This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Ftrebien. Looks like a sound improvement. I have made a testcase for all new output options here. Please take a look. (I am not familiar with the topic). Some questions, none is fatal:
Should we change the label from Type into Vaccin type for clarity? The word 'type' is used in more meanings, wrt drugs. Now looks like having an implicit or jargon meaning.
No wikilink available for "Live bacteria" then?
Current usage of |vaccin_type= is here. (Look for "vaccin_type" in the lefthand column). You think coverage is OK? For example, I see |vaccin_type=mRNA for 3 Covid vaccins; make into an entry?
With the exception of "live virus" (which is a somewhat obscure type of vaccine where the pathogen is neither inactivated nor attenuated, it is fully infectious), "live" usually means "attenuated", which some sources call "live-attenuated" in contrast to the "inactivated" type. As far as I understand, inactivated and attenuated apply well to any kind of organism, while "killed" and "live" do not apply well to viruses, which are not alive.
We can certainly add an entry for mRNA. But I wouldn't try to be exhaustive because Wikipedia does not yet have articles for several common types vaccines, only for the components or technologies used by those types. But I can try to propose some sort of taxonomy. I am not an expert, I started reading about this subject while helping to maintain the article on COVID-19 vaccines. Here is a summary of my findings after going through various sources. In quotes are common ways of referring to each type.
Summary of findings by Fernando Trebien
Whole-pathogen, natural or modified
Inactivated ("killed")
Attenuated ("live-attenuated", "live")
"Live" virus (fully infectious, not attenuated)
Subunit (parts of the pathogen injected into the receptor)
Protein subunit ("protein", "protein-based subunit")
Recombinant protein subunit ("recombinant", "recombinant protein")
Nucleic acid (parts of the pathogen produced within the receptor)
Viral vector
Recombinant viral vector ("recombinant vector")
DNA (plasmid)
RNA
mRNA (modRNA)
saRNA
Heterologous (combination of vaccines)
"Recombinant" means that some organism involved has chimeric DNA (a combination of the DNA of other organisms):
For viral vector vaccines, the viral vector is chimeric
For subunit vaccines, the organism producing the subunits in the lab is chimeric
So, a protein subunit can be made from the pathogen itself or from another unmodified organism, but a recombinant protein subunit can only be made by an organism modified with another organism's DNA. And a viral vector may or may not carry DNA from another organism, it can carry purely new, synthetic DNA. Since some types are much more common than others, some people use some of those expressions interchangeably.
Many only use "subunit" to avoid getting into excessive detail. Some use it in constrast to the "whole-pathogen" category on the assumption that subunits may lose effectiveness against new variants because they present fewer antigens, and more antigens are likely to induce some immunity against non-mutated targets in the pathogen, although this assumption is often described as purely theoretical.--
OK User:Ftrebien. (I have collapsed you content-list).
re #1: I have changed label6 into "Vaccin/e type" [1], as part of this change.
re #2, #3: no comment, all fine.
