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
|
---|
|
What is GoodRx and why should we add it to the drugbox?
| ||
---|---|---|
As for what GoodRx is, their support page probably explains it best:
As for why we should add it to the drugbox:
See this Google search for the string 'insulin cost United States death' and just pick any article (e.g., [1], [2] [3]) In a nutshell, they all say the same thing: the rising prices of insulin analogs in the United States has made it prohibitively costly for some people to fill a prescription for one of those drugs. The clinical efficacy of insulin analogs for diabetes is completely irrelevant if people can't afford to buy them. The news articles from the google search and the examples I provided all say that insulin analogs (nearly all of which cost >$300 out of pocket per the news articles and from checking every link in GoodRx's insulins drug category page; NB: the prices listed next to the drugs on that page are "GoodRx fair prices", not the lowest price with their coupons) are prohibitively costly for diabetics without health insurance; some ration their insulin and/or don't fill prescriptions, and in some cases doing that has led to diabetic ketoacidosis and resulted in death, as stated in those sources. The majority of those articles specifically mention prices for various dosage forms of brand name or generic Humalog (insulin lispro), which is the cheapest short-acting insulin analog (NB: none of those articles mention GoodRx or online drug coupons). If you compare the prices for brand name Humalog/generic insulin lispro mentioned in the sources to the retail prices on GoodRx's generic Humalog page, you'll notice they're more-or-less the same as what's listed there, but GoodRx's Coupons for generic Humalog discount the retail price by ~60% for all three dosage forms (i.e., the kwikpen, carton, and vial). In other words, if someone with diabetes lacks insurance and can only afford to pay a certain $ amount out of pocket for generic Humalog each month due to financial constraints, using GoodRx Coupons will more than double their purchasing power of insulin lispro at that $ amount (i.e., with GoodRx coupons, a consumer with a limited/fixed budget can buy approximately 2.5 times as much insulin lispro for the same total cost as they could without those coupons). That increase in purchasing power could very well obviate the need for a person to ration insulin or forego their prescriptions, thereby mitigating the ketoacidosis risk.
This is a study of prescription drug economics/cost-minimization conducted by USC that used GoodRx data+coupons; I've quoted all of the relevant content from this source on GoodRx below.[1] It's not the only pubmed-indexed article that used GoodRx data for research purposes (e.g., PMID 28895827, 30796990), but it's the only one I've come across that analyzed the utility of GoodRx for prescription drug cost minimization in the United States. It's worth reading the excerpts below IMO.
|
Following up on Talk:Epinephrine (medication)#Cost information in the United States, what do others think of placing a GoodRx link in the drugbox template? We could use a left-hand side field as "US consumer prices" and the RHS could just link directly to the corresponding GoodRx webpage(s) listed on Wikidata for an article (that'd require creating an identifier property for GoodRx). I'd be willing to add the corresponding identifiers to all of the Wikidata entries on prescription drugs listed on the GoodRx website with a bot if there's consensus to do add it to the drugbox. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- First impression: better not. GoodRx is not encyclopedic, is it? It's like a marketing tool. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drug articles currently contain price information and most reputable sources (even including a number of PubMed-indexed publications) that report US consumer price information cite GoodRx’s drug prices. Anyway, since individual drug products from different pharmacies are perfect substitutes, the only factor that matters in marketing drug products (by a pharmacy, not a pharmaceutical company) is price. So, that website is more of a cost-minimization tool for consumers than a marketing tool for pharmacies. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- How is it encyclopedic to provide the cost links? WP:LINKFARM comes to mind. What's next? Second car prices? Also, the information is US specific. ~So far, I object to including this. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Amphetamine is an atypical example since most drugs don't have 6 approved formulations. Even so, I could just add the top 2 or 3 most prescribed formulations and list the brand names instead of lengthier generic names (NB: if a formulation has a generic, price data for either the brand name version or generic version can be displayed by selecting brand/generic in the dropdown list at the top left of the corresponding webpage, so it isn't misleading to list the brand name instead of the generic name); . That data is included on each of their drug product webpages.
- Re the US-centric data: we already have 3 US-specific fields in the current drugbox (see the 2nd drugbox example below for amphetamine). If desired, we could change the LHS to "Consumer prices" and modify the RHS to prepend US: to permit the inclusion of price data for other countries/regions that are currently supported by the drugbox.
- Would doing it that way be more amenable to you? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- How is it encyclopedic to provide the cost links? WP:LINKFARM comes to mind. What's next? Second car prices? Also, the information is US specific. ~So far, I object to including this. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Could you offer your input? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- What does "RHS" stand for? I am okay with GoodRx. We also have this website which I primarily use for US prices.[4]
- User:Seppi333 do you have an example of what you propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drug articles currently contain price information and most reputable sources (even including a number of PubMed-indexed publications) that report US consumer price information cite GoodRx’s drug prices. Anyway, since individual drug products from different pharmacies are perfect substitutes, the only factor that matters in marketing drug products (by a pharmacy, not a pharmaceutical company) is price. So, that website is more of a cost-minimization tool for consumers than a marketing tool for pharmacies. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Chemical and physical data | |
---|---|
Formula | C9H13NO |
Molar mass | 151.209 g·mol−1 |
- @Doc James: Using the drugbox to the right for reference, the left-hand side (LHS) fields are "Formula" and "Molar mass" and the corresponding right-hand side (RHS) fields are C9H13NO and 151.209 g·mol−1.
