m →Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020: into subsection |
m →Pregnancy_US parameter: notes |
||
Line 337: | Line 337: | ||
:::{{Re|DePiep}} Some articles use {{para|pregnancy_category}} instead of {{para|pregnancy_US}}. I think it makes sense to remove {{para|pregnancy_US}}, {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}}, {{para|pregnancy_category}}, and {{para|PLLR}}. Australia still assigns category letters to medicines. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
:::{{Re|DePiep}} Some articles use {{para|pregnancy_category}} instead of {{para|pregnancy_US}}. I think it makes sense to remove {{para|pregnancy_US}}, {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}}, {{para|pregnancy_category}}, and {{para|PLLR}}. Australia still assigns category letters to medicines. --[[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow|talk]]) 00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::We'll remove {{para|pregnancy_US}}, {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}}, {{para|PLLR}}. Their input will not be shown at all. The comment usually refers to the Code too. (Will not remove them from the infobox in articles). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
::::We'll remove {{para|pregnancy_US}}, {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}}, {{para|PLLR}}. Their input will not be shown at all. The comment usually refers to the Code too. (Will not remove them from the infobox in articles). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::That is: {{para|pregnancy_US_comment}} is used as a reference input (added unspaced). Todo: {{tl|Chembox}} too. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020 === |
=== Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020 === |
||
Revision as of 21:35, 29 December 2020
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Changes log
Infobox drug: Changes log
|
---|
|
Proposal: Add a regular line for International Non-proprietary Names
Suppose I want to know more about Viagra, I search with the term viagra because that's the WP:COMMONNAME. I find that the title page is Sildenafil and it's the first name suggested in the first sentence, if I wish to find information about the origin of Sildenafil, the infobox shows that it is the name used by the FDA, and that it appears in the chemical nomenclature of its metabolite, but nothing else, I suspect the name comes from the FDA, but I cannot be sure. I assumes that Sildenafil is "the official name", but I might be skeptic about the notion of a single offical name.
I tried to add a line " INN = Sildenafil" but that just causes a tooltip to appear beneath the title of the infobox, since they are both the same, it looks weird.
I understand that by default, the policy is to name the article according to the INN, but this is not transparent to most users, who cannot navigate through wikipedia's policy to finally understand that the name comes from this thing called the INN.
If I could just add a field "INN= Sildenafil" to the infobox, it would make the naming convention explicit, and it would allow regular users to explore the concept of INN. It would also allow editors to add sources regarding INN nomenclature.
Thank you for your time.--TZubiri (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I support this proposal. Sure our guideline is: "article title = INN", but that does not show what the INN is. Will reply more later on. (exceptions: see Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title (779)). -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Add support for additional components in a combination drug
The template doesn't accept more than five component/class parameters type=combo. It would be useful to support at least six. The hexavalent vaccine contains six components. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, as a follow-up to our earlier discussion about multiple entries for various parameters, there are some errors for the Dengue vaccine article:
Error in template * unknown parameter name (Template:Infobox_drug): 'UNII3; UNII5; index3_label; index4_label; UNII4; UNII5_Ref; UNII3_Ref; index5_label; UNII4_Ref'
- --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I reactivated the multiple entries for various parameters edit request. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Add flag to identify as a stub-infobox when also have a chembox
On articles that have both {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}}, lots of the "chemical" fields are omitted from the drugbox to avoid duplication and keep content where it is most relevent. But drugbox also tracks certain missing fields, including some that get deffered to the chembox in these cases. That pollutes the tracking categories for things that are intentionally not to be done. For example, Niacin has the chemical structure and CASNo in the chembox and therefore blank fields {{Infobox drug|image=|CAS_number=}}
, which triggers the article to be listed in Category:Infobox drug articles without a structure image and Category:Chemical articles without CAS registry number, respectively.