Note: do we spell "vaccin" or "vaccine" in mainspace? ;-) The article is Vaccin. Is why I 'paused' this ER. When clarified, we can reactivate the ER. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Also adds |peptide = [[Subunit vaccine#Peptide subunit|Peptide subunit]], |polysaccharide = [[Subunit vaccine#Polysaccharide subunit|Polysaccharide]] and |vlp = [[Subunit vaccine#Virus-like particles|Virus-like particles]]. While mRNA is an emerging type during the pandemic, the other 3 types are other common types of vaccines for other diseases. Some editors prefer to specify the more general type (always a superset), and some prefer to specify the more specific type. Based on current usage and other findings. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Could someone add additional code, please, to create an automatic short description, such as "Drug"? That would be a great help in reducing the number of articles that are missing such a description. Pinging RexxS: would you be able to help? MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"Drug" is perfect, and nothing more complicated is needed. The description needs to be kept short and non-technical to comply with WP:HOWTOSD: "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". Short descriptions are intended not to define the subject matter but are primarily to allow mobile users who are looking at a long list of titles after carrying out a search to decide whether a particular article is in the right field. It helps them decide whether some term they've never seen before is, for example, a drug, a disease, or the name of a computer game. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, perhaps there are too many exceptions, where the infobox is used for things that most people wouldn't normally describe as a "drug". Not easy to separate those out. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
All references to "EU" should be changed to "EU/EEA", since, under the European Economic Area Agreement, the European Commission, on the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency, authorises medicinal products for use throughout the European Economic Area (which is the EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Not needed, not helpful. EMA is an EU institution. Agreements by outer countries to follow EMAs rulings is a spin-off, not a change of ruling. (EEA-effects coulds be added(!) to the EMA article though). -DePiep (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
EMA licence search template appears to be broken
The template's search function for licence data on the EMA website (licence_EU) appears to be broken. It retreives "page not found" for all articles I tested it with. I assume the EMA updated its website and thus the search mask will no longer work as before. Could someone have a look at this and possibly fix it? Thank you! --Shinryuu (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, because EMA recently rebuilt its website and changed the URL addressing scheme, in the process moving from INN to tradenames in titles and URLs. The template now needs complex engineering and given the shift to tradenames, it may be not even be possible to restore the function. — kashmīrīTALK12:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Or could we instead adjust the EMA link in the template to direct to the tradename instead? I know this is not ideal, but the documents from regulatory agencies such as EMA and FDA are probably the best source of information on medicines, so we should provide a link to them in all articles on medicines. In cases where there is more than one drug with the same active component, there is usually a reference product, so I suppose we could link to that one.
In any case, I think we should try to fix the template so it is possible to link to the EMA website again. --Shinryuu (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Given the multitude of tradenames, I think it will be easier to simply ask EMA that its website routinely redirects from INNs to correct pages. I can do it when I'm more free in September — kashmīrīTALK22:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
IIRC: EMA publishes (monthly?) a downloadable spreadsheet. It connects "some drug ID" to "EMA-publication ID". Very n-to-n relations. Could use that for Infobox, but requires data analysis. (sorry, no time to research this issue now. But it looks programmable. do not say easy nor cheap in hrs.) Have a Nice Edit, DePiep (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
If you know someone at EMA and if they actually consider such requests, this would be the ideal solution. I also fiddled around with the search function a bit, and I think we may be able to fix this by using a search link filtering for EPAR (the relevant registration document) and INN. This is actually possible with the current EMA search function. For the two examples of tafamidis and follitropin alfa I used above, this retrieves the following results:
The licence_US link is broken and always goes to the Drugs home page. Let's hide it also if you are going to make the change to hide the one for the EMA. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
That's FDA only then (DailyMed seems to work?). eg Amlodipine. Will prepare this in sandbox.
It is the searchpage though, so one can enter a search name. But not automated (POST ort GET difference). -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
This template is being used for articles on medicines with biosimilars, such as Rituxan and the drugs <sic> that are biosimilars for it. Template:Infobox_drug#Monoclonal_antibody_drugs is helpful. However, field synonyms (displayed as "Other names") isn't appropriate; biosimilars and generics aren't the same thing. I propose a new field: biosimilars. Consensus? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I was looking up what "biosimilar" is, and if we even have an article about it. And probably the article link will be the (left hand) label if this data is added. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Multi-word queries containing spaces currently don't work. As a result, pages like Bismuth subcitrate/metronidazole/tetracycline are using underlines as the word separator, with the very visible side effect of getting a super wide infobox.
Like, "P302+P334: IF ON SKIN: Immerse in cool water or wrap in wet bandages". More Occupational safety and health (OHS) related, and professional handling. Don't know if many drug chemicals have such a warning/danger set.
Also, don't see much spare time for this imn my own, new, calendar (was empty when I bought it some time ago...). -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2022
This edit request to Template:Infobox drug has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change: Default behaviour: when the article has a corresponding data page (name pattern: "{{FULLPAGENAME}} (data page)"), the IB adds a direct link to that page. For example, see Cocaine <=> Cocaine (data page). All fine. The change is:
1. When |data page=nonesuppress the link (do not show).
2. When the target page is a redirect, do not show the link.
3. Bugfix: When |data page=Nonstandard data page name → link to that page.
Also works when the page is entered with brackets |data page=[[pagename]].
