Template talk:Infobox drug

Split the formula highlighter into a separate template?

Right now the template uses a wrapper for {{OrganicBox_atom}} to element-highlight the chemical formulas. This is extremely bulky with every single element a different color, and therefore I feel the module is a good candidate to be separated into a different template. This would also make the code reusable in other pages like List of compounds with carbon number 10 which is in grave need of some colors. Please {{reply to}} me so I don't need to constantly check my watchlist. Timothy G. ^{from CA} (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Timothy Gu:. I assume you mean to split the formula code into a separate template or module (so this drugbox can call something like: {{OrganicBox_molecule|H={{{H|}}}|C={{{C|}}}}}). Technically this would be OK.

But for {drugbox}, I'd propose to do the opposite: do not color the element symbols at all (and do not bold them). First, the color distracts me. I do know what a chemical formula looks like, but I have no clue about the colors. To me it looks like there is something going on I don't know. Already the plain links in Template:Chemical formula (as {{Chembox}} has) is a stretch in readibility & recognisability. Second, it is not clear what the color means to say (Does there exist a red oxygen?). There is no clarification (key) at hand. For accessability (and good page design) , WP:COLOR says: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information". It may feel like stepping back, but preventing colors used as a form of fancy brightening the page makes good articles. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Need a new field

Our drugbox currently includes a parameter for dependence liability, but not addiction liability. Since there's a definitional and induction mechanism distinction between the two, and since people often confuse the terms, it seems necessary to include an addiction liability drugbox parameter/field. Caffeine is the most obvious article that comes to mind where these are different. This covers a few more examples. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

If this is supported, I can add it. (I can't say anything about its relevance). What would the lefthand text be? -DePiep (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Addiction liability" is adequate - might as well use the same term as used in the dependence field for consistency. Drug addiction redirects to the current dependence liability parameter's link, but the distinction between the two concepts is prominently noted in the article lead; so for the parameter wikilink, either drug addiction or addiction would be suitable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

All looks well based to me, the ref is in the target article. |addiction_liabiliy= shows below dependency now, see Testcases. Same documentation I guess. Will push it live tomorrow, if the winds don't turn. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WholeNewJourney, I have read your contribution to this talk about splitting Substance_dependence. Do I understand that you would not oppose adding this second parameter |addiction_liabiliy= next to |dependency_liabiliy=, as they are distinct (however difficult to describe that in article(s))? Please note that we will not repeat that discussion here. This is just about the {drugbox} parameter. ping Seppi333 -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. Let me know if there are issues. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is too much overlap with addiction and dependence, so I don't support it (although I am open to being convinced otherwise). What I would support is a dependence liability and abuse liability parameters. If something has a high abuse potential then it also has a high behavioural addiction potential although it is possible to abuse drugs without being addicted to them - there is no perfect solution. Most authoritative sources would use such separation, think of drug package inserts that title their warnings under 'Abuse and Dependence' headers.--WholeNewJourney (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

hm. 'abuse' introduces a judgement (good/bad border), which complicates matters without solving. Isn't drug abuse simply another issue altogether (re LD₅₀)? Also, might that abuse in the wrapper include (physical) dependency too? My impression is that the separation physical and behavioural liability makes sense. In general, an overlap is not prohibitive to describe two effects, as long as we understand that. (A bit like temparature outside and perceived/felt temperature). -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It does introduce a judgement issue and some recreational drug users don't like to be labelled drug abusers but that is how the majority of academics, healthcare professionals researchers etc view such use of drugs. Drug abuse is not the same as LD. Many controlled drugs have low toxicity. Abuse potential refers exclusively to the potential of a drug to induce euphoria/feelings of well-being and thus behavioural addictive potential.--WholeNewJourney (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see ehat that extra judgements adds, not even for these academics. Maybe "abuse" should have a third parameter, re social judgement. (you ruled out that abuse is related to toxic LD, a more rational one). So far, I still have not gotten why behaviour angle would not do. -DePiep (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Granted the abuse parameter draws in more problems. My problem is that the definition of addiction and dependence overlap significantly (dependence liability covers both behavioural addiction and physical dependence) and it is confusing area even for academics and most of our readers are lay people. One solution (and perhaps the best solution?) would be to have addiction liability and change dependence liability to physical dependence liability. That would make things less confusing for our article readership. What do you think?--WholeNewJourney (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

...a behavioral addiction is literally just an addiction to a natural reward (i.e., a non-drug addiction)... it describes nothing more than the class of addictive stimulus (a "non-drug" one). I'm just going to hope you understand the issue with the current characterizations of these concepts by the DSM and other entities after reading my reply on the other talk page... Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my mistake regarding behavioural addiction. You never passed comment on having addiction and physical dependence parameter. Good or bad idea?--WholeNewJourney (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Many stimulants don't cause physical dependence, but psychological dependence instead, so it may be better to simply leave it as is; changing it to physical dependence would necessitate changing the parameter values in some articles to correctly reflect their physical dependence liability vs (general) dependence liability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Change request

Please change

vaccine = [[Vaccine|Vaccine description]]

to

vaccine = [[Vaccine]] description

as a clearer wikilink. Thanks. 80.189.8.54 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Seems uncontroversial, but this change is revertible on request. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Undid. Since no thoughts are exchanged, I don't feel the need to add one. If TE edits are made this way, I am not invited to take care anyway. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the sentence above. The OP gave his/her rationale, and it is irresponsible to revert without providing a reason. This change was made in line with WP:BOLD - you are well within your rights to revert, but the next step in the BRD cycle is to "discuss". Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(As for reverting: I simply reacted to you 1st sentence "Seems ..."). I don't think this proposal is more clear. The article vaccine does not clarify the full label text, whatever the wikilabel (pipe linked) is. Also, the tempalte documentation does not hep clarifying; it does not even say which input parameter is used. So we need a better target for this one: that is the clarification needed. Until then, and practically, WP:MOSLINK (linkstyle, underlink, specific link) suggests that better link the whole term, not cut it up. (Signed days late+ping: @MSGJ:) -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What maintenance categories do we want?

At the moment, the set of maintenance categories is a bit chaotic. I am about to clean that up. My question is: how to organise?

• By CheMoBot, the verified and watched fields are tracked & categorised in Category:Drugboxes which contain changes to verified fields‎
• There is Category:Drugboxes which contain changes to watched fields.
• And Category:Chemical pages with verified fields missing.

These categories have parallels with {{Chembox}} and can be used.

• Now for ATC, we can set up categories for these situations:

ATC = none

ATC = (some identifier)

ATC = <blank>

• And, for legal issues, there is the set-list:

legal_US = none

legal_US = Schedule I

legal_US = <blank>

legal_US = some unknown free text

Some of these situation show a question mark in the article. The question is: which situations do we want in category('s)? All three/four options categorised? -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

a lot of drugs arent chemicals, but mixture of chemicals, and IMHO the categories shouldnt be mixed with the infobox chemical's categories. Christian75 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Christian75, this is earthshaking news for my overview of {{Drugbox}} and {{Chembox}} articles (because: some Drugbox articles then can not be Chembox (=chemicals) articles). Those Drugbox articles do not allow merging with a universal Chembox. In short. (Ask if you prefer more explanation).

However. For this moment, and for these individual parameters, this is no issue. We can make maint cats for ATC-code and legal_US &tc without going against your statement. -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Im not really sure what you mean. But are you suggesting merging the chembox with the drugbox? Im strongly against that (I will spare the arguments if that isnt you intention). 11:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a merge is a long term view. -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Christian75. About "drugs [that are a] mixture of chemicals". Isn't that already covered in {drugbox}, by setting |type=combo? (See this in the /doc). So if I'm correct, that mixture must be & will be covered (handled) in any merged template. It may be a puzzle, but not a blocker. (Can't find an example article now). -DePiep (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• re Christian75, about mixed categories for {Drugbox} and {Chembox}. That is, a single category that has articles added by both {Chembox} and {Drugbox}. These are the backgrounds for this. The example is CAS RN. First: CheMoBot (chemicals validation) adds a category by adding CAS_number={{cascite|changed|??}} for both boxes (see also the {{cascite}} /doc). The reason for adding is the same: verified data (the CAS RN) is changed compared to an earlier, verified article version (or, the article was never verified so far). Since the topic is the CAS RN, not the 'drug' or 'chemical' itself, the cat reason is the same. Check-the-CAS_RN is a maintenance task independent of the drug/nodrug indication. Parallel to this, the categorization "chemical/drug without CAS RN" is also fully shared, for the same reason. (However, this is done by the template not by the bot).

If those categories should be separated (they never were), the bot workings must change. I don't see that useful for reasons given, and because the bot validation process may be outdated (it needs re-activating, or wikidata should be involved, or something else).

I note that this setup is not changed by my recent edits (edits in {Chembox} and proposed edits in {Drugbox}). What I did do is bring it all in line: apply the same to all seven verified parameters for both templates (improve cat name, reorder cat tree, make all seven complete, make all seven act similar and such). I do not intend to change bot behaviour, just to make it work OK.

If one would want to work on "CAS RN in {Drugbox} only", we should provide an url link in that cat (eg using WP:CATSCAN, 'list all articles in this can that have {Drugbox} transcluded').

