Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Addition of OtherNames field?

Would it be useful to have an OtherNames field (analogous to the one available to Template:Chembox? --InsufficientData (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Names of drugs tend to be much more standardized than chemical names. The according to the WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide, the International Nonproprietary Name should be used as the article name and the page name is repeated over the drug box. In addition, there is a field for the IUPAC chemical name. Finally in the sandbox version of the drugbox, there is a Tradename field (see the Lisinopril article for an example). IMHO, this should be adequate. Boghog (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What motivated this was an edit to the paracetamol article. The edit changed the IUPAC name from N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide to N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethanamide. I searched around and both appeared to be interchangeable in common usage. The side group is alternately an ethanamide and acetamide. And both could be argued ... the mechanism of action is an acylation of a particular residue within a COX ... so would one use acetamide to call attention to this part of the molecule? But it is also an ethanamide? My solution was to use both with an intermediate break. But I wondered ... chembox has this, drugbox doesn't. That was my motivation. --InsufficientData (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to drugbox

A number of changes have been made to the sandbox. We (Jmh649 and myself) would like to incorporate these changes in the production version. Before doing so, we would like to make sure there is consensus for the following modifications:

1. The contents of drug box may optionally be moved to special purpose template and transcluded back into the article. This is done to reduce clutter in the raw text so as not to scare off new editors.
2. The "Therapeutic considerations" section has been renamed to "Clinical data" and move up to more closely match the recommended order of sections in body of the article.
3. New optional links to AHFS/Drugs.com and MedlinePlus have been added to the "Clinical data" section.
4. A new optional field fortrade names has been added to the "Clinical data" section.

For a live version of the proposed changes, see the drugbox in the Lisinopril article.

Is it OK if we go ahead and make these changes? Boghog (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Boghog for bringing this about. I think these are extremely important changes to make our articles more generally accessible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not move the template into a special purpose template ... it may make the page-code cleaner, but newbies are less likely to find the actual data. Having a clean template structure (every parameter on a new line, nicely indented) in the document makes it easy to overview the data, and to edit it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

With the little edit buttons associated with the templates they are easier IMO to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. but is thát easier to understand for newbies. And I don't think it is easier, I don't even think there is any difference, except that it will bring confusion (I've seen such questions with the element boxes). Moreover, to be consistent it would need several thousands of edits .. But that part of the suggestion does not need the rest of the drugbox to be implemented. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to it, I've hardly ever heard someone complain about the drugbox/chembox being there in the beginning of a page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning special purpose templates, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, but I think these template do provide some advantages to both newbies and experienced editors. Separating the template from the article makes both less cluttered and easier to edit.

An example of where special purpose templates have been successfully used are Gene Wiki articles. There are about ~10,000 of these articles and each has a special purpose template devoted to it (e.g., Estrogen receptor beta). Very rarely an editor starts to add material to the special purpose template that belongs in the article. I think that it is less likely with the "v•d•e" symbols that are within the boundaries of the proposed drugbox. A problem with the element infoboxes is that editing links are placed at the bottom of the box where many editors may miss them. This is inconsistent with the conventional placement of editing links above the article or section that is used throughout Wikipedia. In the proposed update to the drugbox, these links are placed at the top.

Concerning consistency, a bot could create special purpose templates for each drug article. ProteinBoxBot did this for the Gene Wiki articles and BogBot could do the same for drug articles as I have offered to do here. Boghog (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest first further discussion about the transclusion part - but IMHO the box can be updated. Still, I have seen more editors asking 'where is that data' when there was a template transcluded, than that I have heard editors complain that there is a long box in front of the text and that they don't see where they can start editing. But I must also say .. having them transcluded does have maintenance and other advantages (with regard to User:CheMoBot). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

GHS phrases and pictograms

As a chemist I do understand the significance of the drugbox to medical interested persons, but I'd like to find chmical information on substances. I would like to be able to put the GHS phrases and pictograms in the infobox. Can anyone put in lines for those entrys in the template?T.vanschaik (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. drugbox does not have anything like that. I'm not sure whether adding is a good idea, seen we may soon want to merge {{chembox}} and {{drugbox}}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I Noticed the discussion, but did not want to interfere there with a totaly new proposal, but if the drugbox is redisigned, I would be glad.T.vanschaik (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bleomycin