4. Bugfix: |data page=<blank> (param is present), do as default.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I have noticed that {{infobox drug}} has started to emit citation template errors. For example, when editing the lead section of Ridaforolimus, the error message "Script warning: One or more citation templates have errors" is displayed. If one removes the |CAS_number= parameter, the error message goes away. Looking at the {{infobox drug}} script code, it is not obvious to me why this error message is being generated. Any ideas? Boghog (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I have added an extremely abbreviated {{infobox drug}} that I lifted from Alendronic acid. If this section is previewed, there is no citation template error message in the preview message box. If you copy the abbreviated {{infobox drug}} and replace the entire content of the Ridaforolimus, or replace the entire content of Alendronic acid with the abbreviated infobox and then preview (don't save), you should see the error message. Pick a random non-chemistry article (I used USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659)) and replace its entire content with the abbreviated infobox and preview: no preview error message. Also, in none of these examples does the infobox actually render a visible citation. Because this issue seems tied to chemistry articles only, I wonder if this has something to do with wikidata.
<citeid=\"CITEREFFood_and_Drug_Administration\"class=\"citationcs2\">[[Food and Drug Administration]] (ed.), ''ridaforolimus'', UNII 48Z35KB15K, [[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]] [[:d:Q6593799|Q6593799]]</cite><spantitle=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=ridaforolimus&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ARidaforolimus\"class=\"Z3988\"></span><spanclass=\"cs1-visible-errorcitation-comment\"><codeclass=\"cs1-code\">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><spanclass=\"cs1-visible-errorcitation-comment\"><codeclass=\"cs1-code\">|access-date=</code> requires <codeclass=\"cs1-code\">|url=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#accessdate_missing_url|help]])</span>[[Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL]]
category commented out; error message not styled because at the place that I extracted this citation, template styles has not yet been included in the rendering.
{{cite q}} is transcluded by the infobox, so perhaps this citation is that case but whatever is calling {{cite q}} is not returning the rendered citation. I suspect {{cite q}} because that template always includes the wikidata qid and {{cite q}} is a wrapper template around {{citation}}.
I do not understand (nor was it discussed/announced) what improvement was intended. I am not sure that "wd-source" route is the way to go anyway.
Same and worse: In sister IB {{Chembox}}, same day same editor Leyo same edit [4] had to be revered. Even worse, after that similar edit, Leyo inserted a sandbox [5] (?!), also reverted.
Background: See bug research above. Change was not discussed or tested. Similar issue happened at {{Chembox}} (talk, [6] &tc.). I note that no such change or edit can be made without propor discussion, sandboxing and testing beforehand.
The edit you would like to revert was made 9 months ago and hasn't caused any citation errors until very recently. Therefore, it is likely that the error occurred due to a change of another template or module. --Leyo22:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Leyo, about the bug: you have not disproven the bug; just an assumption. It's just that the report by boghog appeared recently. @Trappist the monk: convincingly showed, above, that this invoking Wikidata was the cause. No related edits were made since. As noted, on that same day May 2021, you introduced the similar error in {{Chembox CASNo/format}} (overwritten by you with your sandbox page [7]?!). In this debugging process, you were pinged, already weeks ago [8]. Conclusion: it is a bug, to be fixed, and you have not convinced otherwise.
Leyo, about your edits and posts: I have re-opened this Edit Request. By now, I conclude that you have introduced a bug and are unwilling to acknowledge, and unwilling engage in discussion, and obstructing the bugfix. With this, cancelling this Edit Request as you did is disruptive. To make the edits, you had to use your WP:TPE rights. You did not sandbox, not test, not discuss your edits befoe or after. That is an abuse of TPE right twice (no consesus seeked, not debug known bug=keep disruption). If you persist in this disruption in any way, be it on talkpage or in editing, that could be a reason to have your TPE bit be revoked. -DePiep (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I take note of your view. I couldn't react earlier as I was almost entirely offline for the last few weeks. --Leyo08:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I now actually reactivated the edit request (as I intended) [9]. Why on earth was the Edit Request template commented out at all, Leyo? DePiep -12:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, there is no need to rush since readers are not affected. The reason why this error only occurs now, i.e. after several months, should be investigated first. Moreover, how many articles are affected? --Leyo15:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This search suggests that approximately 7700 articles are affected. This error became noticeable following the most recent update to the cs1|2 module suite which was completed 2022-01-26. Before then, cs1|2 was not capable of separately reporting errors via the preview message box.