Since a given drug article may have several drug products associated with it, I'd code it so that it pulls the GoodRx pagenames (which is the name of the drug product) and corresponding urls from WikiData and displays each entry in a list using this syntax:[GoodRx_url Pagename_of_Drug_product]
; e.g., Amphetamine Salt Combo, Amphetamine Salt Combo XR, Mydayis, Adzenys XR-ODT, Dyanavel XR, Amphetamine Sulfate, Dexedrine Spansule, Zenzedi, Lisdexamfetamine. Those products and links are the same ones from this table: Amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC) - Generally speaking, I don't think most drugs will have that many links; e.g., the amphetamine article would only have the first 6 above listed in its drugbox. I need to request access to GoodRx's database to obtain the pagenames, urls, and hopefully the corresponding INN for each drug product to be able to program a bot to add these though (lacking the INN would make this task a pain in the ass). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Using the drugbox to the right for reference, the left-hand side (LHS) fields are "Formula" and "Molar mass" and the corresponding right-hand side (RHS) fields are C9H13NO and 151.209 g·mol−1.
- I'll code a template sandbox example in a bit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Example shown to the right. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- It would be nice to have the actual numbers within Wikipedia not just the links. People should not have to go elsewhere.
- Am working on a clean up of Wikidata's medication information. We are going to work on making sure all entires have the proper INN (in multiple languages), followed by adding the medicaid pricing information for wholesale. We could also than look at adding GoodRx data. We could than whichever number we want from Wikidata. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how wholesale price information would be useful to any of our readers. The intent behind my proposal is to link to current consumer drug price and pharmacy information externally, not list historical consumer price data internally; we can't provide the current price data on Wikipedia since consumer drug prices in the US change frequently and it doesn't seem feasible to regularly automatically update drug prices from the GoodRx database: assuming we were able to pull drug price data from GoodRx's database whenever we wanted, we'd have to edit a couple thousand wikidata items every time we import new price data from their database. Our readers who are interested in current price data would have to go to their website regardless of whether we list GoodRx price data on WP since we don't provide the necessary drug coupons for buying a medication at those prices and we wouldn't list the corresponding pharmacy to which the GoodRx price we list pertains.
- Like I said before, I'm willing to write a bot script in python to import the urls and pagenames from GoodRx to the appropriate wikidata items if there's consensus to add the external links. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Example shown to the right. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'll code a template sandbox example in a bit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Opposesupport I advocate for human readable information in the infobox, and for machine readable information and external link collections to be at the bottom in an authority control box. We have discussed drug infoboxes a lot in the past. I do not like the present boxes with the collection of links which take up valuable space and human attention at the top of the article but which either or both convey no useful information and advertise an external collection. I would support the addition of GoodRx and similar database links at the bottom of the article but oppose it being added to the collection in the highly visible infobox at the top. Additionally I advocate for the other links being removed from the top and for the infobox to be entirely intended to convey topic-specific information to humans. My opposition is not about GoodRx and is only about adding more coded information and brand advertising. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bravo. This is a good description of the concept of WP:INFOBOX, and the deviation {{Infobox drug}} has accumulated. Too often the infobox is seen (by highly regarded editors in this) as a data sheet for consumers & doctors, not an encyclopedic summary of a medicine. Earlier on, I suggested we could move a set of data to the External links section, probably in a template but definitely not an infobox. Similar issue plays in {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)]
- Different people have different opinions on the layout and content of infoboxes, as it's not standardized. MOS:INFOBOX doesn't preclude the inclusion of ELs in infoboxes after all. Other editors think infoboxes detract from articles. Removing all the ELs from the infobox isn't the "right way" to present summary/supplemental data to our readers; it's merely one way of doing it. As for the EL template, we are 100% going to use a scaled down version of the drugbox. When I said – "
The first is that I imagine a lot of readers will have no clue what happened to every drugbox on Wikipedia if we suddenly cut them in half without providing some kind of indication of what we did with the other half of the drugbox data (it's not like they're going to know we've moved it to an EL section and I doubt most of them will scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to try to find what we did with it). The second is that all of those links are still very much pertitent to the Drugbox even after being split out, so there should be a means of navigating to them quickly within the Drugbox (this is analogous to the "Supplementary data page" link in the chembox).
