→USAN etc in drugbox: re Doc |
→USAN etc in drugbox: re Sepi333 and their example amphetamine, and posting an idea: shoudn't all articles have a section like ==Names==? |
||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
<br />The way to include USAN, BAN, AAN, and JAN as well as other types of alternate names (slang names, the prototype brand names, notable alternative chemical names, etc.) in the introduction of a drug article shouldn't be via the infobox or by cluttering the lead itself; I agree with DePiep that adding all that stuff to a drugbox is bad. It just creates unnecessary clutter in the drugbox itself and potentially impacts article formatting when the drugbox extends (further) into article sections as a result of the vertical space required to list those.<br />The '''only practical solution''' that allows one to '''(1)''' include alternate names in the article's introduction, '''(2)''' not clutter the lead, AND '''(3)''' not clutter the drugbox is: [[amphetamine|shown in this link next to the very first word in the article]].<br />I don't know why other editors have not opted to adopt the practice of adding the alternate names (and optionally bolding the important ones) to a note next to the first word/use of the drug name in the first lead sentence, given the issues it avoids and the flexibility it allows. It's currently used in ''TWO featured pharmacology articles'' ([[amphetamine]] and [[psilocybin]]) and it was used in those articles at the time that each were promoted to featured status, so there's clearly already two consensuses for this practice. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
<br />The way to include USAN, BAN, AAN, and JAN as well as other types of alternate names (slang names, the prototype brand names, notable alternative chemical names, etc.) in the introduction of a drug article shouldn't be via the infobox or by cluttering the lead itself; I agree with DePiep that adding all that stuff to a drugbox is bad. It just creates unnecessary clutter in the drugbox itself and potentially impacts article formatting when the drugbox extends (further) into article sections as a result of the vertical space required to list those.<br />The '''only practical solution''' that allows one to '''(1)''' include alternate names in the article's introduction, '''(2)''' not clutter the lead, AND '''(3)''' not clutter the drugbox is: [[amphetamine|shown in this link next to the very first word in the article]].<br />I don't know why other editors have not opted to adopt the practice of adding the alternate names (and optionally bolding the important ones) to a note next to the first word/use of the drug name in the first lead sentence, given the issues it avoids and the flexibility it allows. It's currently used in ''TWO featured pharmacology articles'' ([[amphetamine]] and [[psilocybin]]) and it was used in those articles at the time that each were promoted to featured status, so there's clearly already two consensuses for this practice. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::{{U|Seppi333}} links to [[Amphetamine]], which has this opening line: "Amphetamine<sup>[note 1]</sup> (contracted from alpha‑methylphenethylamine) is ..." (also shows this way in mobile view!). The note lists lots of synonyms, and apparently still a bracketed name clarifier is needed. That's what I call cluttering the lede, twice even. IT also mixes mane places: both in the note and in the infobox. That looks bad to me. Should we consider a regular '''section''' in the article that deals with '''all naming issues'''? (Still some could show up in the infobox). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, I'm two-faced in this. I don't think these secondary, local xxN names should be in the [[WP:INFOBOX]]. But also, I understand the Jytdog reasoning: where else? (sure not in the lede). So I offer this [[Template:Infobox drug/testcases10|demo]] with tough restictions (to be in /doc): only when different from INN, expected only 12 per xxN, suppress prominence, etcetera. |
:Actually, I'm two-faced in this. I don't think these secondary, local xxN names should be in the [[WP:INFOBOX]]. But also, I understand the Jytdog reasoning: where else? (sure not in the lede). So I offer this [[Template:Infobox drug/testcases10|demo]] with tough restictions (to be in /doc): only when different from INN, expected only 12 per xxN, suppress prominence, etcetera. |