Infobox-specific issues (like: unknown parameter used in {Drugbox}) are kept in separate categories.

• I add, about ATC codes. ATC is not in the list of seven bot-tracked validated parameters (see {{cascite}} for the list). At the moment, I propose to have those ATC issues categorized in Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code, by {Drugbox} and by {Chembox} alike. (So that is a shared category too). Reasons are the same: if one wants to work or search the ATC-status for chemicals (usually but not always having {Drugbox}, today), that is you single goto page. Here too the (wiki)-difference {Drug-} or {Chem-} is not relevant. Note that the category is not hidden, because it is of readers interest. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

PLLR, June 2015: new US pregnancy drug labeling

By FDA. Per June 30, 2015 the US Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Final Rule (PLLR) comes in effect. [1]. More info [2] [3]. We'll have to check this out. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Started a topic at WT:PHARM, PLLR. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal and demo, see Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Add_PLLR_.28US.2C_pregnancy.29. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Rx-only as a general legal status

copy/pasted here, to talk central. Notify @Sizeofint: -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict with drugbox recommendations

It says here regarding universal legal statuses "The input should be more precise (for example: "Usually prescription only in Asia". However Template:Infobox_drug says in the legal status section "if a drug is restricted everywhere to prescription-only, please set legal_status = Rx-only rather than similarly define for each and every country". It seems these need to be made consistent. Sizeofint (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is a (new) contradiction. We should work this out. My point is: writing "legal status = Rx-only" without country/UN/EU specifier is not good information. There is no institute that can declare a drug Rx-only worldwide. I think it must be more specific in the drugbox articles (the maint category lists some 600 drug articles that say plain "Rx-only" this way).

So I propose to declare this bare notion |legal_status=Rx-only deprecated, and require a more descriptive text. That would be a maintenance task. The documentation (you quote) should be adjusted right away. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that proposal. It should probably be posted to the project talk page however. Sizeofint (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Which project page? -DePiep (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably PHARM or possibly MED because the latter seems to be more active. Since there are so many articles with this usage others may have input. Sizeofint (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Do invite them. I don't mind. I say: |legal_status=Rcx-only is bad code. -DePiep (talk)

• Started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#.22Rx-only.22_worldwide. -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Automating molecular weight using formula

The chemical-data section has the option of the chemical formula with the coefficient each element as its own parameter. If the template has that information, it can calculate the molecular weight automatically rather than an editor having to calculate or look up the value and pass it explicitly in a separate field. The chembox template suite already has this feature. Can we add it to drugbox? DMacks (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes we can. Will only work when the formula is entered using the |C=, |H=, ... params, not with pre-formatted input |chemical_formula= (is what you already pointed at).

A question. When the drugbox has the mass entered by |molecular_weight=, which value should be shown: calculated or entered? -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The logic in {{Chembox Properties}} appears to be "if formula entered in separate parameters, use {{Chembox Elements}} to display both the formula and the calculated mass; else use unified formula field and explicitly entered mass". That is, calculated value takes priority. Both of these templates should have error checking to catch when a formula is passed both ways and when an explicit weight is passed but ignored due to calculation taking priority. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was actually asking whether the calculate-from-formula is correct always, by chemistry. But ok.

Now when added to {Drugbox}, this would mean: ~every article is errormessaged because today all shown masses are entered. Maybe it is useful to maint cat those pages that show a diff between the two entered masses. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lots of cool physics would be possible if the mass of a chemical were based on something other than its constituent atoms. But for cases where someone had a reason to use some other value, the option of using the unified molecular_formula and then any arbitrary manually entered molecular_weight is there. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll make the framework first, then come back here to fill in the details. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See the next subsections. I want to do this right once and for all. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

DMacks pls note that I changed the priority (entered value overwrites), see below. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The setup

This section might change following improvements (like a documentation). It does not follow common talkpage habit of adding comments and versions. Such regular discussions are in subsections below..

I am building {{Chem molar mass}} for this. It will be a general available template so it can be used in article texts too, and it will be build into {{Drugbox}}. It simply takes the molecular input by symbols. For example H
₂O:

{{Chem molar mass|H=2|O=1}} → 18.02 g·mol⁻¹

Build in {{Drugbox}}, the symbol inputs are passed-through.

• |molecular_weight= in {{Drugbox}} allows a quantity to be entered by the article-editor (SI: quantity=number×unit). It overwrites a possibly calculated mass, to give the editor control over the value shown. It is passed through to |fixed= in {{Chem molar mass}}.

This opens the possibility that a {{Drugbox}} has two values for one data point: entered and calculated. These articles will be categorized for maintenance. The maintenance task is to remove the parameter |molecular_weight=input (and let the calculated quantity show), unless there is a reason to use that overwriting exception. With ~6000 {Drugbox}s in use, there could be thousands in this category. However, these are not in error and maintenance (emptying the category) can be done at ease (& with AWB).

• Parameters |unit=, |round=, |ref=, |comment= are described in the documentation.
• Once this template and its {{Drugbox}} application is stable and satisfying, the same setup will be introduced in {{Chembox}}.
• In the {{Drugbox}} articles, no parameter changes are required, but the maintenance category might be emptied. Some parameters will be added (to use functionality of the calculator).
• Issues are discussed below. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Later descriptions are in the template /documentation. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Issues

These issues have resulted in the Proposal. Please open/reopen new issues below.

Closed issues

Number handling The output of {{Chem molar mass|H=2|O=1}} is (text) " → 18 g·mol−1" (from template if fixed:18.015 g·mol−1). It miss some decimals. One of the problems with molar mass are the numbers of decimals, but every element could have a precision of two decimals (except some of the last ones) Christian75 (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC) The number in the demo is not exact or correct. I am going to ask about this shortly. -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Why round to 2 decimals always? -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Answer: explained in Molar_mass#Precision_and_uncertainties: it's lab habit, not the more theoretical perfection. Maybe full precision could be an extra option. Important: rounding should never add zero's. There is not a theoretical perfection. It all depends on the distrubution of the isotopes, and as you can read at the section you linked to, it depends on a alot thing, e.g. destillation. Maybe the samples you buy from a chemical supplier would have 6 decimals, but you cant really be sure unless its a monoisotope you buy. Christian75 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC) OK, I get it. I meant to say: using and showing all decimals as defined by our source (could be IUPAC/CIAAW), pre-rounding=no laboratory rounding). If I understand this well: this same notion you make applies to elements with two published decimals (which are just as well sample-dependent). So, if we add the option |round=none the calculation uses & shows all decimals, handled correctly wrt precision (e.g. three for NaCl, see example below). -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Molar_mass#Molar_masses_of_compounds has an illustrating example, about rounding too: M(NaCl) = [22.989 769 28(2) + 35.453(2)] × 1 g/mol = 58.443(2) g/mol Let's forget about the bracketed uncertainities for now. It is clear that Cl has a lower precision (fewer decimals) than Na: 3 vs 8. So the result must use that lower number, because the precision of decimal 5, 6, ... in Na is not known for Cl. Adding them would suggest a precision not present. So decimal 4 is used for rounding decimal 3 (result being the .xx3), and next decimals are not used. A general rule thus would be: the result shows the lowest number of decimals in any of the base numbers. The discarded decimals ... Rounding is done as the final step, in the calculation (multiplying and adding) all decimals are used. (This is the way to round correctly: once, in the end). -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Naming From this start let's get the naming right. What to use? molecular mass molecular weight molar mass I disapprove of the word "weight" (for the same). I do not fully grasp the diff between "molecular" and "molar" in this, and there is also the (omitted?) prefix "relative" showing up. Note that we add the unit (g/mol). Any wisdom in this? -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Moleculur mass are for molecules, molar mass are more genereal and can be used for ions and ionic compounds too. Christian75 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Supports using "molar mass" then. Could/should we extend this to the infobox label (change lefthand-column text or wikilink)? btw I discovered there is a long standing unresolved scientific dispute in there, so we might not be able to find a final conclusion here. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Atomic weights numbers to check We should check the relative atomic mass (atomic weight) numbers in {{Chem molar mass}}. Which list to use? -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC) List of chemical elements CIAAW ... For elements 84 (Po) and higher they are predictions. Does that require different treatment? -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC) I used the CIAAW (2013) numbers when available. For most radioactive elements (no stable isotopes), I've used the mass of the longest-living isotope (and so no decimals needed). See the {{Chem molar mass}} documentation. -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Uncertainty Standard atomic weight is usually expressed with an uncertainty, as in 20.1797(6) for neon. It is possible to calculate the accumulated uncertainties for a compound correctly, and to show that in the result. However, at this moment there seems to be no use or need for this in wiki (no encyclopedic use). So for now, this feature will not be added. Come the need, we can add it. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I've prepared the {{Chem molar mass}} subtemplate to have molecular weight calculated from formula input. Basically, {{Drugbox}} articles now will use existing input like {{Drugbox|...|H=2|O=1}} to calculate the molecular mass (result: 18.015 g·mol⁻¹).

See the new subtemplate's documentation for details, including the standard atomic weights used (CIAAW sourced). Main points:

• Existing hardcoded input like |molecular_mass=18.04 g/mol will overwrite that calculation. This way the editor stays in control. These pages will be categorized for maintenance check (keep or remove overwriting input?) in Category:Chemical articles having calculated molecular weight overwritten.

