Template:Infobox drug is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this template or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Infobox drug: Changes log
2016-12-08: add ECHA InfoCard from Wikidata P2566 (// with Chembox)
2017-02-14: add licence_CA, improve showing+link of DailyMedID. licence_US link broken at FDA site.
2017-02-16, indexes (2nd identifiers): use unbulleted list not <br />, use /formatX subtemplates, use standard formatting, rename some index params (hard removal)
2017-02-16, tracking categories: track 2nd identifiers & indexes to help maintenance checking (incl. Wikidata), rename and deprecate some, redo the track subtemplate, add default tracking option (when no need for new category)
2017-05-10: add physiological data set (endogenous drugs); parameter metabolites possible in two sections.
2017-05-19: reorder to position of pronunciation in rare situation; metabolism maybe repeated in contexts; add option component #5.
2017-07-20: add new parameter legal_BR, legal_BR_comment with options (Brazil)
2017-08-18: add INN_EMA to allow EMA-licence showing for differently written INN.
2017-08-25: add local INN variants AAN, BAN, JAN, USAN as synonyms; move synonyms into clinical data section.
2017-10-15: add cat 'Drug has EMA link', rm cat 'Drug has EU (EMA) licence'. See EMA talks.
2017-10-21: licence_EU and EMA: improve external link (see also subtemplate)
2018-03-08: adjust TemplatePar error message
2018-03-31: add tracking physiologica data
2018-03-31: add section gene therapy; with 4 parameters; tracking
2018-03-31: add parameter gt_target_gene
2018-04-14: adjust labels in gene therapy (gt_*)
2018-04-18: add links 'edit at WD' to E-number and ECHA chart ID
2018-08-20: vaccine_type: allow free text
2019-04-22: add DTXSID, DTXSID2 for CompTox database el (uses P3117)
I’m sort of puzzled why things like addiction liability and dependence liability are a thing in these info boxes for various drugs but tolerance potential/rate isn’t? I know there is a number of variables like dosage and rate of frequency and even individual enzyme properties, or maybe even receptor sensitivity, but the same is also evidently true for the other aforementioned potentials. From what I can clearly tell, some substances certainly have abnormally fast tolerance increases (such as opioids & amphetamines); whereas others can have pretty modest rate of increased tolerance. And even substances with potential for reverse-tolerance (like salvia and cannabis) should also have this mentioned in the infobox. Dexedream (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tolerance in and of itself isn't an even remotely notable drug property. To the extent that it plays a role in drug dependence, it's necessary to understand. And, for what it's worth, sensitization of drug reward is the biological process that mediates the development of addiction; drug tolerance doesn't play any role in its pathophysiology. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 3 September 2023
The Global Ingredient Archival System provides a common identifier for all of the substances used in medicinal products, utilizing a consistent definition of substances globally, including active substances under clinical investigation, consistent with the ISO 11238 standard.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Edit the change I made (to the sandbox copy) to the legal_US= line into the template. I tested it in Template:Infobox drug/sandbox and it works. It will display WARNING[1] based on data I've begun adding to wikidata. I have buy-in at
WT:MED#Black_box_warnings_project.
Diff:
Current:
legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}
Sandbox:
legal_US={{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<spanstyle="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<refname="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web|title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]]|access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
([edit: I entered the code w/ Template:TextDiff as directed but it didn't display it properly in preview, so diff now manually displayed above. Help, appreciated, collapsed.)
RudolfoMD (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
(I entered the code as directed but it doesn't display properly in preview. If needed, view diff.)
I tried putting <nowiki> around the parms to the TextDiff above, and it produced this:
−
|legal_US={{{legal_US|}}}
+
|legal_US={{#ifeq: {{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<span style="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
legal_US={{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<spanstyle="border:thin solid black;">WARNING</span>]]<refname="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web|title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]]|access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}}{{{legal_US|}}}
1. If I add the same URL to the thousands of wikidata entries (which I think is a bad idea) then you'll do the migration? That's worse than making the source info visible here, as my code does.
2. Did you notice that the code you're refusing to add contains a full citation for the data?
@Jonesey95, would you mind hopping up to this section and explaining why you think that Module:WikidataIB needs to be used, given that the source is being supplied here? I understand not wanted "Boxed warning"; I want to know why you are insisting on "Boxed warning[Wikipedia source][Copy of same source from Wikidata]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A small fraction of it is probably unsourceable; I doubt there are any sources out there that say whether Measles should be listed as an instance of Q12136, Q112193867, or Q112193769 (three variations on saying that it's a 'disease'). Therefore having some fraction unsourced is of no particular concern to me; some of it will be obviously correct in its real-world meaning, even if editors can differ over the ideal item number to represent the obvious fact that it's a disease.
In this instance, Rudolfo and I have been talking about the advantages of setting a bot as a sentinel over the items. Sources do not prevent vandalism. Auto-revert bots do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it's been clarified that there's no objection.