We had a similar problem in Chembox when it was a secondary infobox, and in June, User:DePiep implemented
{{Chembox|container_only=yes}}
to stop whining about intentionally-missing fields (see Template talk:Chembox#Field to indicate only partial infobox). I propose a similar flag here for the drugbox. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2020
Please perform these two edits:
- All code from {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories}} (overwrite, diff)
- All code from {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug}} (overwrite, diff)
- Changes
- Add
|container_only=
per this talk; will populate new Category:Infobox drug container only - Remove unused, elaborate maintenance tracking options
- Remove minor and old comments
- Background
Discussion & consensus: this talk (following {{Chembox}} in this)
Tested: see /testcases9 and Niacin live (by preview)
Post-edit check: the demo article is Niacin. One can check this article, right after these edits, for any disruption.
- DePiep (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for working on this! If I'm reading the changes correctly (and that's a big if!),
|container_only=y
will inhibit all tracking of missing fields, which means|legal_*=
,|ATC_=
, and|license_*=
among others. I don't think that is the correct behavior, because those fields would not be covered by {{chembox}}. DMacks (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Restart. Many tracking categories in {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} overlap, but not all. My current
|container_only=yes
proposal here suppresses most if not all of the generic chemicals & CheMoBot trackings. Meanwhile, in Drugbox detailed cat reportings like "EMA" input issues are tracked, which seems OK to me.
- So, my questions are: Why not proceed with the initial change (not article breaking assumed), and after that propose refinements? Or: what clear changes (I did not forsee or include) do you expect right away? -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- "would not be covered by {{chembox}}"? I don't understand. Which categories should we (systematically) suppress and which not? -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- First, I totally support getting this implemented as a start and I do not (by eye) see any breakage. I can be tweaked later. I would like to suppress in drugbox those fields that have equivalents in chembox. So anything that is only supported by drugbox would still be tracked as they currently are. I actually didn't know until I just checked that chembox has legal_* and pregnancy_* fields. Question for WPMED: if an article has both a chembox and a drugbox, which (or both) infobox should have them? DMacks (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have changed the setup for
|container only=yes
. I cannot exactly reproduce the {{Chembox}} handling, because Chembox is more complicated and anyway, when using the template this way there is a bit of "you're on your own" consequence. {{Infobox drug}} however we can fine-tune. This is what the sandboxes have now:
- Categorise in Category:Infobox drug container only
- Do not categorise the negative tests: "image missing", "CAS number missing", "no legal status", Drugs missing ATC, ... This is the main reason to introduce
|container only=
. - Keep categorising parameter tests, when parameter value is entered (eg, analyse
|Legal_US=
when there is an issue with its actual input). - Bot Validation effects are kept (CheMoBot adding and setting the {{cascite}}-type templates for
|CAS number_Ref=
: as intended, and not added anyway if CAS number is absent so no undesired effect).
- One can check in code:
- {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} -- regular categorisations
- {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/container only}} -- new routine, called when
|container only=yes
. See the-xxx->
lines that cancelles (=comments out) categories.
- {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/container only}} -- new routine, called when
Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2020
Please perform these two edits:
- All code from {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories}} (overwrite, diff)
- All code from {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug}} (overwrite, diff)
- Changes
- Add
|container_only=
per this talk; will populate new Category:Infobox drug container only - Remove unused maintenance tracking options
- Remove minor and old comments
- Background
Discussion & consensus: Following {{Chembox}} in this. See #this talk and #this withdrawn request with extended discussion. @DMacks:.
Tested: see /testcases9 and Niacin live (by preview)
Post-edit check: the demo article is Niacin. One can check this article, right after these edits, for any disruption. DePiep (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Done. It sounds to me that it would be well worth exploring whether these two templates can be merged — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes the ../maintenance categories/.. templates can be merged. This step is just to make it work, and do cleanup. If I only knew the editor who did code it this way ;-) @Whywhenwhohow:. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
PDB
The RCSB PDB links appears to be broken.
For example, for F9E it generates the following URL which fails to work.
