![]() | 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
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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
Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2020
Please perform these two edits:
- All code from {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug/maintenance categories}} (overwrite, diff)
- All code from {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} into {{Infobox drug}} (overwrite, diff)
- Changes
- Add
|container_only=
per this talk; will populate new Category:Infobox drug container only - Remove unused maintenance tracking options
- Remove minor and old comments
- Background
Discussion & consensus: Following {{Chembox}} in this. See #this talk and #this withdrawn request with extended discussion. @DMacks:.
Tested: see /testcases9 and Niacin live (by preview)
Post-edit check: the demo article is Niacin. One can check this article, right after these edits, for any disruption. DePiep (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. It sounds to me that it would be well worth exploring whether these two templates can be merged — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes the ../maintenance categories/.. templates can be merged. This step is just to make it work, and do cleanup. If I only knew the editor who did code it this way ;-) @Whywhenwhohow:. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
PDB
The RCSB PDB links appears to be broken.
For example, for F9E it generates the following URL which fails to work.
It looks like the correct URL should something like this
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/F9E
or this
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"F9E"}%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409"}}
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Some background. Examples: MDMA, Paracetamol, list all (ca. 145). The first el (PDBe) seems to work OK as is.
- Sidenote: probably the lefthand label link should be a single one: PDB ligand. No need to explain ligands here. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- There are two links in the PDB field. The first one works and the second one (RCSB PDB) is broken.
The F9E example I provided above is for Valganciclovir. For MDMA, the second one (RCSB PDB) should be
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/B41
or
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"B41"}%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"246d5e4721efa28968e77026dc51de67"}}
For Paracetamol, the second one (RCSB PDB) should be
https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/TYL
or
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query"%3A{"parameters"%3A{"value"%3A"TYL"}%2C"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"node_id"%3A0}%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A{"pager"%3A{"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A100}%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%2C"sort"%3A[{"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"}]}%2C"request_info"%3A{"src"%3A"ui"%2C"query_id"%3A"9228d1d289499c18e4c10fe3bb429ff3"}}
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) The second, long url (for F9E) humanreads like this:
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request={"query":{"parameters":{"value":"F9E"},"service":"text","type":"terminal","node_id":0},"return_type":"entry","request_options":{"pager":{"start":0,"rows":100},"scoring_strategy":"combined","sort":[{"sort_by":"score","direction":"desc"}]},"request_info":{"src":"ui","query_id":"b02260d062ec5ebd59379efff3f54409" }}
(link) - In the example, querying "F9E" opens the page "6GS4"; is that OK to expect for these ligands? Looks like a user-build query. Is there a reason to use this query over the short one? -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) The second, long url (for F9E) humanreads like this:
- You get the long URL when you visit the RCSB page and enter the ligand into the search box. The short URL provides detailed results for the ligand specified in the URL. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbox proposal (to check)
- +Changed the (second) link as requested.
- +Changed the LH label into PDB ligand (single wl)
- See testcases5. Proposed sandbox version produces:
- OK? Whywhenwhohow -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Think I can put it live tomorrow then, Whywhenwhohow? -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: It looks like it works. Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 27 October 2020
Please replace all live code with /sandbox code (two templates):
- {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{Infobox drug}} (diff)
- {{Infobox drug/formatPDBligand}} → {{Infobox drug/formatPDBligand/sandbox}} (diff)
- Changes: 1. LH label wikilink refine, 2. External link RCSD PDB fixed per talkpage complaint
- Talk and test: see #PDB above.
DePiep (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Is sources == source_tissues and targets == target_tissues?
Hey. I know jack shit about this subject, but I noticed that the code for calculating whether to show the metabolism parameter checks for the parameters {sources} and {targets} despite neither appearing anywhere else in the infobox code. I'm 99% sure that it's the {source_tissues} and {target_tissues} parameters that someone just forget to rename thoroughly. I don't have editing permissions - can someone who has please confirm that this is the case and then fix the code? --Metalindustrien (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Will take a look. Could you add example article(s)? -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Example articles of what? I'm looking directly at the infobox's source code. --Metalindustrien (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Background: parameters involved
|
---|
<!-- type=mab: ----- ----- --> | type = mab | mab_type = | source = | target = <!-- Physiological data --> | source_tissues = | target_tissues = ... | metabolism = <!-- same parameter as in pharmacokinetic data -->
|
- @DePiep: But it looks like |data58= looks for "sources", not source, and the context seems to specifically be about the source_tissue? (same with targets) --Metalindustrien (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, to be fixed. Thanks for the fine report User:Metalindustrien. We'll wait until current Template-protected edit request is performed, /sandbox is now occupied. -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: But it looks like |data58= looks for "sources", not source, and the context seems to specifically be about the source_tissue? (same with targets) --Metalindustrien (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Checked, using Parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug. (Look for parameters
|source_tissues, target_tissues=
in there, lists 10 articles). It appears that, in spite of the two misnamed parameters, the #if-clause in|data58=
does fire correctly because of other parameters having data. So, at the moment no errors in articles. Of course, we will fix the issue. -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Checked, using Parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug. (Look for parameters
Template-protected edit request on 19 November 2020
Please replace all live code with /sandbox code:
- {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} → {{Infobox drug}} (diff)
Change: replace |
, sources=|
with targets=|source_tissues=
, |target_tissues=
. Replace non-existant parameter names.
Talk & test: Old code error. See above #Is sources ... source_tissues ... ?; F3 and visual checks. h/t @Metalindustrien: DePiep (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- To editors DePiep and Metalindustrien:
done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2020
Hi, could anyone with the ability to edit this template be so kind to add the legal statuses for legal_SG (Singapore)? I think it would be really useful and once added I will start adding the appropriate legal classes/schedules onto the most common drugs/medications. It will be based upon the Misuse of Drugs Act (OTC, Rx-only, Schedule I, II, III or Unscheduled) first enacted in 1973. Thank you! BelfastBrooks (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
|legal_SG=
|legal_SG_comment=
- @BelfastBrooks:. Put on pause: I will build the sandbox for this. Meanwhile, editor can disscuss appropriateness of this proposal (for example, which of the ~200 countries should be added this way?).