• Element symbols and additional parameters will be available in {{Drugbox}} for the editor to use: wrt calculation: |molecular_weight_round= ('no' or number; default=2), |molecular_weight_unit=, |molecular_weight_ref=; will show always: |molecular_weight=, |molecular_weight_comment=.

• See Testcases.
• When acceptable and stable, the same template will be added to {{Chembox}}.

I propose to add this to {{Drugbox}}. Comments? @DMacks and Christian75: ping. -DePiep (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Defer briefly pending coordination with {{Chembox}} regarding if there is something gained by having a separate parameter for each element vs just parsing the whole formula in existing single-parameter string using Module:MolarMass. DMacks (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: What the fuck. Thanks for telling me this so timely. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh? DMacks (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me spell it out/spit it out: 9 May 2015 you ask this, I deliver into viable and tested and talked demos ready for deployment, and then you pop up with an immature trial? (labeled alpha by yourself no less within one day). I bet you'll steal the data I sourced and analysed too. (By the way, synchronising with {{Chembox}} I already cover, and is no reason to postpone this change). Why didn't you Talk? -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This reflects my initial responses to this surprising new development, my moments of frustration. After a good sleep, I look forward. I see that DMacks's module can have benefits, and so can be used when it is stable &tc. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Question to DMacks. We do agree that this question is independent of the module discussion, I hope (or else please explain). Can you explain why or how this change should be deferred (=postponed) to be synchronised with a {{Chembox}} introduction? -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the module you are working on seems like a reasonable solution for "given each element in its own parameter, generate its mw", no objection to its use as such. But it requires passing formulas that way. I currently object to converting existing uses of |chemical_formula= because the alternative might be able to happen entirely "under the hood" without changes to existing uses. That's why (as I originally explicitly said) my concern was with the parameter-passing. DMacks (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I align. For {{Drugbox}} we currently have two input options for the molecular formula (mf):

|chemical_formula={{Chem|H|2|O|1}} mf "hardcoded"

|H=2|O=1 mf "[chemical] symbol coded"

As we know, my new 'module' subtemplate {{Chem molar mass}} only calculates those symbol-entered mf's. The hardcoded ones are "fixed". I claim this is an improvement. In a future improvement (this is wiki), we could apply that function to deduct-mw-from-a-mf. So I say: let's do this, and improve later (possibly by the module you are working on).

Back to the core point: this change truly is an improvement. I mean to say: see your OP concern in the first place. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I read in your opening post here that you suggest to calculate from symbol-input just as {{Chembox}} does. It does not say (to me) that the symbol-input is an issue in itself. Now adding the calculation this way (calculate from symbol-input only) would be an improvement always, coming from today's no-calculation. It does not require to change formula-input into symbol-input (but I agree it is there as an invitation). I find this no blocking reason, because symbol-input is still legal. If in the future we want formula-input only (as you aim at I understand), then we must edit articles anyway. Such a future requirement is not tied to this calculation introduction, but to that change of policy/documentation (deprecation of symbol-input). And so it must be handled when that topic arises. -DePiep (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. Added Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Template_edits_6_June_2015. Note that maintenance category Category:Chemical articles having calculated molecular weight overwritten lists articles to check whether the earlier, manually-entered molar weight can be removed (to show the calculated one). -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

IUPHAR ligand links update

There are currently links to the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology (formerly IUPHAR-DB) database on many drug infoboxes but this database has grown massively over the past couple of years and now has over 7500 ligands. Many relevant drug infoboxes do not have links to IUPHAR. As the curators of this resource we would like to help add in these new links. Please could you tell us how we can do a bulk upload of IUPHAR links to Wikipedia drug infoboxes?

We provide downloadable lists of ligands on our website which might contain information helpful to do a bulk update, e.g. PubChem CIDs, InChIkeys, etc. See http://www.guidetopharmacology.org/download.jsp for the current full ligand list.

IUPHARcurators (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably through WP:BOTREQUEST. The bot will have to solve the drug identification (a page may not be named by one of the identifiers; or the identifiers present in a page may not align).

An other route could be to add them to wikidata right away, which has other bot operators. IIRC Snipre works on wikidata chamicals.

At the moment this en wiki has 6,000 Drugbox articles and 10,000 Chembox articles (=chemicals not specified as drugs by editing, but they could be. Of these 10k, today 115 have a ligand entered). -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@IUPHARcurators: If you use PubChem CID we can easily integrate your ID in Wikidata. Snipre (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We do index our chemicals by PubChem CID. What exactly do we need to do to make this happen? Thanks, IUPHARcurators (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Perseverance. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

;-) Snipre (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@IUPHARcurators: We need to match Wikidata items with your IDs. For example Wikidata identifier (called Q number) for ethanol is Q153 and the item is [4] and your ID is QNXXX1 (just an example). We have to define the link between Q153 in Wikidata and QNXXX1 in your database. You can do that manually by looking for each entry in your database which is the corresponding item in WD or you can use the power of programming to do that using PubChem CID as matching criteria (if PubChem CID for Q153 is 702 and PubChem CID for QNXXX1 is 702 so Q153 is QNXXX1). So step by step this gives:

• Provide a list of your IDs with the corresponding PubChem CID
• Get a list of Wikidata Q numbers with the corresponding PubChem CID
• Match your IDs with Wikidata Q numbers
• Use a bot and add your ID in the Wikidata items using a specific property. Snipre (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way you can use CAS number or other common identifiers for matching purpose. The best will be to do the matching using several IDs in order to be sure that you link correctly both entries for 2 different databases. Snipre (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Whattttttt? We need, We have to, You can do that manually you write? Snipre

Sure. Listen, wikidata people. This IUPHARcurators editor is offering to add a 7500 associated id's to wikidata (if you do not get this then leave wikidata right now). Sure you can ask: "is that PubChem -- IUPHAR id 1:1" (as anyone with knowledge about data would ask), but hey, that's the only question you need to ask^[DP1]. And to be clear, IUPHAR is the Authority control (rings a bell? If not, leave wikidata).

The boring thing is that wikidata people still do not have a bot that can connect good data. See you in three years.

Were wikidata usable only in this one thing, I'd use it right away in {{Infobox drug}} and {{Chembox}} (16k transc's). -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC).

^[DP1]: duh, even wikidata people did not ask that question. Whatever: the opening remark was: "We need to match Wikidata items with your IDs". "We need ...". Says it all. -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: Please keep your comment for yourself or come to help to improve the thing. I try to organize the things for chemistry field but I feel lonely enough without having to support such comments. If you want to help you can curate quite a lot of discrepancies for the different identifiers like this one. Snipre (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm helping you, maybe in disguise. I'm actually pointing to the reason why you are alone in this. Wikidata is a wiki no one can edit. -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the info. We can easily provide PubChem CID to IUPHAR Id 1:1 mappings (we are confident these are correct because we manually curate them), but I'm still unclear how exactly we obtain a list of Wikidata Q numbers and which bot we use to do the upload. With >7500 ligands we'd obviously want to do this programmatically. Sorry to keep asking this question, but this is all new to us because in the past we have just provided our ligand list with PubChem mappings (obtainable at the link given above) and someone else did the matching on our behalf. IUPHARcurators (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Serious point 1: Why would you add that Q-info while the IUPHAR -- CID 1:1 data relation you presented is there already? (I repeat: wikidata should do that)

Serious point 2: Is wikidata secretly trying to become another Authority control? Why didn't wikidata people say so? -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I will see if I can finish this job myself. The solutions above will work, but IMHO using Wikidata is an unnecessary complication. It is more straight forward to produce a list of article that contain {{drug box}} template. Using Pywikibot, this can be done with:

• python pagegenerators.py -transcludes:"Infobox drug" -ns:0 > drugbox.txt (5128 aritcles as of 12 April 2015 5852 as of 11 June 2015)

and then extract the stored identifiers and maps these identifiers to the IUPHAR ID. Many but not all of the articles already contain an IUPHAR ID. After the mapping is done, a second bot can add missing IUPHAR ID parameters. I have a Pywikibot script to do both tasks (see for example User:BogBot/Source code/Task 06), but for reasons not entirely clear, the first bot kept crashing and I had to keep manually restarting it after every few dozen articles. I will try again this weekend. Hopefully fresh eyes will help me fix the problem. I already have all the data I need to complete this task. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@IUPHARcurators: You extract the data yourself by using a query service developed for WD (still under development but able to perform simple request for the moment). Look at this UI and use this code to generate a list of items with their Qnumber and the value for the PubChem CID:

PREFIX wd: <http://www.wikidata.org/entity/> PREFIX wdt: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/direct/> PREFIX rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> PREFIX p: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/> PREFIX v: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/statement/> SELECT ?h ?CID WHERE { ?h wdt:P662 ?CID . }