It looks like the correct URL should something like this
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/F9E
or this
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"F9E"}%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409"}}
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Some background. Examples: MDMA, Paracetamol, list all (ca. 145). The first el (PDBe) seems to work OK as is.
- Sidenote: probably the lefthand label link should be a single one: PDB ligand. No need to explain ligands here. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- There are two links in the PDB field. The first one works and the second one (RCSB PDB) is broken.
The F9E example I provided above is for Valganciclovir. For MDMA, the second one (RCSB PDB) should be
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/B41
or
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"B41"}%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"246d5e4721efa28968e77026dc51de67"}}
For Paracetamol, the second one (RCSB PDB) should be
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/TYL
or
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"TYL"}%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"9228d1d289499c18e4c10fe3bb429ff3"}}
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) The second, long url (for F9E) humanreads like this:
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query":{"parameters":{"value":"F9E"},"service":"text","type":"terminal","node_id":0},"return_type":"entry","request_options":{"pager":{"start":0,"rows":100},"scoring_strategy":"combined","sort":[{"sort_by":"score","direction":"desc"}]},"request_info":{"src":"ui","query_id":"b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409" }}
(link) - In the example, querying "F9E" opens the page "6GS4"; is that OK to expect for these ligands? Looks like a user-build query. Is there a reason to use this query over the short one? -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) The second, long url (for F9E) humanreads like this:
- You get the long URL when you visit the RCSB page and enter the ligand into the search box. The short URL provides detailed results for the ligand specified in the URL. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbox proposal (to check)
- +Changed the (second) link as requested.
- +Changed the LH label into PDB ligand (single wl)
- See testcases5. Proposed sandbox version produces:
- OK? Whywhenwhohow -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Think I can put it live tomorrow then, Whywhenwhohow? -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: It looks like it works. Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 27 October 2020
Please replace all live code with /sandbox code (two templates):
- {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{Infobox drug}} (diff)
- {{Infobox drug/formatPDBligand}} → {{Infobox drug/formatPDBligand/sandbox}} (diff)
- Changes: 1. LH label wikilink refine, 2. External link RCSD PDB fixed per talkpage complaint
- Talk and test: see #PDB above.
DePiep (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Is sources == source_tissues and targets == target_tissues?
Hey. I know jack shit about this subject, but I noticed that the code for calculating whether to show the metabolism parameter checks for the parameters {sources} and {targets} despite neither appearing anywhere else in the infobox code. I'm 99% sure that it's the {source_tissues} and {target_tissues} parameters that someone just forget to rename thoroughly. I don't have editing permissions - can someone who has please confirm that this is the case and then fix the code? --Metalindustrien (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Will take a look. Could you add example article(s)? -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Example articles of what? I'm looking directly at the infobox's source code. --Metalindustrien (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Background: parameters involved
|
---|
<!-- type=mab: ----- ----- --> | type = mab | mab_type = | source = | target = <!-- Physiological data --> | source_tissues = | target_tissues = ... | metabolism = <!-- same parameter as in pharmacokinetic data -->
|
- @DePiep: But it looks like |data58= looks for "sources", not source, and the context seems to specifically be about the source_tissue? (same with targets) --Metalindustrien (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, to be fixed. Thanks for the fine report User:Metalindustrien. We'll wait until current Template-protected edit request is performed, /sandbox is now occupied. -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: But it looks like |data58= looks for "sources", not source, and the context seems to specifically be about the source_tissue? (same with targets) --Metalindustrien (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Checked, using Parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug. (Look for parameters
|source_tissues, target_tissues=
in there, lists 10 articles). It appears that, in spite of the two misnamed parameters, the #if-clause in|data58=
does fire correctly because of other parameters having data. So, at the moment no errors in articles. Of course, we will fix the issue. -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Checked, using Parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug. (Look for parameters
Template-protected edit request on 19 November 2020
Please replace all live code with /sandbox code:
- {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{Infobox drug}} (diff)
Change: replace |
, sources=|
with targets=|source_tissues=
, |target_tissues=
. Replace non-existant parameter names.
