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)
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)
- To editors DePiep and Whywhenwhohow: done, Happy New Year and thank you both very much! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 02:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Paine Ellsworth, and best wishes to you, all year long! Nice to ping WWWH btw, and Have Nice Edits In 2021 :-) -DePiep (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
DrugBank
FYI, DrugBank changed domains from drugbank.ca to drugbank.com. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am a bit confused. Official website seems to be:
- go
.drugbank .com (https)
- go
- Formatter for DrugBank ID (P715) says:
- https://www.drugbank.ca/r/DB$1 Jun 2020, "/r/" for resolve
- and
- What to use in code?
- See also: {{DrugBank}}, WD: DrugBank (Q1122544), DrugBank ID (P715)
- WD not used, here for reference:
- Plus, we could think of adding the WD link automatically (with overrule by local enwiki input).
- -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The official website is now https://www.drugbank.com/ and any drug detail pages using the hostname www.drugbank.ca
are redirected to use the hostname go.drugbank.com
. For example, Asprin was at https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00945 and is now at https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00945. The only changes to the URL appear to be changing www.drugbank.ca
to go.drugbank.com
.
Do we support using |Drugbank=
for uses other than drugs? For example, here is a sample target and a sample indication.
The use of "r" for resolve appears to be old. For example, using https://www.drugbank.ca/r/DB00945 for Asprin is the same as using https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00945 and is now at https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00945.
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Is |Drugbank=
used in the {{Chembox}}? If so, it would need to be updated too. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Another use is for salts but using drugs in the URL redirects to the salts. Using any of these
- https://drugbank.ca/drugs/DBSALT000110
- https://drugbank.ca/salts/DBSALT000110
- https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DBSALT000110
redirects to here
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 30 January 2021
Please replace all code {{Infobox drug}} ← {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} (diff).
- Change: re-insert three parameters into the whitelist, to prevent excessive error categorising. No effect in mainspace rendering.
- Background: This edit correctly removed three parameters (do not show any more). Also, the parameters were removed from the "Know parameters" whitelist. Unfortunately, this reports almost all {{Infobox drug}} articles, ~5500, into the Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Infobox drug (0) making it useless ;-(
- Consensus: administrative (maintenance) change only, no effect in Mainspace. DePiep (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done Izno (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Date(s) of patent/patent expiration/generic potential availability
<revived discussion;
It is extremely useful to know date that patents are issued. Please consider adding this to the drug box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.31.113 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes good idea.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- In principle this is a good idea, however deciding which drug patent to include may be non-trivial. The original composition of matter patent (if there is one) is probably most relevant, but there also may be relevant "use", formulation, and/or process patents as well. In addition, patents are country specific and have different issue and expiration dates. One way around this is to instead list the international patent application (WIPO). Because of these complexities, I think it is more practical to add patent information to the history section of drug articles, including of course citations to relevant patents ideally formatted with {{Cite patent}} template that includes fields for filing date, granted date, etc. The WP:PHARMMOS does not currently mention patents. Perhaps patents should be mentioned (e.g., in the history section). Boghog (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good points. Mention in the history section or society and culture section may be best. Than greater details can be given with respect to different areas of the world. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see additional problems. For example, there were two ranitidine patents filed worldwide several years apart (so-called "original" and "polymorph"). I knew a patent agent who resigned from GSK when instructed to enforce the second one, which was widely thought, and which some courts held, to be invalid for lack of novelty. Also, continuing patent applications under US law add another layer of complexity. Further, there is no guaranteed date for patent expiry; the term is shortened if you stop paying the renewal fees or if the patent is invalidated or revoked (not the same thing), or extended if you get an SPC. Narky Blert (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good points. Mention in the history section or society and culture section may be best. Than greater details can be given with respect to different areas of the world. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- In principle this is a good idea, however deciding which drug patent to include may be non-trivial. The original composition of matter patent (if there is one) is probably most relevant, but there also may be relevant "use", formulation, and/or process patents as well. In addition, patents are country specific and have different issue and expiration dates. One way around this is to instead list the international patent application (WIPO). Because of these complexities, I think it is more practical to add patent information to the history section of drug articles, including of course citations to relevant patents ideally formatted with {{Cite patent}} template that includes fields for filing date, granted date, etc. The WP:PHARMMOS does not currently mention patents. Perhaps patents should be mentioned (e.g., in the history section). Boghog (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes good idea.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