Or this URL (press execute to generate the list). Then you can copy-paste your data and perform your matching with the tool you want to use. When you have a list you can contact a bot using that page by defining your request. Sorry to not offering you to do the job but I am updating my bot and I don't have plenty of time currently to do it. Snipre (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Snipre: Your solution is way too complicated and does not directly address what the IUPHAR curators have asked for, namely (1) a mapping of IUPHAR ID with English Wikipedia drug article names and (2) populate the IUPHAR_ID parameters in English Wikipedia drug articles. Finally I have offered to complete the job myself. Boghog (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog: I agree with you but 1) WD has 15221 items with a PubChem CID so more than your 5128, this means more chance to have a better overlapping with WD database and its database, 2) this will store data even if the English article doesn't exist meaning the data will be available for the future articles, 3) using WD means English infobox drug articles but all other infoboxes of all WPs even Chinese, Thai or Russian. So more complex but larger use. Snipre (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Snipre:The purpose of this request is to make reciprocal links between IUPHAR database and the English language Wikipedia drug articles. Therefore foreign language Wikipedia articles are not relevant. Furthermore many of the CIDs are neither drugs nor ligands hence would not be found in the IUPHAR database and therefore are also not relevant. Some drugs/ligands may be found in {{chembox}}, but at the moment, the chembox does not support an IUPHAR parameter. It probably should. Boghog (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Chembox}} has |IUPHAR_ligand= in the Identifiers. See Glycine. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, so for completeness, I will also extract identifier data from the chemboxes. IUPHAR_ligand is not included in the main documentation but I now see it is documented in the collapsed {{Navbox Chembox}}. Boghog (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There are ~105/10000 {{Chemboxes}} having this input (by {{Chembox IUPHAR ligand}}). You might consider skipping this for effort efficiency. -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Boghog for offering to complete this task for us. Thank you Snipre for the tips on using Wikidata, I didn't easily find any documentation on this. Maybe it's something we could consider in future if it seems useful, but at the moment it does seem to over complicate things since Boghog has helpfully provided another way. IUPHARcurators (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have extracted the necessary data from {{infobox drug}} and {{chembox}}. In articles with drug boxes, there are currently 443 articles where the IUPHAR_ligand parameter has been specified. Using CID and InChiKey as cross references, I have identified 1417 - 443 = 974 drugbox articles with missing IUPHAR_ligand parameter values. For articles with chemboxes, 111 articles currently have IUPHAR_ligand values and 585 - 111 = 474 have missing values. I will now add these missing values and provide a mapping of IUPHAR_ligand IDs to Wikipedia article names. Boghog (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@IUPHARcurators: Update2: BogBot has completed the addition of missing IUPHAR_ligand parameters to articles containing {{drugbox}} and {{chembox}} templates. I will e-mail the mappings of IUPHAR IDs to Wikipedia article names. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Boghog! Great to see so many new links. IUPHARcurators (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog: Just checking some of the new links and noticed that a small number of ligands from the spreadsheet you sent earlier are missing links in their {{Infobox drug}}. Two examples: Orlistat [IUPHAR id 5277] and Canagliflozin [IUPHAR id 4582]. Many others seem to be linking OK. What could be the reason for this? Thanks - IUPHARcurators (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the missing links. I believe that a large majority are linking OK. The few that are not linking are due to unforeseen special cases with the drugbox templates. As I see these exceptions, I modify the script to account for these exceptions. Hopefully I will catch these in the next run with a debugged script. Boghog (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that pre-existing IUPHAR data entries, in both infoboxes, are not checked or touched in any sense? IOW, only additions were made? (no consequences for me, more out of curiousity). -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a shame - is it something specific with those special cases? It does look like a small number but if I spot any more I'll let you know. IUPHARcurators (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Boghog and IUPHARcurators, have you seen wikidata:Wikidata:Data donation yet? It lists a couple of tools that might be helpful, and it might be another place to find help if you still need it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase Jamie Zawinski, if you use Wikidata to solve a problem, now you have two problems. The KISS principle applies here. Other bots already exist to extract information from infoboxes and upload this data to Wikidata. No need to duplicate the effort of these existing bots. I have tracked down the problem in my script to mwparserfromhell crashing when encountering links and in article section headings (see for example diff). I am making progress in compiling the drugbox data by fixing section heading errors as I encounter them. I hope to have the entire task completed in a few days. Boghog (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. My point is: why does it need a manual approach to connect id data for wikidata. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

re WhatamIdoing: --It says: "Wikidata is editable by everyone." Duh, even I can not. --It says: "values high quality content from excellent partners." ask IUPHARcurators. "Wikidata offers several ways to get data into Wikidata" then prove it, right here right now. DePiep (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog No, no new imports of data from WPs to WD will occur because this was only a first step in order to get data. Currently WD is curating the data coming from several WPS with a high number of discrepancies. So continuing the import of data from WPs without corrections from their sides is a headache for WD. Snipre (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Snipre: If it is a headache for WD, it is even a bigger headache for WP. From what you have written above, it is very clear that phase II of WD is not ready to be used by WP. It is essential that WD and WP are synched on a regular basis. It is also essential that discrepancies are resolved, but sounds like a lot of manual work requiring input from editors that understand the data. As participation in Wikipedia as a whole it declining, it will be difficult to find editors that have the time to do this. Finally the tools for up- and down-loading data are very primitive. WD has a lot of potential, but a lot more work needs to be done before we can use WD productively. Boghog (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a headache mainly because people are not working in team: they add their own data without any discussion with other persons, bots import data and often delete previous data by replacing with their data or no matching process is done to control the links between WP articles and WD items. I hope until the end of the year to be control the data of the chemical compounds by doing cross-referencing between databases. Snipre (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Side issues

This section is about IUPHAR topics that are not directly related to the mass update.

• About target link IUPHAR ligand. This is the lefthand wikilinked text in both infoboxes. At the moment they link like this:

[[International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology|IUPHAR ligand]]

IMO, this is not good enough. Our Reader expects a link to the definition of the ligand, not to the institute. I propose to have it linked to simply [[IUPHAR ligand]] (that's IUPHAR ligand, I just created). Whenever and whereever that definition is in our wiki, that page can be edited redirect to it (for example: #REDIRECT [[International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology#Ligand]]. The infoboxes then don't need an edit, that's Good too. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Done for {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Done for {{Infobox drug}}. Anyone is invited to provide some IUPHAR ligand definition to enwiki. -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the current link to IUPHAR ligand is not ideal. I suggest that the link be changed to [[Guide to Pharmacology|IUPHAR/BPS ligand]]. Guide to Pharmacology is the name of the database where the ligands are stored and is equivalent to the other Identifier descriptions currently linked in the drugbox such as PubChem. DrugBank, ChEMBL, etc. Boghog (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For starters, you can change the Redirect page to that one. (That's content change I am not familiar with, so I'll leave it to others). Now if the LH labeltext (in both infoboxes) should change to "IUPHAR/BPS ligand" instead of current "IUPHAR ligand", I'll wait the outcome of this proposal. My first thought is: what could "BPS" possibly mean, and why is such a code in the template at all? Mustn't I, lay reader, first research the word ligand to learn? Shouldn't it be "IUPHAR/BPS ligand" (I propose this one formally). -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To keep things simple and short, I propose that the word "ligand" be removed. The identifier section of the infobox links to external databases and the identifier refers to the registration number of the compound in that external database. BPS stands for British Pharmacological Society. BPS is part of the official name of the database and therefore it is important to include. In summary, the link should be [[Guide to Pharmacology|IUPHAR/BPS]]. Boghog (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added the proposed change to the IUPHAR link in the sandbox and a side-by-side comparison of the current vs. sandbox can be found here. Boghog (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me (btw, I was not asking BPS to be explained here, I'd like to have it clear at face value in the infobox, or removed. However, this latest proposal makes a nice solution: as a name not an adjective). -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that target page better be moved to IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology, as they title the main page. Would prevent confusion between "a guide" and "the guide". -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes. We would ask that the link displays 'Guide to PHARMACOLOGY' please, if that is not too long (the capitals are intentional). 'IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY' is the full name but it is probably too long and/or would look less neat. Agree that the word ligand could be removed. We also propose to change the name of the main page to IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY and agree the target should be IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY. IUPHARcurators (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To this link text I object. As with other data here, we want to mention the identifier's authorityshow What It Is concisely, not require clicks & puzzling. However inviting in a first approach, there is no need (or space) trying to explain or define the identifier. Therefor the visible text best should be: "IUPHAR/BPS" (Boghog's propsal). The actual invisible target link target may be different, longer and changing/moving all right. (btw, link directly, unlabeled, to IUPHAR/BPS must be OK too). -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that "IUPHAR/BPS" is less puzzling to a lay reader than "Guide to PHARMACOLOGY". In favour of the latter is that this is a name used frequently on other sites that link to us including UniProtKB, ChEMBL, DrugBank etc, so would be more familiar to many readers. IUPHARcurators (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We want a name there, not "click here" or "we write PHARMACOLOGY here so you should understand that it has something to do with pharmacology, while the capitalization remains a mistery as does why only this should be that Guide as if there exists no other guide", or "click here to read here what should actually be written here". If a name like "IUPHAR/BPS" is not good enough to sit there, then we better remove the whole data row. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've implemented Boghog's proposal i.e. IUPHAR/BPS, albeit to that page (now a redirect, able to follow any change of target article). If the subsequential outcome here is to change the visible name once more, we'll do that. -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• About code changes to {{Chembox}}, now nicely having 580 IUPHAR ligand aritcles. I have prepared some code cleanup in the |IUPHAR_ligand= area. My question is whether you mind me updating the subtemplates, or better wait more days while you are working with this? The changes are:

1. IUPHAR ligand now takes indexed values, just like other main identifiers do: |IUPHAR_ligand=, |IUPHAR_ligand1=, ... |IUPHAR_ligand5= each with comment option: |IUPHAR_ligand1_Comment=. This is mainly a useful for manual editing, allowing to add & link multiple identifiable chemicals (parallel with CASNo, CASNo1, ... CASNo5 etcetera). See testcases2. Existing |IUPHAR_ligand= is unaffected, and will be able to have a |IUPHAR_ligand_Comment= outside of the link.