" – I meant it at face value. We're going to cut the drugbox in two and keep the appearance identical; and, that's why that there's going to be a link from the drugbox at the top of the page to the External data half at the bottom. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)- No, the appearences of an infobox, any infobox, follows from its informational description (say MOS:INFOBOX). For exampple, since it is some summary of the article topic, we can not reuse it for an EL list. Sure readers might be surprised when the Drugbox changes (half a dozen el's disappear), but that does not imply that the new EL list is an infobox in any sense (this is more a soft change management issue). After all, this is removing those el's from Drugbox because they don't belong in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bravo. This is a good description of the concept of WP:INFOBOX, and the deviation {{Infobox drug}} has accumulated. Too often the infobox is seen (by highly regarded editors in this) as a data sheet for consumers & doctors, not an encyclopedic summary of a medicine. Earlier on, I suggested we could move a set of data to the External links section, probably in a template but definitely not an infobox. Similar issue plays in {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)]
Clinical data | |
---|---|
License data | |
../licence/sandbox | |
License data |
@Bluerasberry and DePiep: I've added a lengthy explanation about what GoodRx is, the services it provides, the motivation for adding this link to the drugbox, and clearly illustrated the utility of GoodRx to consumers with 2 examples. I strongly suggest reading all of it; but, at the very least, just read the quoted excerpts from the journal citation.
- @DePiep: I've modified the LHS and RHS to prepend "US:" on the RHS for consistency with the other fields. I'm completely open to suggestions/feedback on this and would also be fine with limiting the number of external links to 2 for the RHS if limiting it to 3 is still a problem for you; that said, I'd be pretty appalled if, after reading what I wrote in the collapse tab above, you still felt opposed to adding a GoodRx field to the drugbox solely because it includes retail price data and drug coupons.
- @Bluerasberry: See the drugbox to the right for the "Clinical data" fields that I'm referring to immediately below, including the proposed GoodRx field. I agree with you that the identifiers should probably be moved but I strongly disagree about the clinical data links. It is not even remotely possible for us to include the price information and GoodRx coupons for drugs on Wikipedia that're listed on the GoodRx website; the only way to make that content available is to externally link to it. While GoodRx does get around 10 million visits to its site per month, not many people actually know about GoodRx; if you read the news articles I linked about insulin, you might've already realized that. I'm hoping you consider the benefit to WP readers in the US from linking to a website that offers significant cost savings on prescription drugs to outweigh the cost of a slightly less visually appealing drugbox as a result of 1 new infobox field. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- We currently have 7 Clinical data fields (the 2 ATC parameters below count as 1 field) that link to an external source and list only the drug name, a code, or the name of the corresponding website with a hyperlink on the right-hand side. While the websites that are linked serve different purposes, these links are all displayed the same way as the field that I've proposed adding for GoodRx. With exception for the ATC code and DailyMed ID (which uses the National Drug Code for a drug as the input), none of these fields are coded.
All of the fields in this section and all of the corresponding websites supplied as an external link in this section should be human readable; with exception for the ATC code link to the WHO page, all of those websites are human readable. As for the GoodRx website, that's obviously human readable; it wouldn't be a price comparison website if it weren't. As mentioned below, it also provides clinical data in the "Drug Info" tab (example).
Given the utility that the clinical data external links provides the drugbox (in terms of clinically-relevant information about the drug as opposed to about the compound), none of these should be moved out of the drugbox. I imagine a significant fraction of readers of a drug article would be interested in the website content from one or more of these links since they all contain clinically-relevant drug information. - We also have 12 Identifiers fields that link to an external source and generally display a hyperlinked website-specific identifier for the corresponding webpage on the right-hand side. While these fields all just link to another website like the clinical data links do, the type of content they contain is entirely different from the content the clinical data websites contain (even the ATC code WHO link includes dosing info). Besides price information, GoodRx also contains clinical data on dosage forms, strengths, and brand vs generic formulation for an active ingredient as well as other clinical data in the "Drug Info" tab (example) on common side effects, indications, interactions and precautions, etc.; hence, the proposed GoodRx field is also entirely different from the identifier links. All of these fields are coded.
While I personally find some of these database links useful and handy to have in the drugbox for my own use, I recognize that the content is probably only useful/relevant to <1% of the readers of a drug article. Given the wide range in types of external links included here and the general lack of utility to the average reader, I agree that moving this out of the drugbox and into an article footer template for external links might be a good idea. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- We currently have 7 Clinical data fields (the 2 ATC parameters below count as 1 field) that link to an external source and list only the drug name, a code, or the name of the corresponding website with a hyperlink on the right-hand side. While the websites that are linked serve different purposes, these links are all displayed the same way as the field that I've proposed adding for GoodRx. With exception for the ATC code and DailyMed ID (which uses the National Drug Code for a drug as the input), none of these fields are coded.