||
:But no way here I claim any statement over ''all variant names'': IUPAC, brand, commercial, development code, INN, AAN/BAN/USAN, street, ... names. No way. ''That'' should be discussed wider. |
:But no way here I claim any statement over ''all variant names'': IUPAC, brand, commercial, development code, INN, AAN/BAN/USAN, street, ... names. No way. ''That'' should be discussed wider. |
Revision as of 12:43, 4 August 2017
Pharmacology Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
- The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
- The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
- The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Pharmacology, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
{{Drugbox}} is expanded for neurotransmitters
{{Drugbox}} has a new section "Physiological data" for endogenous drugs (neurotransmitters, hormones), for example Oxytocin. See documentation. Possible candidates to use this drugbox are in Category:Neurotransmitters (81), often using {{Chembox}} now. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Naming standards question
Many drug articles are titled according to a pattern such as WAY-nnnnnn or A-nnnnn or SB-nnnnnn - i.e. a 1-to-3-character alphabetic prefix, followed by a 1-to-6-digit number. In a significant minority of them, the number part is broken up with a comma - e.g. A-412,997 or SKF-38,393, although mostly the sources don't seem to use the comma. Is there an agreed standard for these titles? With or without the comma? Colonies Chris (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- I usually don't see commas in the literature as well, or from the manufacturers. The commas should be removed. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the commas should be removed. For example, at A-412,997 every reference that mentions the code name uses "A-412997", not "A-412,997". It can get confusing as you dig deeper, if I recall correctly with some companies using a hyphen, some using a space, and some using nothing between the letters and the numbers. Best to stick with what published sources use, with priority given to the method used by authors employed by the company that discovered/developed it. ChemNerd (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Proposed name change: "Medical cannabis in the United States" to "Medical marijuana in the United States"
Please comment on the talk page of Medical cannabis in the United States. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Salicylic acid
Salicylic acid is one of the most commonly used medications but this article is only at start class right now. It's missing core information about its pharmacology such as its pharmacodynamics/kinetics, onset of action, etc. I just wanted to bring this to the pharmacology project's attention in case anyone has interest in improving the article. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Is pharmaxchange.info a reliable source for med chem?
The following is in the Isoprenaline article:
The isopropylamine group in isoprenaline makes it selective for β receptors. The free catechol hydroxyl groups keep it susceptible to enzymatic metabolism.[1]
References
- ^ Mehta, Akul (January 27, 2011). "Notes - Medicinal Chemistry of the Peripheral Nervous System - Adrenergics and Cholinergic". Pharmaxchange. Retrieved 21 June 2017.
Was briefly discussed here back in 2011, in this thread. Has not been raised at WT:MED, WT:MEDRS, or RSN.
Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- (What do you know, I was in that past discussion.) I'd say that it is certainly a less-than-ideal source because it is not peer-reviewed. In this case, it's medicinal chemistry content about SAR, so I don't see it as a MEDRS issue (no reader will be misled about health concerns based on that sentence). So I would say that it is not so bad that the sentence needs to be removed, but it's very appropriate to replace it with a better source, or to tag it as "better source needed". I started a PubMed search myself, but lost interest, but I'm reasonably sure there must be an RS out there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Are pharmaceutical drugs inventions?