No Leyo, not "investigated first". It is a bug, so revert first. After that, there is space & time for investigation and whatever (but not in live templates). I'd expect a template TPE editor to understand & agree. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This holds true for a bug that actually affects readers, which is not the case here. After the revert, the investigation is probably more difficult.
"After the revert, the investigation is probably more difficult". Nonsense, irrelevant. No reason to keep a bug in mainspace. Getting tired. Last call to behave as Good Template Editor. -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Done Per Wikipedia:Template editor, This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes. This request not being implemented would produce a situation in which Leyo has used his template editor right (included in adminiship) to gain the upper hand in an editing dispute. * Pppery *it has begun...20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That's effectively a long-winded (and, on reflection, more direct than necessary) way of saying that I reverted your edit (despite your objections) on the principle that BRD should still apply even if the reverter doesn't have the technical rights to revert the edit. I'm not saying you did anything wrong in May 2021. * Pppery *it has begun...17:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Leyo and Pppery: to be clear: "I don't understand" is no excuse for the behaviour that is referred to in this thread. It even looks worrysome that a WP:TPE editor does not grasp the problematic issues described. -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Question on Solubility Section
Hello, I'm wondering what the 'intended' use of the solubility section is for. Is it meant only for solubilities of the type "10mg/L at STP" or can it also be used for solvation free energies ΔGsolvH2O of the form "-5 kcal/mol"? RFZYNSPYtalk05:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: Thank you for your reply. So you are saying that it is not an easy fix, right? What about if in the Template one is able to copy/paste the url directly, instead of invoking a search script? --kupirijo (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
First option could be to enter the search word by parameter, then have the tempalte create the link. Also to look for: which page is expected & useful? EPAR by commercial name is not helpful. The data analysis is a puzzle. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd ask you to download and look into the Referral spreadsheet Download table of referrals for human and veterinary medicines (already linked to above). The table lists all links between INN, "referral" id, true full webpage links, and other names or IDs. Questions I think that need an answer: from the spreadsheet, is the Referral link the target we want for a medicine? If so, which ID can we use (INN, EMA-defined Referral word, ...)? Please check this out (glancing or diving into it). Maybe you find an other useful route to the EMA-page in there. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I'm afraid I only know what I want done, not how to do it. There is a space between the legal status fields' contents and the legal status note fields' contents—this violates MOS:CITEPUNCT. Two examples are found in Daridorexant. Is there are way to eliminate that space? —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
{{Infobox drug
| legal_US_comment = (withdrawn, {{CodeFedReg|21|216|subpart=B|24|}})
}}
Removing strip markers is presumably removing the final parenthesis and that gives "Lua error: Unmatched open-paren at pattern character 2." Presumably the arbitrary text in the legal_US_comment parameter is being interpreted as a pattern and that is very hard to control. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
As Johnuniq writes: pattern mixup when opening (-bracket. However, strip essence requires Lua pattern. Search contiunues. No visible error in article (not broken). When urgent, we can add |ignore_errors=true in module calls. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Fixed. Indeed, new {{Infobox drug/non-ref-space}} ("check for initial text-or-ref whether to prefix space") failed when opening text character requires (REGEX) pattern escaping, like %(, and a ref was present elsewhere. This caused visible wrong spacing, and Category:Pages with script errors (Pecazine, Piracetam).
Fix: Added [module:String|escapePattern] on search pattern [11]. Errors gone.