Clinical data and identifiers parameters
|
---|
<!-- Clinical data --> | Drugs.com = | MedlinePlus = | licence_CA = <!-- Health Canada may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> | licence_EU = <!-- EMA uses INN (or special INN_EMA) --> | DailyMedID = <!-- DailyMed may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> | licence_US = <!-- FDA may use generic or brand name (generic name preferred) --> | ATC_prefix = <!-- 'none' if uncategorised --> | ATC_suffix = <!--Identifiers--> | CAS_number = | PubChem = | PubChemSubstance = | IUPHAR_ligand = | DrugBank = | ChemSpiderID = | UNII = | KEGG = | ChEBI = | ChEMBL = | NIAID_ChemDB = | PDB_ligand = |
- @Seppi333: I have failed to make myself understood. I am not contesting the quality of the information or its inclusion. I only object to its placement at the top of the article rather than at the bottom. None of the above information is of any use to an end consumer. I advocate that everything in an infobox, with the exception of 1 external link to an official website if applicable, should be to inform a human immediately upon reading without any additional clicks. I oppose placement in the top primary infobox and will support placement anywhere outside of and below the primary infobox at the top. I am already in agreement with your argument for the value of this content.
- If you fear the bureaucratic process of moving these links out from the top to elsewhere, then I would support you including GoodRx or anything else at the top now as a temporary measure, so long as you agree and assert that all this content is inappropriately placed, problematic, and needs to be moved as soon as possible.
- If you have other ideas I am ready to find a way to support your idea to share access to this information, which is a good idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- (part of the talk here ended up in section #Prototype below)
- (ec) Re Seppi: Good, except for the link to EL-box in the infobox. OF course, every EL related to the infobox and v.v.: that connection is the article title. (But maybe temporally useful because of the change).
- To improve the process & thinking: I oppose adding GoodRx to the infobox. (Doesn't this split need a separate thread?). -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am adamantly opposed to splitting the drugbox without adding that wikilink. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's the point: add this new external link in in the el section, not in the infobox. Are you suggesting we must add it to the infobox before ou would consider moving links down the article? Sounds like you are bartering with non-existant goods. What leverage does this threat have? -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not before. That would be odd. Ignoring the consensus issue, who else would be coding a bot script to do this if it weren’t me? This isn’t a simple edit to the drugbox we’re talking about. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Edit: if you meant the GoodRx link instead of the EL box wikilink, then yes, I did mean before. I intend to write the import script before I write the one to split the drugbox. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's the point: add this new external link in in the el section, not in the infobox. Are you suggesting we must add it to the infobox before ou would consider moving links down the article? Sounds like you are bartering with non-existant goods. What leverage does this threat have? -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am adamantly opposed to splitting the drugbox without adding that wikilink. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- (part of the talk here ended up in section #Prototype below)
oppose. I'd agree if the price was listed, with GoodRx as the reference but not with a straight up link. While I agree this is in the public good for US citizens (as already pointed out) I see a lot of dangers. (1) I can't find precedent for including a for-profit link in the infobox (I equate this (from a philosophical point of view) to having the IMDB or Rotten Tomato link in the infobox of a movie), but I think much of the general community would oppose. (2) Their profit model could change, without disclosure, and we could be giving bad and unverifiable information. (3) Their methods seem to be bit of a black box; we can't independently verify accuracy or that they're unbiased (4) There may be bias in the way information is presented (e.g. the referral fees or advertising that is not well marked as such) (5) very specific to the US. Overall; I like the idea as a public service but oppose it because it's easily corruptible by the company and it gives them a significant, and unfair advantage over anyone else that may be providing the same or similar services. Ian Furst (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ian Furst: Every DrugBank link in a drugbox, as of right now, is a for profit link. If you go to any drugbank page (e.g., https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00295 https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00910), you'll see an ad in the top-right of the loaded page that says things like: "High-quality data is the first step for training Machine-Learning and Artificial Intelligence models." and "Learn more about how you can use our data to enhance your EMR System!" Click that link and you'll immediately be taken to https://www.drugbankplus.com. I got excited by the idea that I'd be able to use a drugbank API when I saw the AI banner, but I'm not paying for that. . Not only that, but adverse effects, contraindications, and black box warnings are all behind a paywall as well (just load a page and search the term "ADDITIONAL DATA AVAILABLE"). At least GoodRx doesn't let down their users with a paywall for their services. EDIT: as of right now, your points about (2) and (3) apply to GoodRx and Drugbank equally, but (4) applies even moreso to Drugbank since it makes no attempt whatsoever to explain its business model. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- support per Blue Rasberry rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Prototype for Template:External links list Drug
- @Bluerasberry: I'd be fine with moving all the fields in the drugbox that list an external link – including DailyMedID, Drugs.com, MedlinePlus, licence_CA/EU/US, ATC code, GoodRx, every identifier except the IUPAC name, and the 3D model image – into a new EL template for drug articles and then using a bot to remove all those parameters from the drugbox while simultaneously placing that new template in the "External links" section of every drug article. One further condition is that we'd need to include a link to the external links section (e.g., something like
[[#External links|External data]]
or[[#External data|External data]]
provided that I add{{Anchor|External data}}
to the heading of the new template) at the bottom of the Drugbox for two reasons. The first is that I imagine a lot of readers will have no clue what happened to every drugbox on Wikipedia if we suddenly cut them in half without providing some kind of indication of what we did with the other half of the drugbox data (it's not like they're going to know we've moved it to an EL section and I doubt most of them will scroll all the way to the bottom of the article to try to find what we did with it). The second is that all of those links are still very much pertitent to the Drugbox even after being split out, so there should be a means of navigating to them quickly within the Drugbox (this is analogous to the "Supplementary data page" link in the chembox). - Using the authority control template for displaying that content is a bad idea IMO. Too much garbage gets lumped into it and I've deleted it from several drug articles for that reason. Also, when there's a lot of data mapped into that template, it looks like Template:Authority control#Examples; those "examples" are almost unreadable.