is there no website that lists drugs patent date in the USA? then you could just link to it as an external link. The drug box is faster for doctors than reading a history. i hope you reconsider and add it to the drug box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.31.123 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any website that list drug patent dates. Futhermore, I am not sure how to get these other than digging through the patent literature. Finally, why would a doctor be interested in the patent filing, issue, and/or expiration dates of a drug patent? What I think you may be getting at is whether generic forms of the drug are available or if not, when they may become available. An expired patent of course is a prerequisite, but even if a patent is expired, it may take time for generics versions to reach the market place. In addition, these dates will differ from country to country. Given this data is difficult to find and is country specific, I don't think it is practical to add it to the drugbox. Boghog (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- When generic become available is very important especially for our colleagues in the developing world as this affects the price. am unable to find this information. If someone knows of a place would be happy to look at it. Most drugs become generic at the same time around the world with international patents. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- While the following estimates are for the US, they may also give a rough indication of when generics might become available in other countries:
- "Estimated Dates of Possible First Time Generic/ Rx-to-OTC Market Entry" (pdf). Medco Health Solutions, Inc. 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-30. Boghog (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- While the following estimates are for the US, they may also give a rough indication of when generics might become available in other countries:
What's going on with this? I search the page and there isn't even a mention of 'generic' or 'patent' to add this info manually. Let's do something that's better than nothing.
Add field year1stPatentEnds to the template. Feel free to be more ambitious, but I'm just requesting a simple static field that accepts a number. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hard to judge this idea (bad layout and it includes 2011 talks). In general, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, describing drug. Not a medical self-help-page. HTH. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit template-protected}}
template. From an inclusion standpoint, sure, patent status seems as encyclopedic as other legal status, i.e. whether controlled in various countries. Invention/discovery date seems important enough to feel like an omission to me. But it seems there are practical (evergreening) and possibly npov (worldwide point of view) considerations that need to be fleshed out in more detail. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:MED: Infobox drug - redesign talk
See this discussion about redisigning {{Infobox drug}} at WT:MED: § A slimmer, more reader-friendly drugbox?. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- A follow-up, there's a discussion here regarding which external links we should move to a new {{Drug links}} template in the External links section. Please chime in there. Ajpolino (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Add ABN field
Consider adding the other name fields too.
Australian Approved Name (AAN)
Australian Biological Name (ABN)
Australian Cell and Tissue Name (ACN)
A botanical name for a herb (AHN)
A herbal substance Name (AHS)
For example, the ABN for the newly approved COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is ChAdOx1-S. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- About AAN: already in, with other 'INN variants' (see /doc). Should not repeat INN.
|AAN=
, BAN, JAN, USAN.
- About ABN, ACN, AHN, AHS:
- I question whether these (regional or synonyms) lists should be included. They are not defining. First idea: in See also section (using an #anchor!).
- So far, we have not even added the 'WIDA doping list' parameter, which is international and has high implications.
- What do others think? -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Whywhenwhohow: I'm not sure I'm understanding. Could you give an example of a page where you think the ABN (or one of the other non-AAN names) should be in the infobox as its own separate field. The example you give of the AstraZeneca vaccine already lists the ABN in the
|synonyms=
field. In my mind that would typically be a better place to list national/regional names than having a separate field for each? That would give page editors a bit more flexibility to pick the relevant synonyms for each? But maybe an example or two would help make things clearer for me. - Also a note that at least for the AZ vaccine, the Wikidata item doesn't have the ABN. Perhaps we could fix that at least (sadly, my Wikidata know-how is pretty much zero). Ajpolino (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- It may useful to explore why we have entries for AAN, BAN, JAN, and USAN. The
|synonyms=
field may be used for those too. An ABN is just like an AAN and is assigned instead of an AAN for a specific class of therapeutic goods. COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has an ABN instead of an AAN. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)- Ah ok, I see. Then yes I agree that maybe it'd be best for all to go in the
|synonyms=
field, and then to update the documentation accordingly. Perhaps the documentation page could link to the gov't databases of names so an editor could quickly check the names from each when they're setting up an article on a new drug? I assume the AAN, BAN, JAN, etc. are sometimes the same? Ajpolino (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)- These are added to the "Other names" list. See See a monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug in articles..