2. Internally, code was cleaned up, including removing old wrongs links and {{Chembox IUPAC ligands/format}} was added. This have no effect on the resulting infobox (IUPHAR should work & show as it does now).

So, can I edit {{Chembox}}, or better wait? -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on indexed values. I am essentially done adding IUPHAR_ligand parameters for now, so please go ahead an update the template as you were planning. There were a few ambiguities as to which IUPHAR ID to add. These were mainly caused by multiple forms of a ligand being registered in the IUPHAR database (e.g., salts vs. parent, unlabeled vs. labeled, etc). Where there were multiple forms, I generally retained/added only the ID corresponding to the unlabeled parent compound. Boghog (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. See this Chembox talk for more details. Or ask me. If Boghog's "ambiguities as to which IUPHAR ID to add" can be retracked or published, someone might be able to add multiple ligands to one infobox. (I can not). Changed the target wikilink as mentioned below. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternative IUPHAR_ligand entries are easy to find by search the IUPHAR database. For example a search for Valsartan gives two hits, valsartan (Ligand Id: 3937) and [³H]valsartan (Ligand Id: 593). I recommend that |IUPHAR_ligand=3937 and |IUPHAR_ligand_Comment=parent while |IUPHAR_ligand1=593 and |IUPHAR_ligand_Comment1= tritiated. Boghog (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Add PLLR (US, pregnancy)

Last December, the US decided to add a new law in labeling pregnancy-related drugs. It is called PLLR. I propose to add |PLLR= as a new parameter to {{Drugbox}} and {{Chembox}}. It will appear with Pregnancy category, US.

PLLR = Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Final Rule

• PLLR is a labeling requirement for the US, controlled by FDA.
• PLLR covers "pregnancy, lactation, females and males of reproductive potential".
• PLLR labeling requirement depends of the date of drug registration.
• For new medicines, it is required by 1 July 2015. Older drugs may keep the Category classification labeling. So there is an overlay period (many years both will exist).

Current Pregnancy categories

• There is not simple correspondence with existing Pregnancy categories for US. Think: the medicine label must be written anew. We can not simply re-translate a US "B" category into a PLLR phrase.

Template relevance

• PLLR text can not be mixed with Pregnancy categories.
• Given the time overlap with old Category classification, we keep US's PLLR and Pregnancy Category separated.
• Little is known about the structure of a PLLR text. We best start with a free text parameter.
• In the future, PLLR free text input could be analysed and reformed into more structured input (-parameters).
• Infobox {{Chembox}} should and can follow this, as it already copies Pregcat input. In this, {{Drugbox}} is leading over {{Chembox}}.

Resulting proposal

demo-1 (current sandbox)

Clinical data
Pregnancy category	AU: B1

• For now, we add |PLLR= as a separate parameter (belonging to the US Pregnancy category subtopic).
• PLLR is shown in the larger "Pregnancy category" data block (including AU etc.), and in a separate row.
• Old PregCat and new PLLR input do not interact. They simply are shown both.
• PLLR can be added as plain text. It is not re-formatted. In=Out.
• The wikilink "PLLR" now links (redirects) to a subsection. That redirect page can be changed easily.

Tests and Demo

• See testcases for Drugbox and Chembox.

I propose to add |PLLR= this way. Comments? -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen examples of the types of wording that will be used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Really, I haven't. I did not even see simple plain examples, with or without structure. (I honestly ask: did you?). Let alone that I could discover a structure in there. Also the time line is suspicious: since the decision in December 2014, no editor Talked. So I decided best would be to keep PLLR separate, allow it as such, US-tied, unedited text right below any US-PregCat text. See what happens. If you see improvements, please say so. -DePiep (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

logic dictates it falls upon the poster (not those who give opinions ) to make certain they have "seen" any type of wording--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I've seen the law described, that's enough for this. And I have not seen any useful structure in there, so I've not implemented any structure. What's missing for you? -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

you've answered all my questions. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. Added Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Template_edits_6_June_2015. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Template edits 6 June 2015

Edits made to {{Infobox drug}}:

• Added PLLR, |PLLR=.

Talk: Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Add PLLR (US, pregnancy)

• Added calulation of molar mass, using new {{Chem molar mass}}

Request: Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Automating_molecular_weight_using_formula by DMacks

Proposal finalised: Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Proposal

Several parameters added, following subtemplate documentation

Maintenance: Category:Chemical articles having calculated molecular weight overwritten

• When data page exists, a link is added, eg Apomorphine (data page) for Apomorphine. Can also be entered manually by |data_page=.

Data pages are listed in Category:Chemical articles having a data page under "*" (distinct from {{Chembox}} listings under ABC).

Today five pages apply: Apomorphine (data page), Caffeine (data page), Cocaine (data page), Morphine (data page), Phencyclidine (data page)

• Minor: PubChem data now shows linktext "CID: 4091" not "CID 4091" ('CID' is not part of the id number).

The first three are towards alignment with {{Chembox}} when possible.

Y processing. -DePiep (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Great! Real Life will (continue to) consume me for the next two days (sorry for suddenly dropping off). DMacks (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. IMO you did not promise any activity to me, so nothing is dropped. This being wiki, edit when you like. -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Molar weights: calculated or overwritten

Today Category:Chemical articles having calculated molecular weight overwritten was introduced (systematically filled by {{Drugbox}}). It lists articles that have molar weight input (=entered by article editor), so the infobox won't show calculated molar weight. As of now: {{Infobox drug}} solely lists 5160 articles (out of 5900=87%). -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about data pages

A discussion was started at WP:Chemistry#Data_pages about what to do with data pages like Ammonia (data page) for Ammonia (more listed here). -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Morphine (data page) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Morphine (data page). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

• Also nominated Bentiromide (data page), Yttrium(III) oxide (data page). -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Duration of effect

Currently we have "onset of action" and "half life". Duration of effect would also be useful. For example the duration of effect of cocaine is 5 to 90 minutes depending on how it is used. This information is very useful for many substances. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be (I suggest) |duration_of_effect= showing like:

Duration of effect     5 to 90 minutes

Positioned right below |onset= and |elimination_half-life=. What should the LH text link to? See testcases10. I have no opinion on usefulness of this param. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How about to Duration_of_action? We can call it "duration of action"

This is of great importance for opioid overdoses as one need to take into account the duration of the opioid taken versus that of naloxone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Duration of action is OK with me, done, see tests. Parameter name follows? (I'd say yes to help fellow editors). -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "Parameter name follows"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If the visible text is "Duration of action", the parameter name should preferably be |duration_of_action= to help any article editor looking to edit that value. Less searching, ease of mental steps. The parameter spelling is alike other {Drugbox} parameter spellings (use lowercase, underscore). -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the duration of effect would require clarifications, like dose, age, empty/full stomach, possibly body mass. If this is indeed so, then better to give that in the article's body. Brandmeister^talk 17:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Brandmeister, do you mean the parameter should no be in the infobox at all? If so, isn't that argument valid for many more drug parameters?. I thought we had a general disclaimer like "data is not exact in medicine"? And, usually those details are in the source. -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Basically I don't object, my concern was possible vagueness. Ranged average values, like 5-10 minutes, have their own merits. Brandmeister^talk 09:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So for cocaine it is 5 to 90 minutes. Morphine is 3 to 7 hours. Etc. The same applies to half life and that is in the infobox and not presented as a range. There are well sources ranges for duration of action. Warfarin is longer than dabigatran for example (thus more problems with forgetting a dose). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Brandmeister means "imprecision" for "vagueness" (which I think makes it a correct statement). Again, that may be true for many medical and biological parameters. But I don't think we should remove them for that reason (or prevent this one parameter). Interesting is the dewiki option, to add a specifier template to enter all data systematically (from this talk): Infobox input

| ToxDaten = {{ToxDaten |Typ=LD50 |Organismus=Ratte |Applikationsart=i.v. |Wert=16 mg·kg<sup>−1</sup> |Bezeichnung= |Quelle=<ref name="Sigma" /> }}

→ 16 mg·kg−1 (LD50, Ratte, i.v.)^[4]

However, that is available in our future only.

Meanwhile, I 'abuse' the latest opening statement by Brandmeister to mean support addition by a milimeter ;-). Note that this |duration_of_action= has free text, reproduced unedited by {Drugbox}, so one can add any info as desired. -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Done |duration_of_action= (free text) added. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this worth adding to Chembox as well? Sizeofint (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Few {Chembox} articles dive into pharmacology. Maybe add the whole set of 7? -DePiep (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That isn't a bad idea. I think {Chembox} is only missing |duration_of_action= and |onset=. Also, {Chembox} has |metabolites= but {Drugbox} does not. Can this be added to {Drugbox} as well? Incidentally, duration of action is showing up fine but when previewing an edit Error in template * unknown parameter name (Template:Infobox_drug): 'duration_of_action shows at the top of the page.