- Anyway, if you're alright with the approach I've described above, it should be proposed at WT:PHARM for further input. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: does that approach sound fine to you? If so, are you fine with adding the GoodRx field to the Drugbox for now? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- We need to add the actual number. I am working to do that but it will take a few months. The license I think is good in the infobox at the top rather than the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: As I mentioned above, adding price data from GoodRx isn't useful IMO. If you want to do that with another data source, that sounds fine; however, this proposal pertains to adding an EL to the drugbox (and subsequently, the external data box) for the reasons I've explained above. I'd appreciate it if you commented on that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- So I support adding price data and the link as a reference. I do not support just adding it as an EL to the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I'm about to ask GoodRx to give me access to their database or send me a dataset containing the relevant data I need. Will see if it's possible to obtain that as well. As for price, is it the current lowest GoodRx Coupon price you're interested in using? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I just realized that since some brands contain multiple dosage forms (e.g., insulin lispro - vial/kwikpen/carton, as described above), it'll be a tough ask to give me as much data as I'm looking for if they send me a dataset. If I can get access to their database, I can get the data you're looking for, but if not, an external link will have to suffice. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I'm about to ask GoodRx to give me access to their database or send me a dataset containing the relevant data I need. Will see if it's possible to obtain that as well. As for price, is it the current lowest GoodRx Coupon price you're interested in using? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- So I support adding price data and the link as a reference. I do not support just adding it as an EL to the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Edit:I could potentially update this once every 1-3 months and list the lowest price associated with each brand name in the Dbox/EL section if that would be more amenable to you. I'd need to see if they'd be alright with providing me with price data on a regular basis though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: As I mentioned above, adding price data from GoodRx isn't useful IMO. If you want to do that with another data source, that sounds fine; however, this proposal pertains to adding an EL to the drugbox (and subsequently, the external data box) for the reasons I've explained above. I'd appreciate it if you commented on that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- We need to add the actual number. I am working to do that but it will take a few months. The license I think is good in the infobox at the top rather than the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Seppi333: Yes I support adding to the Drugbox now as a pilot and short term solution to delivering information in the context of a need for a later reform. If you could somehow do a prototype of what it would look like to move some information to the bottom in a sample article then I would appreciate that, but do not consider this as an obligation if this is a distraction and it is not urgent. It is enough for me just that you explained your thoughts. I agree with you just adding the box for this to get sorted in a broader way with the pharmacy board and others later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: See right. I don't see any reason to change the way it's presented. I will, however, fix the default width to 300px to match the size of an infobox which is compliant with MOS:IMGSIZE. Template:Drugbox external links is the name I'd use for the new template, if implemented. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- That external links box is awesome and exactly the kind of thing which I want elsewhere in the article and not at the top. Thanks for prototyping it as an demo for discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've notified WP:PHARM editors by creating a thread about GoodRx and splitting the drugbox links out into the EL section at WT:PHARM#Template talk:Drugbox#GoodRx. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Suggestion: GoodRx should not be under "Clinical data". Add new header "Marketing info", "Consumer info"?. -DePiep (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with "Clinical data" or "Consumer info". As I explained above, there is ample clinical data on GoodRx for every drug in its database; one simply needs to click the "Drug Info" or "Side Effects" tabs on the corresponding webpage. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Name should be "Consumer price (US)" to clarify. Rather than "Consumer price data" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with "Clinical data" or "Consumer info". As I explained above, there is ample clinical data on GoodRx for every drug in its database; one simply needs to click the "Drug Info" or "Side Effects" tabs on the corresponding webpage. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- That external links box is awesome and exactly the kind of thing which I want elsewhere in the article and not at the top. Thanks for prototyping it as an demo for discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: See right. I don't see any reason to change the way it's presented. I will, however, fix the default width to 300px to match the size of an infobox which is compliant with MOS:IMGSIZE. Template:Drugbox external links is the name I'd use for the new template, if implemented. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: does that approach sound fine to you? If so, are you fine with adding the GoodRx field to the Drugbox for now? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: I'd be fine with moving all the fields in the drugbox that list an external link – including DailyMedID, Drugs.com, MedlinePlus, licence_CA/EU/US, ATC code, GoodRx, every identifier except the IUPAC name, and the 3D model image – into a new EL template for drug articles and then using a bot to remove all those parameters from the drugbox while simultaneously placing that new template in the "External links" section of every drug article. One further condition is that we'd need to include a link to the external links section (e.g., something like
- In the end result, we should not use meta {{Infobox}}. Also, better not reuse the infobox styling (bg colors). -DePiep (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In the end result, we should not use meta {{Infobox}}.
