Template talk:Infobox drug

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox drug template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 180 days

Pharmacology Template‑class Top‑importance

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I've done a lot of work in cleaning up the code further as we lurch towards parity with other infobox templates. Current code is in the sandbox and comparison is on the test cases page. The only visible changes are that (a) the headers are centered again (which they should always have been) and (b) the title has been moved to a caption rather than being displayed below the images, as is standard with infoboxes. Comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good .. may I carefully point to the discussion just above here? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the incorporation of the code added here into this template, it should be trivial to add, yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The code is this (slightly different diff), and there is a second part, which, in the chembox (actually in {{chembox CASNo}}), puts black (unverified), green (verified and correct), or red (verified, but now changed to something else) brackets around the CASNo (I'd like to see a different implementation in time there, but that also needs discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with the sandbox as this has gone two months now. Minor layout change for improved accessibility and conformance with MoS infobox layout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Jake Wartenberg 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policosanol

Names
IUPAC name Octacosanol, triacontanol, etc.
Identifiers
CAS Number	142583-61-1
Properties
Chemical formula	CH3-(CH2)n-CH2OH n=24-34
Molar mass	(variable)
Pharmacology
Pharmacokinetics:
Bioavailability	?
Metabolism	?
Biological half-life	?
Excretion	?
Legal status	?
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa). Infobox references

What's the point of using the Drugbox for single chemical drugs? Wouldn't it be more useful to adapt the chemical box (Template:Chembox) to include all pertinent drug information? Albmont (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Chembox}} is in fact already capable of handling all the information currently handled by {{drugbox}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why use Drugbox for the single chemical drugs - as Chembox has more information about them? Albmont (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of box is merely depending on what the major use of the chemical is. If it's major use is a drug, it gets a drugbox, otherwise a chembox. Chembox can handle most of the stuff (if not all) that the drugbox can handle for the cases where it is less clear what the main function is. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also prior discussion at Template_talk:Drugbox/Archive_5#Drugbox_.26_Chembox. --Arcadian (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that discussion died without reaching the logical conclusion, that would be the merge. All chemical compounds should have a chembox, and not some with a drugbox and some with a chembox. Albmont (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the prior discussion: in many cases a "drug" is a molecule, but it can also be an antibody, a mixture, a polymer, or an unrefined plant product. There are some possible solutions, but they're all complex. It's not just a matter of a merger. --Arcadian (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But chembox and drugbox handle mixtures, polymers, or unrefined plant products in the same way, so it shouldn't make any difference which template is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.164.21 (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that. Could I see a model of how Policosanol looks in chembox format? --Arcadian (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I dropped all the drugbox data from policosanol into a chembox. The colors and method of organization are different, but all the same data is there. 72.94.164.21 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now support the merge. --Arcadian (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about combination drugs, vaccines, and monoclonal antibodies (type = combo, vaccine, mab), could they be implemented? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could merge the chembox and drugbox together or at each drug page, we could put a chembox as well of the drugbox. -- Ebe123 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What breaks the drugbox on Aluminium chlorohydrate, but not on any other page that I could find? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, I think. Will try to fix. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the drug's name ("Drugbox" on the template's own page) is placed above the picture of its molecular structure and in bold, i.e. as a title. 212.84.106.20 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that this is now live. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to add PDB to the "Identifiers" section of the drug box. The Protein Data Bank (PDB) contains the 3D receptor-drug complexes of about 300 FDA approved drugs and many experimental drugs. An example of a PDB link is in the protein template at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv_protease. The link to the PDB shows the PDB summary page how a drug interacts with its target protein. --DrPharm (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drugbox/doc provides no guidance as to whether or how to use legal_status and related legal_* parameters to summarize the patent status, i.e. (1) where a drug is under patent, (2) who holds the patent, and (3) when the earliest patent applicable to the drug expires. The infobox is also missing the (4) year that the drug became available as a generic drug, if applicable and known. I searched this template's talk page archive and found minimal discussion about this.