I see now, thanks. I apologize for not having searched through archives first! For an ongoing problem, would it still make sense to make a new topic, but additionally link to relevant archives for reference? I'm fairly new to editing, and I appreciate the time you spent here. Spida-tarbell (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Whyw is not reproaching you for not searching ;-) they are correctly noting earlier, fruitless talks. Meanwhile, I hope we can make it work this time, see #Infobox drug FDA link below. Still, their site is hard to analyse. Which data do we expect? DePiep (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! So, what's tricky is that the original encoding linked to a search for the drug on the FDA website. Now, it seems that the only URL we can rely on is one that encodes the New Drug Application (NDA) ID in the URL, but this only applies to a particular instance (e.g. GlaxoSmithKline's Excedrin Migraine, NDA 020802.
Maybe someone else would fare better figuring out a working search URL for the new implementation, or I could contact the agency to ask whether such a possibility exists. – Spida-tarbell (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Below are the 22 pages FDA provides (blue bar, collapsed). None has this solution.
Point is: how to learn the NDA key (020802 in your example), automated? Is it published? (Usually, the site itself published how to retrieve such info). We cannot rely on the reader having top type the right drug name manually. DePiep (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Given the ability to download e.g. a CSV of the data, it seems mappings exist in the database. But the NDA key is probably of limited utility, because it'll rarely be appropriate for an article unless that article is about a specific company's formulation. And because this is using a trade name, it doesn't conform to the ontology for Wikipedia pages, which redirects all tracked trade names to an article about the generic drug. – Spida-tarbell (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
1. In the result page for trade name, I see a link that says "similar active ingredients". (ie, manual action by reader required. ouch).
2. 137 CSVs found. No NDAs though.
3. So far: if we can't find a right "FDA licence sourcepage" (INN/activesubstance is best), we must remove the datarow altogether. DePiep (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Infobox drug FDA link
So, we need the url for the FDA drug licence source/page, as to be used in {{Infobox drug}}.
* Drugs@FDA includes information about drugs, including biological products, approved for human use in the United States (see FAQ), but does not include information about FDA-approved products regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (for example, vaccines, allergenic products, blood and blood products, plasma derivatives, cellular and gene therapy products). For prescription brand-name drugs, Drugs@FDA typically includes the most recent labeling approved by the FDA (for example, Prescribing Information and FDA-approved patient labeling when available), regulatory information, and FDA staff reviews that evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the drug.
10. FAERSFDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Quarterly Data Files
Downloadable data files
11. FAERS[18] FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Public Dashboard
12. Inactive Ingredient Search for Approved Drug Products Search
Drug policy of India -> But the categories listed at Regulation of therapeutic goods#India (Schedule X, H, L, C, C1, N, M) - I found the Indian government document explaining each one the other day, I believe there is more categories than this, I will find it again and make a summary.
Drug policy of South Korea - Not much explanation, but we could initially just add the general OTC, Rx, vet.
The easiest information available about Chinese drug regulation is the "OTC class A" (drugstores only) and "OTC class B" (also available in general stores).
It's too much to add information about the classification about each countries at once. I'm initially informing the intent, but I will dig and summarize about each one in more details later.
Keep the "Class F (Prohibited substances)" for backward compatibility, but add:
Class F1 (Prohibited narcotics)
Class F2 (Prohibited psychotropics)
Class F3 (Prohibited precursors)
Class F4 (Other prohibited substances)
There is also a specific list for antibiotics, but I'm thinking to just use the general "Rx-only" tag for that. I need to dig, search for more information and think how that could be classified here. But for now, just adding the F subclasses would be great. Thanks :) Arthurfragoso (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The Global Ingredient Archival System provides a common identifier for all of the substances used in medicinal products, utilizing a consistent definition of substances globally, including active substances under clinical investigation, consistent with the ISO 11238 standard.
As far as I can tell, and possibly related to the above edit request, this infobox template appears to be pulling unsourced data from Wikidata, which is not allowed per the long-standing RFC. For example, Borax pulls the "E number" property, which is unsourced in Wikidata. Can someone please modify this template to use Module:WikidataIB to pull the information instead of #property?
This has been the case forever, and is not related to the above edit request. However it does mean that the code in the sandbox is not suitable to go live right now, so I'm declining the request. * Pppery *it has begun...02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
1. If I add the same URL to thousands of wikidata entries (which I think is a bad idea) then you'll do the migration?
2. Did neither of you notice that the code contains a full citation for the data? 3. It does, do doesn't WP:NOTBEUC apply?