Quick re's: 1. just added, see {{Chembox}}/doc bottom navbox: top row has link to "All parameters" for easy param search.

2. That red line says you entred an unknown param in the outer {{Chembox}} param list (not within a |SectionN= subtemplate).

3. I meant the set of

 | bioavailability   = 
 | protein_bound     = 
 | metabolism        = 
 | onset             = 
 | elimination_half-life = 
 | duration_of_effect = 
 | excretion         = 
 | routes_of_administration =

into {{Chembox Pharmacology}} (I'd expect)

4. Metabolites is in there btw. In general, please start a new thread here for any new (set) of requests/proposals. CAnnot mix this all together. End of quick reply. -DePiep (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The red line is problem with {Drugbox} not {Chembox}. Try previewing an edit on Cocaine and you will see the error. Sizeofint (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ThatMy quickness was useless! You can ignore that red message and save, it shows all right. Would you propose the {{Chembox}} changes at that talkpage? -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Add Metabolites to Drugbox

Currently {Drugbox} and {Chembox} both have |metabolism=. However, {Chembox} has |metabolites= while {Drugbox} does not (as far as I can see). I think this would be a useful parameter for {Drugbox}. Can this be implemented? Sizeofint (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done without much ado, |metabolites= added. Now it's up to you to edit 6000 articles ;-). -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Time to check the order of this set of data rows. There is a talk at Chembox. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Presentation changes: no data no header

Currently the infobox shows headers even when there is no data supplid. This is about sections Clinical data, Identifiers, and Chemical data. I have prepared the sandbox to do not show a header when there is no data below. See Template:Infobox drug/testcases (and pages /testcases1–10). At the moment, there is a checking feedback text showingclean.

Internally , I've renumbered the headers to be a ten-fold. And the {{longitem}} template is incorporated in |labelstyle=, centrally, for the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also, for those long strings IUPAC_name, smiles, StdInChI, StdInChIKey, synonyms: presentation now left-aligned, using indentation. See /testcases. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Add secondary identifiers?

At the moment, a lot of {{Drugbox}}'s have a second identifier added incode. But that parameter does not show. Example: DASB has

|PubChem=656408 [5]

|PubChem2=10446567 [6]

This is about identifiers: smiles2, pubchem2, InChI2, InChIKey2, ChemSpiderID2, DrugBank2, UNII2, KEGG2 (and maybe CAS_number2, see below).

The main question is: what to do with these #2 id's? We can either remove them, or allow & show them.

Related question: there exists |CAS_supplemental= (Example: HDMP-28). Can someone clarify whether this 'secondary' is a common word in drug-world, or does this just mean a 'second CAS RN' i.e. CAS_number2? -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Most articles listed in Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Infobox drug (now 100 P) have double id's this way. -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

CAS_number2
ChEBI2
ChEMBL2
ChemSpiderID2
DrugBank2
IUPAC_name2
IUPHAR_ligand2
KEGG2
PubChem2
StdInChI2
StdInChIKey2
UNII2
SMILES2

I propose to add secondary identifiers as listed. It follows the IUPHAR/BPS ligand updates (discussed here), and should show the already added second parameter in some 45 articles, listed in Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Infobox drug. See /testcases5#index-2 for a demo.

It might also support articles that have |type=combo set, but only for two components not four. (If I am mistaken here, please clarify the relation between combo components and identifiers).

The pattern follows {{Chembox}} indexing setup, but only for the #2 index. When added, they will be followed by a |CAS_number2_Ref= bot-maintained check parameter (see {{cascite}} documentation).

Remarks? -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Template edits 6 July 2015

I've made the next edits:

• Add parameter |SMILES= next to existing |smiles=, accepting & handling the same input. SMILES in capitals is the proper name, as we usually have for parameter (eg PubChem). Old |smiles= is kept available unchanged.
• {{EMA-EPAR}} formats input |licence_EU=. I have moved it to {{Infobox drug/EMA-EPAR}}: a fragile url (that was broken, see next point), better keep under tight control of {{Infobox drug}}. Today none of the ~150 usages was outside of {{Infobox drug}}.
• Fix url link for |licence_EU= (see for example Thalidomide)

-DePiep (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Need for InChI next to StdInChI?

In Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Infobox drug, some 40 (out of current 48) articles have |InChI= in the {{Drugbox}}. But Drugbox only knows & shows |StdInChI= and |StdInChIKey=.

Are there good reasons to add InChI, InChIKey to {{Drugbox}}? If not, I'll delete that input. Remarks? -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done rm all InChI parameters when there is a StdInChI present (few dozens). (We could keep those because of the discussion below, but these InChI's were never shown or checked/sourced ever). -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: (and I would argue the same for {{Chembox}}): For me, the current content of InChI/InChIKey could be ignored throughout, and StdInChI and StdInChI should be the standard in the boxes. (and after that, a bot removing all InChI and InChIKey parameters that are currently there and renaming all StdInChI and StdInChIKey's to InChI resp. InChIKey would be great - though probably in a bit smarter way than just blind delete/move: if InChI = std -> use that, delete StdInChI, otherwise if InChI is set and StdInChI is blank, keep the old one, if InChI is not std and StdInChI is -> overwrite InChI and delete StdInChI, leave rest to maintenance cat). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

For the original question, this is a "delete unless there is no Std entered" (all by pairs wrt the Key).

To refine: 1. you want "Std" removed from shown text (in article). All InChI says "InChI", and up to the reader to see that it is Std (by "1S"). 2. What input value is shown can be performed by the template by internal logic (detect presence of Std, detect whether an InChI is Std, then apply the logic you mention wrt what is shown). 3. Renaming params (moving changing param names in the article, maybe delete a whole parameter) is a late-action (can be done afterwards, it is just a deprecation).

One Q: the Key, which does not show whether it is Std, is always paired to a shown InChI? Is Key without InChI valid input for our infoboxes (or to categorize for maintenance)? -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Better start a new thread with this (copied). No hurry for that. Is very // with {{Chembox}}. I understand the algorithm for my OP. -DePiep (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is no real need to have any non-standard InChI's (but am willing to hear other input) - an argument could be that people might want to be able to find a Wikipedia page through a search on an external search engine using a non-standard InChI, and hence that we therefore need to render the non-standard InChIs for each page (maybe invisible).
• The key is generated from the InChI by an algorithm. InChIs are unique, but through the algorithm there is a certain chance that two different InChIs result in the same Key. People do use either as the search key in search engines, and their rendering in the final page should both be 'perfect' (so that they get properly indexed, and people would be able to find the Wikipedia page through an external search on either InChI or InChIKey).

I agree with the point that the rename should be done post-implementation (Lua might be a help in maintenance categorisation). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

All clear. Only one InChI will show, pref the Std. Key follows. There can be some maint categories (like 'Key missing', 'only non-Std InChI', ...). I will ask around about a second InChI (a non-Std one) being present in the article wrt wiki search philosophy. Now all I need is a lot of time :-) -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Asked for knowledge on how-to-do with InChI at VPT. Handling this illegible 500-character ID in articles is bugging me still. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

IUPAC name is systematic name?

See Acetate. It says:

IUPAC name: Acetate
Systematic IUPAC name: Ethanoate

So these two labels do not mean the same (as they can lead to different names).

Now Drugbox says "Systematic (IUPAC) name" only. Does not look OK. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CAS RN should link to CAS

At the moment the {{Drugbox}} |CAS_number= input links to the external MeSH site. I think it should link to the CAS site. There could be an extra link to the MeSH site. And those external links should be id-specific, not just search help.

For example aspirin, |CAS_number=50-78-2. {{Drugbox}} now links to:

[7] https://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2009/MB_cgi?term=50-78-2&rn=1 N

That is using the CAS RN to the MeSH-site, and not even reaching the aspirin special page!

Were the {{Chembox}} used for the CAS RN link, it would link:

[8] http://www.commonchemistry.org/ChemicalDetail.aspx?ref=50-78-2 Y

And for example the MeSH link for carbon dioxide:

[9] https://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2014/MB_cgi?mode=&term=Carbon+dioxideY

Questions, proposals:

• The CAS RN data should actually link to the CAS site, specific target page.
• We can add a |MeSH= option and add that link to the specific MESH page directly.