And why is that, exactly? I made it clear earlier that I still consider all of these external links to be part of the drugbox even after splitting them out, hence the use of an infobox with an identical appearance; we're simply moving them to the EL section since it's just as appropriate to place them there as it is in Drugbox template itself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Per MOS:INFOBOX. For example, the infobox is a summary of the article, is placed in top, is treated differently (by html, on mobile, etc). Better be guided by Wikipedia:External links. -DePiep (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Formatting should be fit for the EL section: For example, the EL's better be a bulleted list (which can also have subheaders like unbold & unindented). IMO, it could be a multi-column list to be organised as refs list is organised; leave it to the browser etc. (not hardcoded by the template). -DePiep (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- If an article already has a list of external links, I'd prefer not to bloat it even more by adding this content on the left-side of the page. E.g., Amphetamine#External links. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Formatting should be fit for the EL section: For example, the EL's better be a bulleted list (which can also have subheaders like unbold & unindented). IMO, it could be a multi-column list to be organised as refs list is organised; leave it to the browser etc. (not hardcoded by the template). -DePiep (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Per MOS:INFOBOX. For example, the infobox is a summary of the article, is placed in top, is treated differently (by html, on mobile, etc). Better be guided by Wikipedia:External links. -DePiep (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Name suggestion: pls skip the oldfashioned informal 'drugbox' wording. Maybe: External links list Drugs. (we want to reuse the principle!) -DePiep (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moved to {{External links list Drug}}. Changed section title + add anchor. Preferred: systematical name, while more descriptive and less informal. Prevent confusion with existing {{External links}}. If this plan works out well, we could reuse the concept for other templates (like {{Chembox}}). -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just because a template uses
{{Infobox}}
to style its contents does not make it an infobox. E.g.,{{Glossary infobox}}
is a back-end template for{{Addiction glossary}}
and{{Transcription factor glossary}}
, yet neither of those should be used in place of an actual infobox for an article. Edit: that back-end template was created following this discussion: Template_talk:Addiction_glossary#"Glossary skeleton" template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)- That's right by itself. But it is an infobox when stating
class=infobox
(as {{Infobox}} does}}).class
defines loads of behaviour, layout, formatting, presentation (responsive even). Our intentions do not count in a browser. We do not want those effects, that would be bad coding and bad information handling. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's right by itself. But it is an infobox when stating
- I've created Template:External links list Drug and modified the width of the template to match the width of the drugbox when it includes a 300px-wide image (the maximum size and typically the default per MOS:IMGSIZE). The template at the top of this section now uses
{{Drugbox external links}}
instead of{{Infobox drug/sandbox2}}
to generate the example. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- support to do for drug box the same what was done for diseases (putting links out of the infobox) EncycloABC (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Template coding
Template:Drugbox external links
- So far, the prototype uses {{Infobox}} to get it going. That's fine of course. However, since the new list is not an MOS:INFOBOX, I strongly propose to prevent any Infobox suggestion (by formatting,
class=infobox
, responsive behaviour). I therefor created:
- 1. Module:External links list as a full code copy of Module:Infobox, and
- 2. {{External links list}} to employ that module.
- After this, I removed from the new module all straight "infobox" referencing. Other functions etc. were kept.
- With this, current (Seppi333's) prototype looks like {{External links list Drug/sandbox}}.
- I propose:
- a. Accept the change principle, away from {{Infobox}},
- b. Improve (edit) the new module to tailor it for this list.
- It allows us to refine the list to more usable settings without being tied to Infobox formattings. I think the formatting should follow WP:EL section styling.
- -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- To research: maybe existing {{External links}} (Module:External links) could solve this new thing altogether. I have not looked into it. It reads Wikidata values; if it allows overwriting locally (as we want to do now, I assume), we could arrive at target very soon! -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: As long as you match the layout/formatting and overall appearance of the example template on the right as closely as possible, I don't really care what markup is used to generate the end result. I also don't care if it's wider (to reduce the height when the LHS or RHS text takes up multiple lines) or not right-aligned, but if right-alignment is not default, having the option to set
|align=right
would be desirable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: As long as you match the layout/formatting and overall appearance of the example template on the right as closely as possible, I don't really care what markup is used to generate the end result. I also don't care if it's wider (to reduce the height when the LHS or RHS text takes up multiple lines) or not right-aligned, but if right-alignment is not default, having the option to set
Template-protected edit requests on 2 August 2020
@Primefac, DMacks, Doc James, Seppi333, DePiep, and 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? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Re DocWatson42. The reason is that
|pregnancy_AU_comment=
(and so|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.