Talk & test: Old code error. See above #Is sources ... source_tissues ... ?; F3 and visual checks. h/t @Metalindustrien: DePiep (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- To editors DePiep and Metalindustrien: done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2020
Hi, could anyone with the ability to edit this template be so kind to add the legal statuses for legal_SG (Singapore)? I think it would be really useful and once added I will start adding the appropriate legal classes/schedules onto the most common drugs/medications. It will be based upon the Misuse of Drugs Act (OTC, Rx-only, Schedule I, II, III or Unscheduled) first enacted in 1973. Thank you! BelfastBrooks (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
|legal_SG=
|legal_SG_comment=
- Put on pause: I will build the sandbox for this. Meanwhile, editor can discuss appropriateness of this proposal (for example, which of the ~200 countries should be added this way?). @BelfastBrooks:. -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Input options, recognised:
|legal_SG=otc / prescription only, rx-only, rx only / s1, schedule i, schedule 1 / s2, schedule ii, schedule 2 / s3, schedule iii, schedule 3
. Not recognised → Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status under "G". |legal_SG_comment=any text
, will show unedited after a space (consider using brackets).- Testcases: see /testcases3#Legal for SG.
- @BelfastBrooks: please check the testcases and its links. (Good plan to have the 'schedule's only, not the details). OK? -DePiep (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Looks good to me! BelfastBrooks (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Input options, recognised:
- Request: Please replace all live code with all sandbox code, twice:
- {{Infobox drug}} ← {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} (diff)
- {{Infobox drug/legal status}} ← {{Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox}} (diff)
- Changes: Options SG (Singapore) added to Legal status.
- Discuss and test: see above, and /testcases3#Legal for SG (now defunct). -DePiep (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile, editor can discuss appropriateness of this proposal (for example, which of the ~200 countries should be added this way?)
I think this is an important point. I'm guessing we list options for the countries which are most popular amongst readers, but that's just a guess. Obviously we couldn't (and shouldn't) list it for every country on the map. Does an inclusion criteria for this label already exist? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)- Not explicitly, but IIRC recently a country that has no article about their legal status (such as [[Misuse of Drugs Act (Singapore)] for SG) was denied addition. If list control is not acceptible, a solution would be to move the list out of the infobox into a body section (after all, it is not infobox-info derived from the article body anyway). Agree we should discuss this separately, User:ProcrastinatingReader? -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe. Last addition seems to be Brazil in 2017. I think it makes sense to have it in the infobox, as a reader I frequently found it useful information, especially when I didn't read much else of the article, so I don't think moving this out is a good idea. Whilst just adding one more is not a problem, the same argument could be made for every edit request, and I think without any inclusion criteria it's hard to give a good answer on why we list some countries but not others (and any more than ~6-10 countries would look ridiculous). Maybe it's better we decide that before we implement this - once people start using it on articles it's an uphill battle to remove a param. But those are just my initial thoughts; it looks like you were the maintainer for this template, so what are your thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have no objections to add SG now, being an increment of an existing list. There is no argument like "7 is the max", let alone "These 7 are the right ones". Criteria should be discussed separately, and will apply to all countries and institutes (like EU, UN), already present or not. With that discussion, I'dd add we should follow MOS:INFOBOX: the infobox is an article summary not, e.g., a package insert for conveniance (so split out into a section is a solution). Can you agree to split the discussion? -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean by split? As in add this now, and discuss inclusion criteria later? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have no objections to add SG now, being an increment of an existing list. There is no argument like "7 is the max", let alone "These 7 are the right ones". Criteria should be discussed separately, and will apply to all countries and institutes (like EU, UN), already present or not. With that discussion, I'dd add we should follow MOS:INFOBOX: the infobox is an article summary not, e.g., a package insert for conveniance (so split out into a section is a solution). Can you agree to split the discussion? -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe. Last addition seems to be Brazil in 2017. I think it makes sense to have it in the infobox, as a reader I frequently found it useful information, especially when I didn't read much else of the article, so I don't think moving this out is a good idea. Whilst just adding one more is not a problem, the same argument could be made for every edit request, and I think without any inclusion criteria it's hard to give a good answer on why we list some countries but not others (and any more than ~6-10 countries would look ridiculous). Maybe it's better we decide that before we implement this - once people start using it on articles it's an uphill battle to remove a param. But those are just my initial thoughts; it looks like you were the maintainer for this template, so what are your thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not explicitly, but IIRC recently a country that has no article about their legal status (such as [[Misuse of Drugs Act (Singapore)] for SG) was denied addition. If list control is not acceptible, a solution would be to move the list out of the infobox into a body section (after all, it is not infobox-info derived from the article body anyway). Agree we should discuss this separately, User:ProcrastinatingReader? -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
UNII formatter URL
The {{Infobox drug/formatUNII}} formatter URL currently differs from the UNII (P652) formatter URL. This infobox appears less correct. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Put it in /sandbox: See diff. (todo: test).