I'm looking for comments as whether items (1) through (4) are legitimate parameters for this infobox, and if so, how should they be supported (e.g. as part of the existing legal_* parameters, as new legal_ parameter(s), or as additional parameters with names specific to the uses mention above. Thanks. 67.100.125.197 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the drugbox display the drug's name and the imagename? ([1]) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

fixed in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done synced —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} The old links in the format http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/indexdatabase/index.php?query=N06AA09 are broken.

The new format is: http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/?code=N06AA09

There's an additional parameter now to show an extended description. This is kind of nice, but pushes the info on the drug quite a bit further down the screen: http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/?code=N06AA09&showdescription=yes

MichaK (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new format for ATCvet is: http://www.whocc.no/atcvet/atcvet_index/?code=QN06AA09. "showdescription=yes" does not seem to have any effect for ATCvet. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the 1st w/out the extended description (any concerns, just ask for an editprotect again). 2nd, no problemo. Skier Dude (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beetstra (Dirk) is adding InChIs and InChIKeys to drugboxes as part of his chemicals validation work. What about making them show? Probably not in full, but perhaps in a similar way we show SMILES. Dirk also suggested that the InChIs should be rendered to make them valid search terms. See User talk:Beetstra#InChI in drugboxes?. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the drugbox be modified to link to the CAS No. tool at Toolserver (http://toolserver.org/~magnus/cas.php), like {{CAS}}? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or would it be better to link to commonchemistry.org like {{chembox}}? At any rate, {{chembox}}, {{drugbox}} and {{CAS}} should not link to three different places. See Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox#CAS number: where to link? for a discussion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One small edit to the template information that needs correcting - under the title 'Legal status', the UK example entry is 'GSL' (General Sale List) but the resulting output is listed as 'POM'. On a more major note, there is not a clear indication that there is a distinction between a CD (controlled drug) and Class A/B/C drugs in the UK. A drug can be a CD but not necessarily fall into any of the illegal drug classes (i.e. illegal to possess) if it has legitimate medical/scientific use; instead they fall into schedules, as detailed here [2]. It would only take a few minor amendments to the template explanation (not the template itself) to clarify this, and I am willing to rework it myself if required. Perspeculum ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found a good example of this - Morphine, where it is listed as a Class A drug in the UK, which is correct, but only if it is not prescribed. It also falls into the category of a Schedule II controlled drug, allowing it to be legally possessed with a valid prescription. Perspeculum ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also just realised that the template has no provision for the Canadian status to be Rx-only, it only has options for Schedules I to VIII, which prevents comparison against drugs which are controlled in the USA and not in Canada, an example being Modafinil, which is Schedule IV in the US, but prescription only (Schedule F) in Canada. Perspeculum ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, figured I could make the change in the sandbox myself. The documentation has been slightly tweaked to reflect the added Canadian legal statuses of OTC/Rx-only. The edits are reflected in revision 337003644 (oldid=336802200). Please could the admin that makes the change just double check I haven't screwed it up, I'm pretty sure I didn't. {{editprotected}}