Thoughts? -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Making the template more useful for people

Infobox drug

Clinical data
Trade names	Linospan, Zyvox, Zyvoxam, Zyvoxid
AHFS/Drugs.com	Monograph
MedlinePlus	a602004
License data	US FDA: Linezolid
Pregnancy category	AU: C
Dependence liability	High
Addiction liability	Low
Routes of administration	Intravenous infusion, oral
ATC code	J01XX08 (WHO)
Pharmacokinetic data
Bioavailability	~100% (oral)
Protein binding	Low (31%)
Metabolism	Hepatic (50–70%, CYP not involved)
Metabolites	some stuff
Onset of action	1 hr
Elimination half-life	4.2–5.4 hours (shorter in children)
Duration of action	1 to 3 hr
Excretion	Nonrenal, renal, and fecal
Identifiers
IUPAC name (S)-N-({3-[3-fluoro-4-(morpholin-4-yl)phenyl]-2-oxo-1,3-oxazolidin-5-yl}methyl)acetamide
CAS Number	165800-03-3 Y
PubChem CID	441401
IUPHAR/BPS	1234
DrugBank	DB00601
ChemSpider	390139 Y
UNII	ISQ9I6J12J
KEGG	D00947 Y
ChEMBL	ChEMBL126 Y
NIAID ChemDB	070944
PDB ligand	ZLD (PDBe, RCSB PDB)
Chemical and physical data
Formula	C16H20FN3O4
Molar mass	337.346 g/mol g·mol−1
3D model (JSmol)	Interactive image
SMILES O=C1O[C@@H](CNC(=O)C)CN1c3cc(F)c(N2CCOCC2)cc3
InChI InChI=1S/C16H20FN3O4/c1-11(21)18-9-13-10-20(16(22)24-13)12-2-3-15(14(17)8-12)19-4-6-23-7-5-19/h2-3,8,13H,4-7,9-10H2,1H3,(H,18,21)/t13-/m0/s1 Y Key:TYZROVQLWOKYKF-ZDUSSCGKSA-N Y
NY (what is this?)  (verify)

I propose we move all the identifiers to the end of the article into the Template:Authority control. These identifiers would than be removed from the infobox drug template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• strong support moving the identifiers down, seems very reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – I don't think this is even possible. None of the {{Infobox drug}} identifiers are support by {{Authority control}} template, nor do external authority controls even exist for these identifiers. Furthermore these identifiers provide useful external links that are of interest to a significant number of readers. Like it or not, drugs are chemicals and it is important to display this information prominently near the top of the article instead of buried at the bottom. Quite to the contrary, removing useful links from this template makes it less useful for people. Boghog (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The infobox is fairly long. It would be fairly easy to support these identifiers in the authority control template. I could see keeping the ATC code but do we really need the DrugBank, ChemSpider, PubChem, CAS Registry Number and IUPHAR/BPS in the lead? The one in 10,000 who want this information would be able to find it at the bottom of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Moving the drugbox identifiers to the authority control template is mixing apples with oranges. Authority control provides bibliographic information about the subject of an article. The drugbox identifiers provide links to external chermical/drug databases. They serve two very different purposes. And yes, we really do need DrugBank, ChemSpider, PubChem, CAS Registry Number and IUPHAR/BPS in the lead because the number of readers interested in this information is considerably larger than 1 in 10,000. Why are you so intent on purging chemical information from drug articles? This proposal is a really bad idea. Boghog (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • A number of these external databases such as ChEBI, ChEMBL, ChemSpider, DrugBank, and IUPHAR/BPS provide reciprocal links back to Wikipedia drug articles. This drives traffic to Wikipedia and helps to legitimize the Wikipedia drug articles as useful sources of information. Furthermore this type of traffic is very valuable since it tends to be technically competent readers some of whom might add content to the Wikipedia article. These readers in particular would appreciate the links being prominently displayed. Boghog (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I suggested moving some exceedingly detailed content or little general interest to lower in the article. I never proposed "purging chemical information from drug articles"
      • With respect to the reciprocity I see no mention of Wikipedia at pubchem, we are mentioned near the bottom at CHEMBL13, we are not mentioned at KEGG, we are not mentioned at UNII, we are not mentioned at ChemSpider, we are mentioned near the bottom at DrugBank, we are mentioned at the bottom at IUPHAR/BPS, we are not mentioned at ATC code and we are not mentioned at CAS Registry. Thus I do not see the couple that do reference us being able to complain if we move them lower in the article
      • We can create a Template:Drug identifiers if authority control is not good Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Even if this information were of little general interest which I dispute, I don't see how this proposal improves anything. Logically, if these links were moved, they should be moved to an external links section, not to the very end of the article. In addition, the infobox is not in the lead, it is to the right of the lead. In a short article (e.g., Parecoxib), the end of the inbox is placed near the end of the article. What is the difference between having the identifiers placed at the right side of near the bottom in an infobox, or in the external links section of an the article? The vertical placement would be about the same. In a medium sized article (e.g., Metoprolol), the only consequence of a long infobox is that the width of text in the first sections is narrowed. In an article with a long table of contents (e.g., Aspirin), the identifier section fills up the space to the right of the table of contents which is normally empty. This is a very efficient use of space. Boghog (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
          • If you look at the mobile version on a phone the infobox comes before anything else. More than half of our traffic is to mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Only about 1/3 of vertical size of the drugbox is devoted to identifiers. With or without the identifiers, it takes considerable amount of scrolling to get past the infobox before ones sees the lead. A better solution would be to collapse all the subsection of the drugbox in the mobile version so that only the chemical structure and name would be uncollapsed by default. Unfortunately the MediaWiki mobile front end does not appear to support this kind of fine tuning of how the infoboxes are displayed on mobile. Boghog (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Was planning on making a similar suggestion for the "infobox medical condition" to move OMIM, MeSH, and DiseasesDB to something like the authority control template for similar reasons. Maybe leave the ICD code. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
                • As I already mentioned above, the {{authority control}} template would be completely inappropriate for this purpose. One would need to create a new special template. Another reason why splitting up these templates is a really bad idea is that it makes maintenance of this data by bots and synchronization with WikiData more error prone and difficult. Boghog (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • As this data should now all be in Wikidata the new template can just pull from Wikidata and synchronization will take place their. Added benefit is that it will allow synchronization between languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
                    • As this discussion makes clear, template WikiData is currently a mess with a high number of discrepancies and is no where close to being ready for this purpose. Boghog (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Re: Boghog's statement Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Just because a chemical has a drugbox does not mean that any given individual searching the article is interested in the pharmaceutical properties or associated information involving that compound. Throwing out chemical indentifiers and information on the assumption from the infobox on those grounds is just an anchoring fallacy. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support moving the technical details to the bottom, per WP:TECHNICAL. I am very sympathetic to the pharmacology/chemistry people - it is essential chemistry information that provides a lot of information, compactly, but those fields are not important to your everyday WP reader, in my view. We should definitely keep them in the article - just not at the top. Especially not at the top, in view of the reality of WP's mobile display software. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The solution is to fix the mobile display software. Boghog (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Assuming it is not possible to fix the mobile display software, it would be better to collapse the identifiers section by default. At least that way, all the data is kept in one template. Splitting data between templates is going to create a lot of maintenance headaches. Boghog (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Doc James and Jytdog: I fail to see how including identifier data in the drugbox harms average readers, but as a compromise, would collapsing the identifier section be acceptable? (see sandbox version above). This would be much easier to implement, maintain and much more acceptable to readers that do value this information. Boghog (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the "some stuff" entry :) I am OK with the collapse thing. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup happy with collapsing. I think this is a fair compromise. Wondering if we could move the collapsed identifiers to just above the verify bar? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

collapsing sounds very good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog and Doc James: Please explain what is 'broken' in mobile view to be 'fixed'. Then about collapsing: (see my comment two bullets below) -DePiep (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Identifiers are not the same as Authority control. Whereas authority control is used to check whether we are talking about the same compound, the identifiers are assigned by organisations working in chemistry, and are a gateway to getting more information (either one follows the link to the organisation webpage on the compound and uses their information - pubhcem to get to publications for the compound, chemspider for other physical data and publications, or ones uses the identifier to find information elsewhere on the internet (copy the CAS, go to your preferred chemical supplier, paste the CAS in the their search engine and press 'search' to find their supply of compound, same goes for SMILES and InChI).
  I see the problem of the length of the box, and collapsing the section could be an option, I do agree that it is not really info that one needs to see (like one would for a boiling point e.g.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose moving to authority control; that makes no sense in terms of data management and would be huge maintenance hassle. Collapsing works, though I'm not too excited about the basic argument here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment about collapsing. Mobile view does not collapse a show/hide box. Mobile view always does "show" with no "hide" button. See for example SMILES and InChI for aspirin mobile view. So collapse them is not an option. Quite the opposite: we should design content pages and tables being uncollapsed. (Tip: in desktop screen, you can always check the mobile view through a link in the very last line of the regular page). -DePiep (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: After I wrote the above, I also realized this. I therefore created this request to add infobox collapse support to the MediaWiki mobile front end. Again, I think the problem is in the mobile front end and not the drugbox. Furthermore this display problem extends to a large number of other articles containing big infoboxes. Perhaps the mobile front end should collapse all subsections of large infoboxes by default. In any case, I am still not convinced that the identifiers section of the drugbox harms average readers. Boghog (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll see where the request leads. I'm on the fence in this. Maybe I can understand the design issues (like ACCESS) that mobile view is based upon, but not oversee.