- As for using Wikidata: we can make "Read from Wikidata, and allow local (=enwiki) overwrtite" (I advise). -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I see. Then yes I agree that maybe it'd be best for all to go in the
- It may useful to explore why we have entries for AAN, BAN, JAN, and USAN. The
- @Whywhenwhohow: I'm not sure I'm understanding. Could you give an example of a page where you think the ABN (or one of the other non-AAN names) should be in the infobox as its own separate field. The example you give of the AstraZeneca vaccine already lists the ABN in the
Vaccine target
The documentation examples state that the vaccine target is the antigen/bacteria/toxin/virus to protect against
in the comments but the infobox labels the field as Target disease
. The label in the infobox is incorrect since the vaccine targets the cause of the disease, not the disease itself. Please remove disease from the infobox label. Thank you. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Changed the documentation. I did not find the text "Target disease" in a vaccine IB (eg Alemtuzumab). -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: Alemtuzumab is not a vaccine. Here are some mixed examples
Target disease influenza virus
Target disease Cholera
Target disease Corynebacterium diphtheriae
Target disease Haemophilus influenzae type b
Target disease Neisseria meningitidis
Target disease Whooping cough
Target disease Ebola virus
Target disease Hepatitis A
Target disease Hepatitis B virus
Target disease Human papillomavirus (HPV)
Target disease Measles virus
Target disease Poliomyelitis
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 2 March 2021
- Please replace all code {{Infobox drug}} with sandbox code (diff)
Change: fix label5 text, per request #Vaccine target. DePiep (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 13 March 2021
Please replace all code {{Infobox drug}} with sandbox code (diff)
Change: updated and more consistent vaccine types. Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ftrebien. Looks like a sound improvement. I have made a testcase for all new output options here. Please take a look. (I am not familiar with the topic). Some questions, none is fatal:
- Should we change the label from Type into Vaccin type for clarity? The word 'type' is used in more meanings, wrt drugs. Now looks like having an implicit or jargon meaning.
- No wikilink available for "Live bacteria" then?
- Current usage of
|vaccin_type=
is here. (Look for "vaccin_type" in the lefthand column). You think coverage is OK? For example, I see|vaccin_type=mRNA
for 3 Covid vaccins; make into an entry?
- It makes sense to me.
- With the exception of "live virus" (which is a somewhat obscure type of vaccine where the pathogen is neither inactivated nor attenuated, it is fully infectious), "live" usually means "attenuated", which some sources call "live-attenuated" in contrast to the "inactivated" type. As far as I understand, inactivated and attenuated apply well to any kind of organism, while "killed" and "live" do not apply well to viruses, which are not alive.
- We can certainly add an entry for mRNA. But I wouldn't try to be exhaustive because Wikipedia does not yet have articles for several common types vaccines, only for the components or technologies used by those types. But I can try to propose some sort of taxonomy. I am not an expert, I started reading about this subject while helping to maintain the article on COVID-19 vaccines. Here is a summary of my findings after going through various sources. In quotes are common ways of referring to each type.
Summary of findings by Fernando Trebien
|
---|
|
Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK User:Ftrebien. (I have collapsed you content-list).
- re #1: I have changed label6 into "Vaccin/e type" [3], as part of this change.
- re #2, #3: no comment, all fine.
- Note: do we spell "vaccin" or "vaccine" in mainspace? ;-) The article is Vaccin. Is why I 'paused' this ER. When clarified, we can reactivate the ER. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is vaccine. Vaccin is only a redirect to Vaccine. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)