 Done, with one small change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing a fair few drugs that fall into the category of 'Controlled Drug' in the UK, I think the options of 'Class A, B or C' need to be changed to reflect the therapeutic category of a drug - i.e. Schedules I, II, III, IV or V. As I mentioned some time back, Class A/B/C is only a reflection on illegal possession, so offers no therapeutic information. Does anyone have any thoughts to the contrary? I will go ahead and change it in a few days if nobody objects. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 15:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please can the following sandbox change be implemented. diff=346164455&oldid=344805469 If you need a source for my edits, the Misuse Of Drugs Regulations 2001 covers it: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20013998.htm Currently wikipedia just redirects to the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971, which is not the same and is something I will change soon... I'll also update the template documentation once this change is approved. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How will this affect existing uses of this template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any uses that currently show Class A/B/C will show up as '?' until updated, however this only covers a relatively small number so the impact would be minimal. I would argue that it is better to have to update any that are found than continue to be using an inaccurate representation of its legality. Of course, I'm willing to demonstrate this in discussion if you'd prefer, before making the edit. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Could you update the existing uses and the template documentation. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be an option for not recognised as a drug by a country and there should be. 82.132.136.207 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} I made few minor changes to the sandbox of this template, so that rows for “Pregnancy cat.” and “Legal status” are the same height as the rest of the rows and I added space before the parenthesis on the “Legal status” field. Could some admin please update this template with those changes? Thanks. Svick (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the template currently shows "?" for any field that is not specified. Instead, the field (value *and* keyword) should be omitted. It is a basic rule of Wikipedia that the article should always be in a "clean" state, without "scaffolding" of "to be filled" gaps. In a biography article, for example, if the birth date is missing, it should be simply omitted as in "Joe Doe (d. 1912)". One should not write "Joe Doe (????--1912)", nor "(unknown--1912)", nor even "( --1912)". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. +1 for obscuring missing fields. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. →Alfie^±Talk 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support in most cases, but not all cases. For example, if a substance has no ATC code, that tells me something important about it. If we have no data on pregnancy category or legal status, that may be a clue that the Chembox may be more appropriate than the Drugbox. --Arcadian (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we merge drugbox and chembox? Is there any opposition? This would hide empty fields, along with clearing a number of redundancies and inconsistencies. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the parameters handled by {{drugbox}} can also be handled by {{chembox}}, so there isn't really a need to merge. One would only need to migrate drugbox data for each article to the chembox format. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True that having no ATC or not knowing the ATC is a difference. But then I would suggest to have the parameter for ATCCode recognise 'NA' as a parameter, and not showing '?' for it when it has not been found yet .. just leave it out. I am running a script on the boxes, anyone against removing question marks from the boxes in that same go (if the question mark is the sole content of the parameter)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the {{drugbox/sandbox}} for testing. Omits almost all fields if empty (everything from the main layout except ATC code, pregnancy cat and legal status because they didn't find consensus above, and formula because it isn't really worth the trouble). No changes made to the mab, combo and vaccine layouts. Additionally, I removed the bottom margin which was caused by the CAS verification mechanism. I also replaced some cumbersome conditionals with {{#switch: constructions.

I'll be away over the next week. If no bugs or complaints turn up, I will ask for implementation afterwards. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}} Please replace {{drugbox}} with {{drugbox/sandbox}}. This will implement the changes discussed in this section. No bugs found since Feb 25. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the drugbox should be tweaked slightly more. If you ask me the IUPAC and CAS (and possibly ATC as well -- opinions?) should always show up and if they're blank have a "?" instead of nothing. These two fields should always be filled out and this would help to remind users to fill them if empty. Additionally I think pregnancy category and routes should be hidden by default if empty. I suggest this because there are a lot of designer drugs and research chemicals (such as those undergoing clinical trials) that aren't marketed and I find myself leaving these fields blank on quite a few of these types of articles. Finally I think another default option for legal status should be added to apply to designers and research chemicals as well. Usually if they're marketed and legal it's just "Rx-only", but what are we supposed to put for drugs that have never been commercialized in which that term does not apply? Currently I just put "uncontrolled" or "unscheduled" but I'm not particularly satisfied with that. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support hiding pregnancy field. The routes field should already be hidden if empty. As for the legal status, that's a free text field: you could just add "research chemical". I can't think of a good phrasing for designer drugs, but I agree that "uncontrolled" is not satisfying.

Oppose always showing the IUPAC name. What about drugs like etanercept?

An empty CAS field adds the page to Category:Chemical pages needing a CAS Registry Number which I'd (slightly) prefer over the more intrusive "?". Jorge Stolfi above has a point with his argumentation. ATC is not hidden at the moment and I agree that it should always show up.

--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source

The parameter "source" currently allows free text, which results in rather a mess – different phrasing for the same thing, some linked, some unlinked etc. I suggest restricting the value to the range of the infixes:

The page Chimeric antibody doesn't exist yet, but should probably be created. Humanized antibody has a definition which does not match the one used in antibody names, so that article would need some work, too.

mab_type

There should be an additional field showing the type of antibody – "traditional" whole mab, Fab, Fab', BiTE, etc. – especially as there are more and more non-standard mabs, and the names do not show the differences. Furthermore, many articles about individual non-standard mabs incorrectly state "XYZumab is a monoclonal antibody..."