Module:WikidataIB is the easiest way to ensure that the data is retrieved only when it has a source. It is custom-designed for use in infoboxes (hence the name). As for starting a new thread and not pinging you, I did not research who added the code in question. Can I interest you in the little star icon at the top right corner of this window? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Adding references to Wikidata would be step one. Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata? As for questions 2 and 3, the RFC does not prevent us from improving either Wikidata or Wikipedia, so it is reasonable to follow it. Question 4 is answered above. Question 5 is answered by an RFC, which is based on Wikipedia:Consensus, which is a policy. Question 6 is answered above. Rather than bickering here, energy might be better spent recognizing that the RFC outcome is beneficial and helping to implement it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
It says almost directly that a citation, as in [1] should be fine.
1,2,3,6 remain essentially unanswered. I can't find where an RFC answers 5.
Why are you even arguing with me? I just noticed - you couldn't even fulfill my edit request if you wanted to. So the answer to 1 is no.
TBH, I'm sick and tired of being unpleasantly surprised by one hurdle after another being thrown up as I try to accomplish this task. It's a bit absurd.
Know it's not easy, RudolfoMD, and yet please be patient with us, because we're all just trying to be careful with the project and be sure only improvement takes place. Sometimes that translates into apparent absurdity, especially when some things are still so new. Frustration and incivility only lengthens the process, so please try to see that if you impatiently throw your hands up, others will too. Wish I could help more, myself, but my skills just aren't there yet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there16:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to keep my feeling (and comments!) measured and impersonal. I'm careful to always PRESUME everyone I interact with is just trying to be careful with the project and be sure only improvement takes place. But your claim that "we're all" well-intentioned is unsupportable. How many users have been banned? How many thousands for undisclosed paid advocacy alone? So it's not appropriate to wear or ask others to wear blinders, or pretend not to be frustrated. When there's ample evidence of bad faith, we're encouraged to call it what it is; we've even got templates to help each other with this, from {{uw-paid1}} to 4:
" You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. " to {{uw-vandal4}} -
There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability. For the other issues raised within this RfC, there was no clear consensus.
”
My response to false claims that my proposed edit, which is entirely consistent with and goes well beyond the RFC's requirement, would violate it was "It seems you're misrepresenting the RFC..." Civil as can be. If you agree, I welcome help finding someone to push the edit live and/or with more ... diplomatically ... explaining why it warrants being pushed live. If you disagree, I welcome that and an explanation for it.
One positive step forward would be to modify the "E number from Wikidata" section of the sandbox so that it is either commented out or uses Module:WikidataIB to retrieve only sourced data from Wikidata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Why don't you make these edits if you want them made?
I notice you're aggressively ignoring the three questions, still.
I get the sense you are going to continue to falsely portray my proposed edit as adding unreferenced info to wikipedia and not following the RFC.
I understand that you are frustrated with my answers. Please desist from personal attacks. As for editing the code myself, I wanted to give editors who are familiar with the template, and with Wikidata, a chance to remedy the problem in a constructive way before I simply commented out or removed the non-compliant portions of code, which I see as the least good remedy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
It looks like filling in the |solubility= parameter renders as "Solubility in water". If instead one wanted to say something along the lines of "slightly soluble in ethanol, highly soluble in 2-propanol", is there a way to put this into the infobox? I figured out setting the |sol_units= to " " at least removes the suffix "g/mL" part. Kimen8 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I’m sort of puzzled why things like addiction liability and dependence liability are a thing in these info boxes for various drugs but tolerance potential/rate isn’t? I know there is a number of variables like dosage and rate of frequency and even individual enzyme properties, or maybe even receptor sensitivity, but the same is also evidently true for the other aforementioned potentials. From what I can clearly tell, some substances certainly have abnormally fast tolerance increases (such as opioids & amphetamines); whereas others can have pretty modest rate of increased tolerance. And even substances with potential for reverse-tolerance (like salvia and cannabis) should also have this mentioned in the infobox. Dexedream (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Tolerance in and of itself isn't an even remotely notable drug property. To the extent that it plays a role in drug dependence, it's necessary to understand. And, for what it's worth, sensitization of drug reward is the biological process that mediates the development of addiction; drug tolerance doesn't play any role in its pathophysiology. IMO, if there are any notable drug effects that tend to undergo tolerance or sensitization with repeated use, content about that should be added to the article, not dumped into an infobox with limited context. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 9 December 2023
This edit request to Template:Infobox drug has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The current boxed warning indication uses LaTeX, which is just plain silly. LaTeX causes a whole image (with italicized text) to be added to the article for no good reason. Can't we stick with text?