Can someone who knows the details of this template please have a look at Talk:Bleomycin. There seems to be a problem with the way the drugbox is displaying. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.49.174 (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also check [Vinblastine] and [Vincristine]. I'm the user that 71.185.49.174's talking to on the Bleomycin page. I re-sized it from [this, which totally covers the whole screen] to [this, which is a sized down version.] The only change I made was to insert line breaks (literally, hit the return key, no <br> 's at all. As I hadn't worked on any drug boxes before I left a note on the Bleomycin, Vincristine and Vinblastine pages stating I'd changed it and why and that anyone was free to change it back. 71.185.49.174 saw no difference in either box, I did, however, and only in those three pages and no other, so far (example Morphine's drug box displays just fine for me. (I'm using Windows 7, Mozilla Firefox 3.6 with 1280 X 1024 resolution ). Thanks KoshVorlon _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 11:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Drugbox ChEMBL hyperlinks

Hi, can someone look at fixing the ChEMBL links in the drug box please? Whoever has changed the links to show a consecutive number has altered the hyperlink so that it shows the chembl number twice - for example:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembldb/index.php/compound/inspect/CHEMBL403664CHEMBL403664 (bleomycin)

Thanks, Louisa Louisajb (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed - may show in mainspace due to the refresh for some time still, if you purge, or go to edit mode, it should be correct. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with other links

In addition to the problem with the ChEMBL link that has already been fixed (see above), there are similar problems with the ATC, chemspider, and UNII links (see Template:Drugbox/testcases, left side). These have been fixed in the sandbox version (see Template:Drugbox/testcases, right side). Apparently some key white spaces were accidentally deleted when I was editing the sandbox version. My apologizes.

In addition, I have added back the displayed "monograph" text to the drug.com link. There is no database entry identifier/accession number for drug.com monograph entries to use as the displayed text. Therefore instead of displaying a bare link (e.g., [1]), I thought it was better to display the text "monograph".

I would appreciate if an administrator would re-synch the production version of the Drugbox with the sandbox. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sync'd. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Trade names

In preparation of populating drugboxes with clinical data, I noticed that the number of trade names for some drugs can be quite large (in excess of a one hundred in a few cases, see Drugbank DrugCard data). The tradename field could therefore easily overwhelm the rest of the fields in the drugbox. Hence I propose to make this part of the drugbox collapsable (see righthand in the Template:Drugbox/testcases for an example of how this would look). Does this look OK? Boghog (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously neglecting Wikipedia -- I hadn't noticed the addition of the tradename field. Wasn't there a discussion deciding on not including it? Anyway, I am all for it and I like your solution, Bog! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. You may have been referring to this discussion in which there was no clear consensus to adding trade names to the lead of a drug article. There was also this discussion concerning unbolding trade names in the lead. A long list of trade names, especially if they are bolded, would be very distracting if placed in the lead. On the other hand, you have done a great job of adding redirects from trade names to drug articles. Furthermore according to WP:R#PLA, these trade name redirects should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Adding these names to a collapsable section of the drug infobox seems like a good compromise. Boghog (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I hate to be picky, but is there any way to trigger autocollapse only if the contents of the field exceed a certain character length? (Three or four names in the field would display by default, for instance, but a longer list would be autocollapsed) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I have now modified the sandbox version so that the trade name section is only collaspsed if the list of trade names exceeds one line (string length ≥ 38 characters). Boghog (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I forget—this was a great addition, by the way :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, Drugbank contains quite a large number of erroneous trade names (typos, synonyms that aren't trade names at all, etc). I've been planning to manually prune Category:Redirects from trade names, but I simply haven't got the time at the moment. Just to tell anyone it probably wouldn't be a good idea to add trade names to drugboxes by bot. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about the Merck Manual list of trade names (or perhaps even better the intersection between the Merck and Drugbank lists) instead? Boghog (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that list is largely (but not completely) accurate. It's also much shorter than Drugbank, but would be a good start. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Any bot to make separate templates of drugboxes?