I noticed an anonymous editor has been removing pharmaceutical drugs from being categorized as inventions. See the edits of 203.205.34.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) such as this example. Since drugs are universally patented with individuals listed as inventors, these category removals seem inappropriate to me. I started by reverting a few, but since there are so many, I decided to seek input here before continuing. Any thoughts? ChemNerd (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Since haloperidol didn't exist before someone first synthesised it, and since new chemical compounds can be patented, I don't know how they could be seen as anything else but inventions. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The category is appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose they could be characterized as discoveries rather than inventions. Wikidata avoids this issue by having a single field "Inventor or discoverer" field. Sizeofint (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- This is splitting hairs, but I guess that endogenous substances that are used as drugs are discovered, and compounds that are synthesized and which do not occur endogenously are invented. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that "invention" is appropriate, for lack of a better (?) or narrower category, e.g., "Drugs developed in <COUNTRY>". I am quite concerned that this anon is depopulating Category:Belgian inventions across a broad swath of articles, not only drug ones. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that Category:Belgian inventions is a reasonable category for these drugs. The unknown editor gives in the edit summary the explanation "It's not an invention, but a development". However, when filing a patent, one requires a "statement of invention". Even if the molecule isn't designed, the use or application is still an invention. So, patent law suggests that drugs (which are patentable) are indeed invented. Given the consensus above, I'll start reverting the non-hormone drug category edits performed by 203.205.34.102 over the last few days. Klbrain (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that "invention" is appropriate, for lack of a better (?) or narrower category, e.g., "Drugs developed in <COUNTRY>". I am quite concerned that this anon is depopulating Category:Belgian inventions across a broad swath of articles, not only drug ones. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- This is splitting hairs, but I guess that endogenous substances that are used as drugs are discovered, and compounds that are synthesized and which do not occur endogenously are invented. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose they could be characterized as discoveries rather than inventions. Wikidata avoids this issue by having a single field "Inventor or discoverer" field. Sizeofint (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The category is appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
prodrug/drug
Isavuconazonium (a marketed antifungal) is a prodrug of isavuconazole (the active moiety -- not marketed). I moved " isavuconazole" to Isavuconazonium and did what you see there, adding an additional drugbox for the prodrug. Does this make sense to folks? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think the INN is isavuconazonium sulfate, in analogy to other compounds with an N⁺, such as tiotropium bromide. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- The INN is the chloride salt, actually. Rec INN List 58. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Isavuconazole is also an INN in its own right, BTW. To me, it does make sense to have the article at the prodrug. I don't think we should have separate articles for prodrug and active ingredient unless both are marketed (e.g., fosaprepitant and aprepitant). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- The INN is the chloride salt, actually. Rec INN List 58. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Complex question re serotonergic activity of a drug
I find the binding activity sections of articles about drugs a nightmare generallly and we allow primary sources to be used in generating them.
We have an interesting question that goes to the heart of how this drug is classified on the talk page of Mirtazapine that someone who likes dealing with this, could perhaps deal with?
Talk:Mirtazapine#Does_Mirtazapine_really_posses_serotonergic_action.3F Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. Generally speaking, binding data should come from IUPHAR (best source IMO), bindingDB, Human Metabolome Database (HMDB), DrugBank, and/or similar databases because they aggregate binding data. Medical reviews are also reasonable sources to use for this, but based upon the compound articles I've worked on, they're typically not as comprehensive as these databases. A primary source is probably adequate for stating that a compound is a receptor ligand with a particular mechanism of action (e.g., agonist, neutral antagonist, inverse agonist, etc.) though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with a source for the Components of Opium Template?
Hello,
We are submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, about the use of metabolomics in opioid addiction research, and when I was researching opium components, I found a terrific table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Components_of_opium. Unfortunately, the table has no source or references but the Wikipedia Information Team provided me with a link to your talk page.
This is my statement, based on the Template: "Opium contains many chemical constituents, which can be grouped by meconic acid, α-naphthaphenanthridines, tetrahydroprotoberberines, isoquinolones, phtalide isoquinolines, aporphines, protopines, alkaloids, and phenanthrenes."
I need a reference that will make it past peer review when we submit to the journal for publication. Unfortunately, a reference to an unsourced Wikipedia table won't be accepted.
Can you help me? Do any of you have a source that would work for the statement I am making? If you don't, I will have to take it out of the paper, but I thought I would check with you, just in case.
Thank you so much for any help you can provide.
WildIrish (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- User:WildIrish these navigation templates are created by Wikipedians. You can see the others here[1].
- Unlikely to be a single reference. While we reference most stuff here we do not ref these templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- There should be references for each of the drugs listed under Category:Natural opium alkaloids. For a peer-reviewed review article on the composition of opium see the first section of Kalant (1999).[1]
References
- ^ Kalant, H (March 1997). "Opium revisited: a brief review of its nature, composition, non-medical use and relative risks". Addiction (Abingdon, England). 92 (3): 267–77. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03197.x. PMID 9219389.