- One question: the WD formatter URL (P1630) (as in UNII (P652)), has an !exclamation mark notice, noting an issue. Is that issue relevant in this (is it limiting)? -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. No I don't think the exclamation is an issue: the formatter URL is without a reference, but an editor wanted to date when the information was retrieved. (They're supposed to add a reference and note when that reference was retrieved.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Test {{Infobox drug/formatUNII}} diff permanent, for aspirine:
- live
- Current enwiki [1]: R16CO5Y76E
- sandbox
- WD url formatter [2]: R16CO5Y76E
Obviously, the enwiki url is redirected to the WD url, so the change is due. Will make the editrequest. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 16 December 2020
Please put all code from in {{Infobox drug/formatUNII/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug/formatUNII}} (full replacement), diff.
Change, talk & test: External link URL format updated. See #UNII formatter URL above. ping @Int21h: DePiep (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Pregnancy_US parameter
We should remove the |pregnancy_US=
parameter since the FDA doesn't use letter categories any longer. They were replaced by the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Final Rule (PLLR). Here is an excerpt from Drugs.com:
Prescription drugs submitted for FDA approval after June 30, 2015 will use the new format immediately, while labeling for prescription drugs approved on or after June 30, 2001 will be phased in gradually. Medications approved prior to June 29, 2001 are not subject to the PLLR rule; however, the pregnancy letter category must be removed by June 29, 2018. For generic drugs, if the labeling of a reference listed drug is updated as a result of the final rule, the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) labeling must also be revised. Labeling for over-the-counter (OTC) medicines will not change, as OTC drug products are not affected by the new FDA pregnancy labeling.
By the way, when 'N' is used for |pregnancy_US=
, the text "US: N (Not classified yet)" appears in the infobox. The "yet" should be removed. It is confusing to readers and some editors try to find the category to use to replace the 'N'. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Replaced by a 'narrative' I understand, and so not fit for the infobox. Will work on this removal. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Infobox drug}} also has
|PLLR=
, free text input (label link). Was added 2015, see also this talk. - See a monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug in articles.
|Pregnancy_US=
1315 articles (mainspace)|PLLR=
0 articles (mainspace)- @Whywhenwhohow: Remove both? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Some articles use
|pregnancy_category=
instead of|pregnancy_US=
. I think it makes sense to remove|pregnancy_US=
,|pregnancy_US_comment=
,|pregnancy_category=
, and|PLLR=
. Australia still assigns category letters to medicines. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Some articles use
- {{Infobox drug}} also has
Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020
Please replace all code with all sandbox code, in these two templates:
- {{Infobox drug}} ← {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} (diff)
- {{Infobox drug/pregnancy category}} ← {{Infobox drug/pregnancy category/sandbox}} (diff)
Changes, talk and test: See § Pregnancy US parameter; US pregnancy category code abolished, so no showing. /testcases3. DePiep (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)