I think we can start discussing which bot should perform the task above in #Suggestion: Make separate templates of drugboxes. I think it ct could be integrated into the tasks of existing bots that make regular fixes to drug articles, to save on the amount of edits. Does anyone know now which bot might be fit for the task? Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There was also some reservations expressed about doing this above in this thread. Since the proposal to use special purpose templates would also effect eventual merger with the chembox, it is important to first that we get the the chembox people on board. (PS to Doc James: I will complete the population of the drugboxes shortly but some urgent issue at work came up that I need to deal with first). Boghog (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support moving it to a separate template as long as we leave a none visible note on the edit page that says "to edit the template click on the edit button within the template" or some such thing. Look forwards to the population of the drugbox :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Drugs.com links

Concerning the planned addition of clinical data to drugboxes, the source code has been written and BogBot is almost ready to start this (see for example this diff), but before doing so, I have a question concerning Drugs.com links. Currently the drugbox is hardwired to link to http://www.drugs.com/monograph/, but I noticed that many drugs to do not have monograph links, but instead have links to other parts of the drugs.com web site. More specifically, there appears to be at least four different drug sections in the drugs.com website:

• monograph: AHFS DI Monographs
  • example: lisinopril

• CDI: Consumer Drug Information
  • example: pravastatin

• CONS: Micromedex Detailed Consumer Information
  • example: benzyl-benzoate-topical

• MTM: Multum Consumer Information
  • example: guanadrel

The question I have is should we only provide links if a monograph is available or alternatively, if a monograph is not available, should a link be provided to one of the alternative sections, and if so, in what order of precedence? If we do provide links to alternative sites, then a slight modification to the drugbox template will need to be made. Boghog (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The AHFS link is best. The other three seem about the same as medlineplus with no references to the literature provided. Some of the AHFS pages are under the brand names as in pravastatin is prevachol http://www.drugs.com/monograph/pravachol.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

CONS appears better than MTM and CDI on after a superficial examination.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick feedback. I didn't realize that some of the monographs were under the brand names. The bot can easily check for that. So based on your suggestions, the suggested order of precedence is:

• monograph: http://www.drugs.com/monograph/<INN or tradename>.html
• CONS: http://www.drugs.com/cons/<INN or tradename>.html
• CDI: http://www.drugs.com/cdi/<INN or tradename>.html
• MTM: http://www.drugs.com/mtm/<INN or tradename>.html
• parent: http://www.drugs.com/<INN or tradename>.html (I noticed that some of these are redirects to one of the above)

Is this reasonable? Boghog (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

To support the above alternative links, I have created a new template, {{Drugs.com}}. To use it in the drugbox template requires a slight modification. A test use can be seen on the right hand side of: Template:Drugbox/testcases (produces an identical Drugs.com link as the left hand side). Boghog (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Yes looks good...--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor requested change

As discussed above, this change to allow more flexibility in linking to the drugs.com site. Thanks, Boghog (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot update of clinical data in drugboxes

Just a quick note concerning the status of updating the data in drugboxes. This turned out to be far more difficult than I originally imagined (it is non-trivial to parse nested templates that also contain piped wiki links and citaiton templates). After extensive recoding and debugging (see history), I think I finally have all the details worked out. The bot is currently being tested (see request for approval and BogBot contributions). Let me know if you spot any problems. The Wikipedia server that processes bot edit requests is currently down, so the tests are temporarily on hold, but I will resume as soon as the server is back up. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent job.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Date of patent