Replace
|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
With
| legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
So we can see WARNING instead of . Looking at the previous discussion, it seems that the CSS approach I want is the final consensus, but it didn't replace the initial TeX version in the sandbox for some reason. As a result, the wrong version was applied. --Artoria2e5🌉06:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Seconded. Correct. I (oddly!) didn't notice that * Pppery * did the original edit request, instead of the the edit request as it existed when they edited the template and marked the request done. But note: we may have further improvement come out of discussion with User:Kimen8 soon. -- RudolfoMD (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
What I actually did was base off the code in the sandbox, and didn't even notice the midstream edits you made to the talk page on 2 December (yes, you did point them out, but there was so much noise in that discussion that I didn't see them). Anyway, Done* Pppery *it has begun...04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Edit request 15 November 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Edit the change I made (to the sandbox copy) to the legal_US= line into the template. I tested it in Template:Infobox drug/sandbox and it works. It will display WARNING[1] based on data I've begun adding to wikidata. I have buy-in at
WT:MED#Black_box_warnings_project.
Diff:
Current:
legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}
Sandbox:
legal_US={{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<spanstyle="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<refname="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web|title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]]|access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
([edit: I entered the code w/ Template:TextDiff as directed but it didn't display it properly in preview, so diff now manually displayed above. Help, appreciated, collapsed.)
RudolfoMD (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
(I entered the code as directed but it doesn't display properly in preview. If needed, view diff.)
I tried putting <nowiki> around the parms to the TextDiff above, and it produced this:
−
|legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}
+
|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
legal_US={{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<spanstyle="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<refname="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web|title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]]|access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
1. If I add the same URL to the thousands of wikidata entries (which I think is a bad idea) then you'll do the migration? That's worse than making the source info visible here, as my code does.
2. Did you notice that the code you're refusing to add contains a full citation for the data?
@Jonesey95, would you mind hopping up to this section and explaining why you think that Module:WikidataIB needs to be used, given that the source is being supplied here? I understand not wanted "Boxed warning"; I want to know why you are insisting on "Boxed warning[Wikipedia source][Copy of same source from Wikidata]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
A small fraction of it is probably unsourceable; I doubt there are any sources out there that say whether Measles should be listed as an instance of Q12136, Q112193867, or Q112193769 (three variations on saying that it's a 'disease'). Therefore having some fraction unsourced is of no particular concern to me; some of it will be obviously correct in its real-world meaning, even if editors can differ over the ideal item number to represent the obvious fact that it's a disease.
In this instance, Rudolfo and I have been talking about the advantages of setting a bot as a sentinel over the items. Sources do not prevent vandalism. Auto-revert bots do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Glad to see it's been clarified that there's no objection.
It's not appropriate that this was derailed. It's not appropriate to demand I try to make or push for someone's unrelated changes that are not even in my wheelhouse.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Dear admin:
I'm asking that the above-requested template change be made. (In other words, I'm asking that Template:Drugboxwarns be copied to Template:Infobox drug. That will modify the one line of Template:Infobox drug exactly as I've asked that it be modified. The only difference is that the sandbox template also has some other changes that I presume make the sandbox work better, but shouldn't be copied to the live template.) Using the {{adminhelp}} template, as it's been over a week with no action, and I think it's been clarified that there's no objection. As a bonus, warning of these particularly important safety issues may, just perhaps, thereafter regularly prevent iatrogenic catastrophes. (Yeah, I know, Disclaimer.) RudolfoMD (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Yay! Bravo, all. There's still work for me/us left - e.g. NIRMATRELVIR AND RITONAVIR (Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is one of the drugs I/OpenRefine failed to mark in wikidata; not sure why. Need to get the import/match to work better. I wonder how many pages the warning is displayed on. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on clonidine, I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is for this drug. It is barely helpful to know that there exists a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. Kimen8 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding information about the specific warning would require a lot more work. This may be a step towards that, but the goal here was just to say that the drug had earned a boxed warning.