As for the "harm": I support the core question by Doc James: what is that data doing there? IMO it is trespassing some page design & layout points, which I will call 'harm'. I don't know if collapsing would solve the issue(s). A Reader is enormously helped by stable layout & presentation — without realizing this. But when that is missing, the reader starts stumbling and leaving the article or site. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of of what Doc James was getting at. One could ask the exact same question of some of the links in the "Clinical data" section. However Doc James was not proposing to move all data from the infobox, just the pharmacological/chemical data in the identifiers section. Also how exactly are any of these links trespassing page design & layout points? Many, many infoboxes contain external links to databases. One could argue that not having these links in the infobox would confuse readers. Boghog (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is about collapsing, and I wonder if collapsing would solve the issue(s). And yes, some other data (outsided of subheader 'Identifiers') is eligible for displacement too, the Doc did not exclude that. I'll describe my take later on, in a new bullet I'm chewing on. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Notes on side-issues. These background topics might come in view, but that are not core to the proposal. To keep this talk simple, I think they should not enter as an issue here.

1. For changes in {{Drugbox}}, I always keep an eye on the option to give {{Chembox}} the same treatment wrt that data. {{Chembox}} has some 20+ "identifiers". For example, the ATC Code could look & link the same in both; recently the IUPHAR/BPS ligand was unified in this. In this proposal, any outcome we reach here would be stronger if it can be applied to {{Chembox}} as well. For simplicity, I propose not to add the {{Chembox}} situation here: it is enough to do the mental check: "How would this work in {{Chembox}}" (answer "Just as well" is good).

2. Most identifier links are actually WP:EXTERNAL LINKS (el). They should show formatted like (for aspirin):

DB00945 Y, not current format DB00945 N: you are leaving the wiki site. el's are done this way in {{infobox medical condition}}, see cholera.

3. See #CAS RN should link to CAS not MeSH.

4. ATC Code (and possibly other data) is not exactly an identifier, but a classification. So today it is under the wrong subheader. For now we can leave it, but in any new template we should do this right right away.

5. Technical, illegible and possible very long strings like SMILES and InChI might require a different treatment/showing.

6. Here with {{Infobox_medical_condition}} the same issue was discussed.

-DePiep (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support with changes This idea was discussed also at Template_talk:Infobox_medical_condition in a February 2015 proposal that I made based on ideas and feedback that other people were sharing. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_67#Seeking_comment_on_a_new_kind_of_drug_infoboxes when I and user:Hexatekin (formerly OR drohowa) presented a model for separating cataloging data from human readable infobox data. The problem is that cataloging data for either drugs in this case or diseases in the other is not useful for most people, and other information in this space would be more useful. However, there is a precedent in about 10,000 drug and medical condition articles of putting this content in this place.
  • I agree with Boghog and other critics - "authority control" is not the right term for this information. I still think it is the right concept and the right precedent, and something like Template:Drug identifiers might be better or even Template:Medical identifiers so that the same box can be used for drugs, devices, therapies, medical conditions, and whatever other concepts in medicine are linked to some catalog identifier.
  • I am not convinced that people who have voiced opposition to this proposal recognize that these links will not be removed. The proposal is to make them less prominent by putting them anywhere else in the article in some other template, not remove them. Catalog identifiers which exist for computers to read should not be the first thing that Wikipedia readers see, and right now, this information which is useless to read (it is only useful as a link) is being presented for readers to examine in preference to anything else.
  • The positioning of the template should not be such a concern. The most obvious choice would be to follow the same positioning precedent which is used for the authority control template, because this is an analogous situation.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cost information

This is of a great deal of importance to both healthcare providers and the general population. This website provides global data per dose [10] and provides the ration between high and low costs.

Am looking at adding the info to Wikidata but Wikidata does not yet take dosing information. I guess the question is do we add it to En Wikipedia to be moved latter to Wikidata? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is a very good idea (it could help many readers- both patients and providers)...therefore I support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It would also interest policy makers, investors, economists, and anyone else interested in money or financial matters. I support including this information. The only real question is, how?

I would be happy to have the details written up in sentences and paragraphs in a ==Cost== section. I'd be happy to have a table there that lists the median price (or both the high and low) for as many years as we can get that information. This could presumably be assembled a bot.

If we are going to put it in the infobox, then perhaps just the median price, with an external link for more information:

Global wholesale price      US $0.20 per pill (2014)

(I used Truvada as an example; for things with multiple forms and doses, like penicillin, it'd be much harder to get one number—but that's easily handled: you just skip those cases.) I can't really see adding multiple lines of cost information to such a huge infobox. Doing all of the above might be best, of course. What would you choose to start? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is International Drug Price Indicator Guide. They have a big disclaimer: "What this Guide cannot tell you: Exact information on prices or any other descriptive piece of information. No guarantees are implied in the list as to price changes, quality of products, or specific sales conditions". Here are their sources - most of it comes from agencies servicing the developing world. I am not sure how much of that information is relevant to the US market, or the EU market. They also make it clear that those prices are nothing like what somebody pays at the pharmacy - the info is there for purchasing agencies, I believe. We would need to explain what the price listed there actually means. Also I did a bunch of searching in it - lots of information but it all seems to be about generic drugs. No celecoxib, no gleevec, no gardasil. Their coverage of essential generic meds seems good though -they have Oseltamivir and Alprazolam and atorvastatin for example. So hm. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the price information of essential medicines as more important as you can 1) find these in most areas of the world 2) they are essential medicines.

One can than supplement this with information from drugs.com for what the stuff costs in the USA (which has the most expensive meds in the world). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How do we explain to readers simply that these are not retail prices nor even what any agency or PBM might actually pay? Maybe more importantly, how do we keep this field maintained? Once it is available people are going to add all kinds of crazy stuff there - I see it is as significant future pain in the butt to keep high-quality and contextualize. For example, as discussed here Alirocumab#Society_and_culture, people are up in arms about the price of the new PCSK9 inhibitor which is about $15K/year, which looks terribly high compared with generic statins. What the NY Times pointed out, is that this drug doesn't replace statins; it is for people whose cholesterol isn't controlled with statins and diet, and who undergo apheresis (like dialysis) to clear cholesterol from their blood - a procedure that costs about $96K/year. PBMs are really upset, of course, because costs have shifted to them, but the system overall will save money. (If the drug remains restricted to those people; if the label expands into the general population, that will become a big problem, if the price doesn't come down). A raw number in a field doesn't provide context like that. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The cost difference between stuff like clarithromycin and amoxicillin however is significant. And we should make this more clearly apparent. Same for sumatriptan and rizatriptan though their is likely little clinical difference between the two.

The Global Wholesale Price does partly match the retail price. Stuff with a higher wholesale price has a higher retail price. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Partly yes, but the field is going to be a point, not a dataset. People can look at one article and then the other, yes... but humans being human, readers are going to see a dollar price and think that is the price they should pay, and when they find a mismatch when they go to actually acquire the drug, they will think WP is messed up or they are getting ripped off, and neither will be true. Maybe if we call it something like "agency purchasing price" instead of just "price"? Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree we will need to find the correct term as what we are talk about is not retail price. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is market information. I wonder if and why WP should add this: how is it encyclopedic? I know of no other topics/articles that do market information. Maybe currency exchange rates has, and stock exchange listed companies. Also, drug markets are not free and open (as the currency and stock markets are). Drug companies apply secret pricing, and there is government interference (aren't HIV drug for Africa payed for by WHO?). Then there is the practical side: markets are played regional and time-based. We'd need an updating habit for say 200 countries (or 10-50? regions), and a timestamp with each. This is much more than the existing examples, which can be stated to be world-wide (at any moment, there is just ~one price). To compare, already we have to look at the list of jurisdictions for drugs (|legal_AU=). But mainly, I'm hoping to find a good argument on whether this is/isn't encyclopedic. We're not Bloomberg. -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cost details are here [11] for the iPhone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Not in the infobox, not per telephone type (as is proposed for drugs), and I could easily agree this is an interesting development. Will does the proposal include production costs? It occurs to me that iPhone cost development is relevant in historical view and for multiple angles (production site issues, marketing policy). Could be interesting too for HIV drugs. IMO still not encyclopedic for 6000 drugs. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion of prices has been a regular topic of discussion, most recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_67#Prices when this proposal was made without having a comprehensive price database ready to share.

I think the inclusion of price data for drugs is worthwhile to share because a history of precedent in Consumer Reports publishing has found that people in the United States demand and use this data. I work for Consumer Reports, a nonprofit organization which has for decades published the price of drugs in the United States. Through Consumers International partner organizations publish drug prices in as many places worldwide as possible. I have always wanted to contribute some of Consumer Reports commentary on pricing but I know that this is difficult to do because of difficulty in getting source data. If we have good source data to share then I would like it shared in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has little coverage on how the price of medical treatment is a barrier to people accessing care. Physicians routinely include patients in decisions about what drugs they will take but physicians almost never provide pricing comparisons. If that information were in Wikipedia as it is in Consumer Reports then I think the same proven interest in pricing information that Consumer Reports has identified would also be present in Wikipedia.

The reason why it is important to share this is because for most people, normal typical people, getting a drug is a consumer marketplace decision. This is true in the United States where uniquely among developed countries the healthcare is not nationalized, and it is just as true in countries with less developed economies where by necessity drugs are distributed through the marketplace instead of only through dispensaries with government oversight.

Please reconsider the past discussion on pricing to which I just linked in the June 2015 talk in WikiProject Medicine archives. There are some barriers to overcome here but I like the concept a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)