For information about those mabs, see the lead section of List of monoclonal antibodies. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Arcadian (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed values and results:

(*) ad hoc abbreviations by me; does anyone know abbreviations used in literature? -- ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source and mabtype parameters are online for testing at {{drugbox/sandbox}}. Comments welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting implementation

{{Editprotected}} Please replace {{drugbox}} with {{drugbox/sandbox}}. This will implement the new features discussed in this section. No bugs have been detected in the past five days. --16:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Please update the documentation, and let me know if there are any problems. Nice work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Documentation updated --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}} New param values for source requested.

old (lines 63–66):

 | u    = [[human]]
 | xi   = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]]
 | zu   = [[humanized]]
 | xizu = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]]/[[humanized]] hybrid

new:

 | u    = [[human]]
 | xi/o = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]] ([[mouse]]/[[human]])
 | xi   = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]]
 | zu/o = [[humanized]] (from [[mouse]])
 | zu   = [[humanized]]
 | xizu = [[chimeric antibody|chimeric]]/[[humanized]] hybrid

Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Please, do not forget to update documentation. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox

The data on chemical drugs where the chem box lists the "Mol. mass" in "g/mol". I believe the problem is the "Mol. mass" redirects to "Molecular Mass" wikipedia article, but it should redirect to "Molar mass" (which is measured in g/mol).

(First post in a discussion! Hope everything's in check, gonna work on figuring this Wikipedia functionality out in the near future) :)

Adenylated (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree. Physchim62 (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here too. By the way, many drugboxes for large molecules (mabs and other proteins) use kDa, which is a unit of molecular mass. Should these be changed to... what? 150000 g/mol? 150 kg/mol? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a problem... When you measure a molecular mass in kDa, you really are measuring a molecular mass, as opposed to when as when you calculate a molar mass from atomic weights. Maybe the solution is to have two parameters, one for molar mass for small molecules and the other for molecular mass for things like monoclonal antibodies. Physchim62 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are these values really measured molecular masses, or molar masses calculated from the formulae? And how should we tell which is which? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the question isn't it, if the values are calculated from atomic masses then the page should just redirect to Molar Mass but if we're accounting for isotopes, and it is a molecular mass, then the g/mol should just be removed. Furthermore, some articles (THC, Pentobarbital for example) do not contain any units for Mol. mass., but others do (Lorazepam, Phencyclidine). Adenylated (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One way to do it would be to link to molar mass if there's a formula given and to molecular mass if there's no formula: the latter will be the case for peptides and proteins, I'm fairly sure, and those are the ones whose molecular mass is measured fairly directly (by electrophoresis, among other methods). Physchim62 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other advantage is that it's simple to code: {{#if:{{{formula|}}}|[[Molar mass]]|[[Molecular mass|Mol. mass]]}} Physchim62 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean chemical_formula? But that's empty if the formula is given with something like C=6 | H=12 | O=6, which is usually the case. What about {{#if:{{{C|}}}{{{H|}}}{{{O|}}}{{{N|}}}{{{S|}}}|[[Molar mass]]|[[Molecular mass|Mol. mass]]}}? But let's not forget that many monoclonal antibodies have their masses calculated from their formula and use kDa as unit nonetheless. I suppose this could be relatively easy fixed with AWB. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The license information field still says "EU EMEA", while "EMEA" has been discontinued as an acronym for the European Medicines Agency. Currently there is no official acronym according to the article, but EMA is quite widely used as far as I can tell. Should this be changed in the drugbox? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Background of the Verifiedfields cell is incorrectly black in IE as reported on the Village pump. I used the fix suggested there in the sandbox and it works for me correctly. Can some admin copy the change from the sandbox to the main template? Thanks. Svick (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the drugbox with the contents of User:Anypodetos/Sandbox, omitting the initial line

<noinclude>{{workpage}}</noinclude>

This also adds missing parameter values for the source field. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]