- I just want to add that when 1 or more relevant article(s) for the content in a template exist and the content in the template is cited in the relevant article(s), it IS okay to indicate where references for the compounds in a template are located. For example, in the template footer of
{{TAAR ligands}}
(see below), the footer text indicates which articles contain references for any given compound that is included in that template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)- Goodman and Gilman has a reasonably good description of the components, but not all. Here is a Pub med search that seems to include some genetic analyses and may include some chemical ones if you look through it, so you may be able to use a combination of multiple sources, but I doubt that there will be a single source that is all-inclusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to add that when 1 or more relevant article(s) for the content in a template exist and the content in the template is cited in the relevant article(s), it IS okay to indicate where references for the compounds in a template are located. For example, in the template footer of
Example template: Template:TAAR ligands
Tables presenting clinical effects of a drug
Pls see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Detailed_presentation_of_clinical_effects_of_a_drug Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke has been nominated for deletion
Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke, has been nominated for possible deletion, A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Change to each of MEDMOS and PHARMMOS re leads
Please see discussion at WT:MED. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
USAN etc in drugbox
There appears to be some history I don't understand here. But PHARMMOS is really negative about USAN, BAN, etc, and there is no parameter in the infobox to include national names.
User:DePiep raised a question about this at the talk page of the drugbox template in Dec 2015, here.
Is there some big ugly can of worms that gets opened if we have a parameter in the drugbox for these national names? Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Dec 2015 discussion has lead to the current drugbox title options (Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title (779), see TOC for various logical options). That covers INN (PHARMMOS unchanged: title preferably be INN).
- The other names are local (by country) names. I don't see the use to add these to the infobox. Saying 'interesting' is not enough. We're not a dictionary. The can of worms is: that would be indiscriminate addition of facts to the infobox. Time to create a systematic datasheet section? -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is where to put names like USAN etc. They are clutter in the first sentence. since there is no place to put them in the infobox i have been putting them in the history or chemistry section. these kinds of alt names are perfect infobox stuff. Just data bits. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just found the de-clutter lede discussion. Good background. I can understand they should not be in the lede (an exception may exist, maybe two even).
- I also would like to know: is it important enough for the article/lede/infobox? "Just data bits" says it all: data =/= information. Note that these xxxN names are not info by themselves, but are useful in external context only (e.g., in a US database). Adding these to help search engines: not a good reason because not aimed at our Reader. (Better: Redirects or, telling, DAB pages). IOW, it is external info only. This is why I say: not really infobox stuff.
- Shortcut idea: I see that per xxxN, a few or a dozen max names are affected. Could a solution be: "When the xxxN name differs from INN, it may be added" (it will show in the identifiers section, or near the synonyms, or best: near the bottom for being a misfunction of infobox). Then: when the infobox does not mention "BAN: ...", BAN=INN implicitly — is that acceptable (BTW, same as INN-title now)? -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is also this (consider minor wrt the question): INN names may differ. Here Libby EMAcomm (a functionary I understand; EMA=European Medicines Agency i.e. the "EU-FDA") states: "Maybe another error could arise because the INN and the active substance are not always exactly the same (the INN doesnt have the salt in the name but the active substance does)". EMA lists ~600 INNs, with 20% redlinks (EMA-INN does not have an article by straight matching; celanup todo e.g. DAB page names). Variant INN names relevant? -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- A field in the infobox where we could put alt INNs and any XXN names would be lovely. An alternative could be to put them in the "brand names" section that often appears under Society and culture. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I want to skip the alt-INN issue for now & here. Also, to handle (control) these names, I'd prefer
|BAN=
so that the template can format them and add 'BAN' etc. You agree with the "omit when the same as INN" policy, i.e. implicit? -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC) - Also, do we agree that their info-level of importance is way below that of synonyms, brand names, chemical names and RL common names? They are local only, possibly outdated (replaced by INN, possibly even in that local literature), and only serve to passively identify. IOW, they could be at the bottom of the infobox (and possibly
elsewhereoutside of it). -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I want to skip the alt-INN issue for now & here. Also, to handle (control) these names, I'd prefer
- A field in the infobox where we could put alt INNs and any XXN names would be lovely. An alternative could be to put them in the "brand names" section that often appears under Society and culture. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is where to put names like USAN etc. They are clutter in the first sentence. since there is no place to put them in the infobox i have been putting them in the history or chemistry section. these kinds of alt names are perfect infobox stuff. Just data bits. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- With the considerations (rules) mentioned, I've made this demo. Labeled: "local INN variants" (INN page could be expanded for this). Left out JAN (Japanese) for being not an English language. Comments? -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The way to include USAN, BAN, AAN, and JAN as well as other types of alternate names (slang names, the prototype brand names, notable alternative chemical names, etc.) in the introduction of a drug article shouldn't be via the infobox or by cluttering the lead itself; I agree with DePiep that adding all that stuff to a drugbox is bad. It just creates unnecessary clutter in the drugbox itself and potentially impacts article formatting when the drugbox extends (further) into article sections as a result of the vertical space required to list those.
