},"scoring_strategy":"combined","sort":[{"sort_by":"score","direction":"desc"}]},"request_info":{"src":"ui","query_id":"b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409" }}</code> ([https://www.rcsb.org/search?request=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22parameters%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22F9E%22%7D%2C%22service%22%3A%22text%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22terminal%22%2C%22node_id%22%3A0%7D%2C%22return_type%22%3A%22entry%22%2C%22request_options%22%3A%7B%22pager%22%3A%7B%22start%22%3A0%2C%22rows%22%3A100%7D%2C%22scoring_strategy%22%3A%22combined%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%5B%7B%22sort_by%22%3A%22score%22%2C%22direction%22%3A%22desc%22%7D%5D%7D%2C%22request_info%22%3A%7B%22src%22%3A%22ui%22%2C%22query_id%22%3A%22b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409%22%7D%7D link]) |
|||
::In the example, querying "F9E" opens the page "6GS4"; is that OK to expect for these ligands? Looks like a user-build query. Is there a reason to use this query over the short one? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: You get the long URL when you visit the RCSB page and enter the ligand into the search box. The short URL provides detailed results for the ligand specified in the URL. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 08:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::I will put the short url in the sandbox; automated linking preferred (that's GET over POST, IIRC). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Sandbox proposal''' (to check) |
|||
::+Changed the (second) link as requested. |
|||
::+Changed the LH label into [[Protein Data Bank|PDB ligand]] (single wl) |
|||
:See [[Template:Infobox_drug/testcases5#PDB_ligand|testcases5]]. Proposed sandbox version produces: |
|||
::{{Infobox drug/formatPDBligand/sandbox | localValue=F9E }} |
|||
::{{Infobox drug/formatPDBligand/sandbox | localValue=TYL }} |
|||
:OK? {{U|Whywhenwhohow}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Think I can put it live tomorrow then, {{U|Whywhenwhohow}}? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{Re|DePiep}} It looks like it works. Thanks. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 21:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 27 October 2020 === |
|||
{{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 replace all live code with /sandbox code (two templates): |
|||
:{{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{tl|Infobox drug}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:infobox drug}}) |
|||
:{{tl|Infobox drug/formatPDBligand}} → {{tl|Infobox drug/formatPDBligand/sandbox}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:Infobox drug/formatPDBligand}}) |
|||
* Changes: 1. LH label wikilink refine, 2. External link RCSD PDB fixed per talkpage complaint |
|||
*Talk and test: see [[#PDB]] above. |
|||
[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:08, 27 October 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) |
|||
Replace |
|||
{{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>}}). |
|||
: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) |
|||
:-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 20:29, 9 November 2020 (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) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
== What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? == |
|||
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? [[User:Abhiramakella|Abhiramakella]] ([[User talk:Abhiramakella|talk]]) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Black Box Warning == |
|||
:: {{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) |
|||
I had a question regarding how the Black Box warning code is implemented and if the following is possible. |
|||
:::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) |
|||
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 19 November 2020 === |
|||
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. |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox drug|answered=no}} |
|||
Please replace all live code with /sandbox code: |
|||
:{{tl|Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{tl|Infobox drug}} ({{diffsandbox|Template:infobox drug}}) |
|||
I was going to ask on {{u|RudolfoMD}}'s page but it seems they are indefinitely blocked. |
|||
Change: replace {{para|<s>sources</s>|}}, {{para|<s>targets</s>|}} with {{para|source_tissues|}}, {{para|target_tissues|}}. Replace non-existant parameter names. |
|||
[[User:Kimen8|Kimen8]] ([[User talk:Kimen8|talk]]) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (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.