If we reach that greater goal in the future, I might suggest DailyMed as a standardized source (clonidine, which has two boxed warnings). But it might also be better to have this in the article itself, cited to whatever the best sources are the editors choose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. Kimen8 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The file is a .csv file, so your computer will probably open it as a spreadsheet. That means that it's both searchable and filterable.
Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. Kimen8 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I see this as an incremental improvement. It took us years to reach this point, and it only happened because of a couple of months of work by @RudolfoMD. The next step will be more complex, but maybe we'll be able to manage that some day, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I do see the value in this, and my first reaction was one of letting perfect be the enemy of good, mixed with the aesthetically-unappealing presentation in the infobox of the "bulky" [WARNING] text before the Rx-only phrase (not that I can think of a better way to do this at the moment). It is indeed a step towards making sure that black box warnings make their way into articles. Kimen8 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't want you to think of your reaction as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather that you think of it the way I do, which is helpfully advocating that we not stop here, but continue to look for even greater improvements. :-)WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, unless I'm missing something, the link in the autogenerated citation seems to only list drugs whose generic names fall in the range "A"–"C" (I checked lamotrigine to make sure that the "A"–"C" link wasn't specific to clonidine, which begins with a "c", and the same link is on that page). Kimen8 (talk) Kimen8 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page. As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The citation says to use the "Download" button. It's >10MB, which would not be a friendly thing to dump on unsuspecting readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
A week ago, here, I had already proposed/made a request for help for doing essentially what Kimen8 is suggesting. I wrote in part, The text of each warning is generally concise and consists only of the most import warnings, so it may be worth [importing from the FDALabel database,] storing [in Wikidata] and adding to articles via wikidata. I'm flattered. :-)
Regarding linking to a viewable page with the warnings: There's already code in the template to link to dailymed for some drugs. Perhaps we could use that, but my concerns include that the dailymed data may be less accurate than the FDAs, and strictly speaking, it would not be truthful to say dailymed is the source of the info.
I think we can and should do the import of the warnings themselves. But we'd be want them to appear in the body of articles, right? I think so...
The bulky warning box is fixed. (Obsolete code was migrated due to miscommunication.) I put the (now-smaller) box before the Rx-only phrase intentionally, but if there's consensus, it can be moved.
My personal opinion is that the Warning should be after the Rx-only phrase (such as Rx-only ([WARNING]) or along those lines), because the order in which I deem the information important is: The infobox parameter is about legality/scheduling so the legality/schedule should go first; the black box warning is auxiliary information and should go second. Kimen8 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The WARNING doesn't belong in the legal section. It is part of the FDA label and not a legal status. Its placement is annoying and distracting. The black box warning is not in the article. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug?
I had a question regarding how the Black Box warning code is implemented and if the following is possible.
Many drugs have Black Box warnings only for certain preparations of the drug. Is there a preferred way to mention this? I thought about putting the sentence "The US FDA Black Box warning only applies to certain preparations of the drug, including ___, where the warning says: ___" or something along those lines, but it's clunky.
For example with baclofen, neither the preparations Lyvispah oral granules, nor Ozobax oral solution have black box warnings, but Lioresal intrathecal does. In the case of this particular article, the contents of the black box warning are mentioned in the Adverse Effects section, but there is no explicit clarity if someone sees the Black Box Warning symbol in the infobox and goes to the article body to try to see the details of that.
I was going to ask on RudolfoMD's page but it seems they are indefinitely blocked.
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
done, and thank you both very much! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done Per Wikipedia:Template editor, 
Prepared, but not fit for mainspace yet.
Completed Please execute.
Fixed. Indeed, new {{Infobox drug/non-ref-space}} ("check for initial text-or-ref whether to prefix space") failed when opening text character requires (REGEX) pattern escaping, like 
Not done See below. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