It's not appropriate that this was derailed. It's not appropriate to demand I try to make or push for someone's unrelated changes that are not even in my wheelhouse.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Dear admin:
I'm asking that the above-requested template change be made. (In other words, I'm asking that Template:Drugboxwarns be copied to Template:Infobox drug. That will modify the one line of Template:Infobox drug exactly as I've asked that it be modified. The only difference is that the sandbox template also has some other changes that I presume make the sandbox work better, but shouldn't be copied to the live template.) Using the {{adminhelp}} template, as it's been over a week with no action, and I think it's been clarified that there's no objection. As a bonus, warning of these particularly important safety issues may, just perhaps, thereafter regularly prevent iatrogenic catastrophes. (Yeah, I know, Disclaimer.) RudolfoMD (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Bravo, all. There's still work for me/us left - e.g. NIRMATRELVIR AND RITONAVIR (Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is one of the drugs I/OpenRefine failed to mark in wikidata; not sure why. Need to get the import/match to work better. I wonder how many pages the warning is displayed on. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on clonidine, I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is for this drug. It is barely helpful to know that there exists a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. Kimen8 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding information about the specific warning would require a lot more work. This may be a step towards that, but the goal here was just to say that the drug had earned a boxed warning.
If we reach that greater goal in the future, I might suggest DailyMed as a standardized source (clonidine, which has two boxed warnings). But it might also be better to have this in the article itself, cited to whatever the best sources are the editors choose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. Kimen8 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The file is a .csv file, so your computer will probably open it as a spreadsheet. That means that it's both searchable and filterable.
Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. Kimen8 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unless I'm missing something, the link in the autogenerated citation seems to only list drugs whose generic names fall in the range "A"–"C" (I checked lamotrigine to make sure that the "A"–"C" link wasn't specific to clonidine, which begins with a "c", and the same link is on that page). Kimen8 (talk) Kimen8 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page. As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, and possibly related to the above edit request, this infobox template appears to be pulling unsourced data from Wikidata, which is not allowed per the long-standing RFC. For example, Borax pulls the "E number" property, which is unsourced in Wikidata. Can someone please modify this template to use Module:WikidataIB to pull the information instead of #property?
This has been the case forever, and is not related to the above edit request. However it does mean that the code in the sandbox is not suitable to go live right now, so I'm declining the request. * Pppery *it has begun...02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. If I add the same URL to thousands of wikidata entries (which I think is a bad idea) then you'll do the migration?
2. Did neither of you notice that the code contains a full citation for the data? 3. It does, do doesn't WP:NOTBEUC apply?
Module:WikidataIB is the easiest way to ensure that the data is retrieved only when it has a source. It is custom-designed for use in infoboxes (hence the name). As for starting a new thread and not pinging you, I did not research who added the code in question. Can I interest you in the little star icon at the top right corner of this window? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding references to Wikidata would be step one. Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata? As for questions 2 and 3, the RFC does not prevent us from improving either Wikidata or Wikipedia, so it is reasonable to follow it. Question 4 is answered above. Question 5 is answered by an RFC, which is based on Wikipedia:Consensus, which is a policy. Question 6 is answered above. Rather than bickering here, energy might be better spent recognizing that the RFC outcome is beneficial and helping to implement it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says almost directly that a citation, as in [1] should be fine.
1,2,3,6 remain essentially unanswered. I can't find where an RFC answers 5.
Why are you even arguing with me? I just noticed - you couldn't even fulfill my edit request if you wanted to. So the answer to 1 is no.
TBH, I'm sick and tired of being unpleasantly surprised by one hurdle after another being thrown up as I try to accomplish this task. It's a bit absurd.
Know it's not easy, RudolfoMD, and yet please be patient with us, because we're all just trying to be careful with the project and be sure only improvement takes place. Sometimes that translates into apparent absurdity, especially when some things are still so new. Frustration and incivility only lengthens the process, so please try to see that if you impatiently throw your hands up, others will too. Wish I could help more, myself, but my skills just aren't there yet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there16:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm trying to keep my feeling (and comments!) measured and impersonal. I'm careful to always PRESUME everyone I interact with is just trying to be careful with the project and be sure only improvement takes place. But your claim that "we're all" well-intentioned is unsupportable. How many users have been banned? How many thousands for undisclosed paid advocacy alone? So it's not appropriate to wear or ask others to wear blinders, or pretend not to be frustrated. When there's ample evidence of bad faith, we're encouraged to call it what it is; we've even got templates to help each other with this, from {{uw-paid1}} to 4:
" You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. " to {{uw-vandal4}} -
There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability. For the other issues raised within this RfC, there was no clear consensus.
”
My response to false claims that my proposed edit, which is entirely consistent with and goes well beyond the RFC's requirement, would violate it was "It seems you're misrepresenting the RFC..." Civil as can be. If you agree, I welcome help finding someone to push the edit live and/or with more ... diplomatically ... explaining why it warrants being pushed live. If you disagree, I welcome that and an explanation for it.
One positive step forward would be to modify the "E number from Wikidata" section of the sandbox so that it is either commented out or uses Module:WikidataIB to retrieve only sourced data from Wikidata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you make these edits if you want them made?
I notice you're aggressively ignoring the three questions, still.
I get the sense you are going to continue to falsely portray my proposed edit as adding unreferenced info to wikipedia and not following the RFC.
I understand that you are frustrated with my answers. Please desist from personal attacks. As for editing the code myself, I wanted to give editors who are familiar with the template, and with Wikidata, a chance to remedy the problem in a constructive way before I simply commented out or removed the non-compliant portions of code, which I see as the least good remedy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like filling in the |solubility= parameter renders as "Solubility in water". If instead one wanted to say something along the lines of "slightly soluble in ethanol, highly soluble in 2-propanol", is there a way to put this into the infobox? I figured out setting the |sol_units= to " " at least removes the suffix "g/mL" part. Kimen8 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
Done For the record, the new links often don't work for me either, but they sometimes do and it's clearly better than the old completely-broken ones. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Not done See below. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Done the original edit request, since it seems to now be uncontested. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