- Long term solution is to find a way to distinguish (preferred), add
|pregnancy_AU_ref=
(cumbersom for editor), or enter like|pregnancy_AU=C<ref>...</ref>
. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)- I think we should discuss why it's coded like that. Is
|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. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)- Usage list through TPU. -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 {{killMarkers}}-like modules. But it should be used (developed) carefully, for which I do not have the time right now. -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? 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
/^<ref/
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. DMacks (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I set up a cat for the pages using the pregnancy comment.
- The more I look into this, the more I wonder if the entire template subpage shouldn't be reworked - basically the only reason there's
|pregnancy_XX=
and|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|pregnancy_XX=
, and convert|pregnancy_XX_comment=
into|pregnancy_XX_ref=
for sole use as a reference. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should discuss why it's coded like that. Is
- re Primefac
why it matters
&tc: you lost me. What do yoo actually say or propose? -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. 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? -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I'm proposing; make it simple and convert _comment to _ref. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- duh, _comment to _ref is flipping, not solving.
- User:Primefac -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I'm proposing; make it simple and convert _comment to _ref. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- ??? Less complexity of subtemplate WHILE the request is to add diff between _comment and _ref? What do actualy you propose? -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 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. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's Category:Pages using infobox drug with a pregnancy comment (0). -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep: Thanks for the reply and the explanation. <sheepish> Hopefully the discussion I've unintentionally sparked will lead to improvements. </sheepish> —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:Primefac please copy {{Infobox drug/pregnancy category/sandbox}} into live code: use {{Main other}} to keep category clean. -DePiep (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep: Thanks for the reply and the explanation. <sheepish> Hopefully the discussion I've unintentionally sparked will lead to improvements. </sheepish> —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW: in the 229 articles categorised, some five use the _comment starting with plain text; the others are a <ref>. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds like a great reason to convert
|pregnancy_US_comment=
to|pregnancy_US_ref=
and modify the subpage to avoid overlinking. 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. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Similar changes should be made to the legal_XX_comment fields. --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 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]] (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Similar changes should be made to the legal_XX_comment fields. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any significant objection, so barring any in the next 24-48 hours I'll change everything over. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds like a great reason to convert
Primefac Are there plans to expand the letters when other text exists in the field? The recent edits that moved the text from the |pregnancy_US_comment=
field into the |pregnancy_US=
field prevent the expansion of the specified letter. For example, this edit:
before
Pregnancy category
AU: A(when used topically)
US: C (Risk not ruled out)(for topical use)
after
Pregnancy category
AU: A (when used topically)
US: C (for topical use)
There were other edits that eliminated the expansion of one of the letters. for example -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- For reference, the 15 edits are 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. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Log of significant changes
The following change log (here with more standardized date formatting) was originally being kept inside the template code itself:
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
<br />
, 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 EMA talks.
- 2017-10-21: licence_EU and EMA: improve external link (see also 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
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. @DePiep and 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 {{To do}}
:
{{To do |To-do=Log of significant changes |collapsed=yes |inner= * List * Items * Here }}
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Pinging also Izno, who chimed in on the original thread, but I didn't notice until now. Has related tracking ideas for the citation templates. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks! 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. -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. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- No thanks. Bad approach. How is this a "logging" feature? Anyway, you are supposed to discuss-before-TPE-enforce-change. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- How significant changes; what is unsignificant? And how will this section be maintained & updated? -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. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Off-topic behavioral discussion that belongs in userspace and has already been hashed out there.
|
---|
|
Made more permanent
I have copied the Log to header, thread be archived as usual. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 9 August 2020
- Please change the typo
gt_gene_target
togt_target_gene
(as in the example that follows). — kashmīrī TALK 04:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)- Fixed. However, this was just in the /doc page which was not protected, so you could have edited it directly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:36, 9 August 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 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)
In a recent discussion at WT:MED, it has been suggested that the WHO Essential Medicine status of a drug is better handled by an infobox element and a mention in body text, than warranting a long sentence in hundreds of article leads. Including that sentence is giving too much WP:WEIGHT to a characteristic of the drug which, while notable, is not nearly as important as, for example, its regulatory status or availability, neither of which are routinely documented in the lead.
The inclusion on the WHO EM list does not, sadly, convey any magical properties upon the drug: no manufacturer is compelled to make it widely and cheaply available to developing nations, and in fact many drugs on this list are widely unavailable outside of rich nations, and largely unaffordable. Nor is the inclusion of the drug an indication that it is among the safest and most effective of its class. For example, Amitriptyline is one of the few medicines on the list for depression, but, while effective, it is no longer a first-line choice in developed nations due to the high toxicity in overdose and low tolerability. In the UK, it is "not recommended" for depression, and mainly used for neuropathic pain in lower doses.