The only practical solution that allows one to (1) include alternate names in the article's introduction, (2) not clutter the lead, AND (3) not clutter the drugbox is: shown in this link next to the very first word in the article.
I don't know why other editors have not opted to adopt the practice of adding the alternate names (and optionally bolding the important ones) to a note next to the first word/use of the drug name in the first lead sentence, given the issues it avoids and the flexibility it allows. It's currently used in TWO featured pharmacology articles (amphetamine and psilocybin) and it was used in those articles at the time that each were promoted to featured status, so there's clearly already two consensuses for this practice. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Seppi333 links to Amphetamine, which has this opening line: "Amphetamine[note 1] (contracted from alpha‑methylphenethylamine) is ..." (also shows this way in mobile view!). The note lists lots of synonyms, and apparently still a bracketed name clarifier is needed. That's what I call cluttering the lede, twice even. IT also mixes mane places: both in the note and in the infobox. That looks bad to me. Should we consider a regular section in the article that deals with all naming issues? (Still some could show up in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm two-faced in this. I don't think these secondary, local xxN names should be in the WP:INFOBOX. But also, I understand the Jytdog reasoning: where else? (sure not in the lede). So I offer this demo with tough restictions (to be in /doc): only when different from INN, expected only 12 per xxN, suppress prominence, etcetera.
- But no way here I claim any statement over all variant names: IUPAC, brand, commercial, development code, INN, AAN/BAN/USAN, street, ... names. No way. That should be discussed wider.
- My statement re all possible names wrt chemical infoboxes: an other practical solution is to add a section to the article
==Data sheet==
. Cold have a good template. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- We already have "| synonyms = " for the drugbox. I typically put these there if they are uncommon. But often the INN and the USAN are the most commonly used in the English literature so I also put them in the first sentence. We can have "Name 1 (USAN), Name 2 (JAP), Name 3 (BAN)" in the infobox but that level of detail does not belong IMO in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, exactly that is the lede-cluttering we are working against. For USAN, BAN, AAN there is this proposal. Into the infobox (for now, no better option), and heavily restricted. BTW, can someone explain why enwiki should have Japanese ids? -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously, Doc James did you even read the thread? You know: OP question, considerations, links, demo? Did you? All you write here is "We already have ..." and "I typically put ...". How is that a response? Didn't you understand a question was put up? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am explaining what I typically do. Is this a big ugly can of worms? Meh not really. Alt names are some of the more useful stuff in the infoboxes IMO. Decluttering the infoboxes is a different discussioni than de cluttering the leads.
- I also often put these names in a section for "names" under the "society and culture" heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what you (and maybe others) do currently lacking formal options, standards & guidelines. Now this new Jytdog proposal comes up (to add the xxN's systematically and consistently to the infobox, + a demo available within 12 hrs), and we still don't know what you think of that. Support? Reject? Tweaks needed? I've put up strong rules with it, are they OK with you?
- Note: This being about the infobox, "Decluttering the infoboxes", or to keep them decluttered, is the topic. -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)