A further aspect of the EM list, which is not currently reflected in most mentions in articles, is that the list has "core" and "complementary" sub-lists. The former is the key one whereas the latter may include drugs that are more expensive or typically only prescribed by specialists.
Would it be possible to add an entry for WHO EMs, with values "Core", "Complementary" and some value perhaps to indicate if it is not on the list? Can we find an easy way to reference such entries (see here). -- Colin°Talk 18:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Colin: could you link that WTMED discussion? I can't find it at casual glance. However, I did find Talk:WHO Model List of Essential Medicines#List of essential medicines on each medicine’s article. DMacks (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- DMacks, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#WP:WEIGHT in drug articles currently. I like your suggestion on the WHO talk page that the infobox could populate an appropriate category or sub-category. -- Colin°Talk 08:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
US prescription statistics
Many drug leads contain two United States statistics drawn from ClinCalc Top 300 Drugs and each ClinCalc drug page. The first is the linear rank of the drug in terms of outpatient prescriptions. The second the number of prescriptions in millions. Both are not in fact hard facts but are extrapolated estimates made by a yearly poll.
At a recent discussion at WT:MED, it was noted that the linear figure is too precise vs reality: outside of the top 50, the drugs may move up and down the list by quite large amounts each year. Further the drop in sales after the top 3 drugs is more like exponential than linear, meaning that the top 3 is far more important than the top 10 which is far more important than the top 50 and so on. The top 300 is a fairly arbitrary cut-off on the source website, and many drugs in the bottom of the top 300 won't be in the list the following year, due to random fluctuations.
Could we find a way to indicate these prescription figures but without giving a linear figure like "is 207th most commonly prescribed", which is just too precise and hard relate to. Perhaps a linear number is stable enough and meaningful enough in e.g. the top 20? Could we use bigger chunks for others and just say "Top 50" or "Top 100" and maybe it isn't even worth noting after the top 100 or top 200?
Is there also some way we could document the meaning of these numbers, to indicate to a reader who wants to know, that these are extrapolations from a poll? -- Colin°Talk 18:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
License links
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 |licence_CA=
? It not, the documentation should be updated to remove |licence_CA=
and/or indicate that it is disabled.
- US
It looks like the link for |licence_US=
needs to be implemented as a POST request. Can that be done in a Wikipedia template? See 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
--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 weekly data files from the Drugs@FDA site and populates
|licence_US=
with the application number in the infobox.
- We could ask them via the Drugs@FDA Contact Form to add a GET request for Wikipedia pages to use. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- We could add
|licence_UK=
too. It uses an ID in the URL - https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/7432/smpc
- --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Below, I have started a structure to discuss and develop this per governing institute. HTH -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. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
On licenses (in general)
- Template:Infobox drug/doc § Licensing information
- Parameter:
|licence_XX=
,|license_XX=
(so -c- and -s- are equally usable, whatever the formal ENGVAR)
- Question: How is
|DailyMedID=
related to the license? Or is it consumer info? IOW, do we have to keep|DailyMedID=
within this discussion? -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
License ARTG (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
— Whywhenwhohow
- So, it is proposed to add ARTG to this set (Australian license,
|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?). -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- So, it is proposed to add ARTG to this set (Australian license,
License HC (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.
— Whywhenwhohow
- A discussion is at Archive 16 # licence_CA (2017). Garzfoth, do you know more about this, as of today? -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
License EMA (EU)
- www
.ema .europa .eu /en - Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 17 § EMA licence link (2019 EMA API change)
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
— Whywhenwhohow
- EMA has changed the API two years ago, the infobox can no longer use INN. There are new options though. Archive 17. -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). (late sign:) -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
License FDA (US)
- www
.fda .gov - Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 17 § US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work -- (issue recently analysed by Whywhenwhohow)
It looks like the link for
|licence_US=
needs to be implemented as a POST request. Can that be done in a Wikipedia template? See US license Drugs@FDA links no longer work in the archives.— Whywhenwhohow
- Whywhenwhohow, I have reread 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? -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- @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. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @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. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Whywhenwhohow, I have reread 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? -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 12 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? -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- ... or the Drug Safety-related Labeling Changes (SrLC)? Searching for Atorvastatin 1. search page, 2. returns -- cannot be done by url. -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
- --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- The NDA can also be used to access entries in the FDA Orange Book.
- https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/results_product.cfm?Appl_Type=N&Appl_No=020702
- --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? -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.
AMLODIPINE BESYLATE AND ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM CADUET EZETIMIBE AND ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM LIPITOR LIPTRUZET
Add support for biologicals to legal_AU
The infobox does not recognize values like C1, C2, C3, C4 in the {{{legal_AU}}}
parameter for Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 biologicals.
https://www.tga.gov.au/classification-biologicals --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? -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- We should add the biological classifications. More info at
- Inclusions of new biologicals
- Australian regulatory guidelines for biologicals (ARGB)
- Example Class 4 Biological:
- Yescarta PI
- --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. --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
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)
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)