It is extremely useful to know date that patents are issued. Please consider adding this to the drug box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.31.113 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes good idea.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In principle this is a good idea, however deciding which drug patent to include may be non-trivial. The original composition of matter patent (if there is one) is probably most relevant, but there also may be relevant "use", formulation, and/or process patents as well. In addition, patents are country specific and have different issue and expiration dates. One way around this is to instead list the international patent application (WIPO). Because of these complexities, I think it is more practical to add patent information to the history section of drug articles, including of course citations to relevant patents ideally formatted with {{Cite patent}} template that includes fields for filing date, granted date, etc. The WP:PHARMMOS does not currently mention patents. Perhaps patents should be mentioned (e.g., in the history section). Boghog (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Mention in the history section or society and culture section may be best. Than greater details can be given with respect to different areas of the world. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

is there no website that lists drugs patent date in the USA? then you could just link to it as an external link. The drug box is faster for doctors than reading a history. i hope you reconsider and add it to the drug box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.31.123 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any website that list drug patent dates. Futhermore, I am not sure how to get these other than digging through the patent literature. Finally, why would a doctor be interested in the patent filing, issue, and/or expiration dates of a drug patent? What I think you may be getting at is whether generic forms of the drug are available or if not, when they may become available. An expired patent of course is a prerequisite, but even if a patent is expired, it may take time for generics versions to reach the market place. In addition, these dates will differ from country to country. Given this data is difficult to find and is country specific, I don't think it is practical to add it to the drugbox. Boghog (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

When generic become available is very important especially for our colleagues in the developing world as this affects the price. am unable to find this information. If someone knows of a place would be happy to look at it. Most drugs become generic at the same time around the world with international patents. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While the following estimates are for the US, they may also give a rough indication of when generics might become available in other countries:

• "Estimated Dates of Possible First Time Generic/ Rx-to-OTC Market Entry" (pdf). Medco Health Solutions, Inc. 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-30. Boghog (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. Wondering if we should add a line to the infobox for this info or just add it to the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ebiref

While hunting down an unrelated anomaly, I've discovered that 2324 articles that transclude Template:Drugbox also attempt to transclude the (non-existant) template Template:Ebiref - I'm guessing a check for an omitted parameter is missing somewhere. As template-markup is little more than brace-riddled gibberish to me, is anyone willing and able to investigate please? - TB (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange. My guess it is related to the {{Ebicite}} template and more specifically to a parameter that is/was used to validate Ebicite, but then the name of the parameter should be {{Ebi_ref}}, not {{Ebiref}}. In any case, I cannot seem to find where Ebiref is coming from. Boghog (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I see that Ebiref is included in the {{Drugbox}} template and apparently is meant to verify the {{ChEBI}} parameter. Hence Ebiref should be changed to {{ChEBI_Ref}} and the later parameter should be defined. Boghog (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional info in case it's useful; this was the edit that added the transclusion. - TB (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be 'ebicite', that is what the CheMoBot uses. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Then I assume this change (using the sandbox as an example) should fix the problem. If so, I would appreciate if you would make the change to the template itself. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Monoclonal antibodies

I have come across infliximab and note that we give a blue link to Monoclonal antibody. We do not typically use blue links in headings and thus feel we should remove it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just come across this... does anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Personally I agree since it does give a blue link to 'monoclonal antibody' in the main text and I imagine most if not all other MAB articles will do as well. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no stong opinion on this matter, but if we do delink it, we should also delink the header "Vaccine description" (eg. in Measles vaccine) for consistency's sake. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Question marks on display

I just noticed Botulinum toxin, where the infobox contains two '?' (resulting from code in the template). I presume that they were included so editors/readers are invited to get that data, and put it there. However, for some requesting that data seems plain silly to me: does it have a reasonable legal status (except for the use in botox), and I would not suggest to use it as a drug on pregnant women. Note, the legal status says "? (US)" - it is defaulting to US when there is a '?').

That aside, I do think that those '?' are unnecessary and mere clutter. Empty fields should simply not display, and question marks should not be put into fields in mainspace to 'request' the data (then leave the field in the box, but without parameter, or with a comment-like parameter as it is in Botulinum toxin. Can we consider changing this behaviour of the drugbox, please (and maybe also remove '?' from mainspace where they occupy fields)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Drugbox/Archive_7#Missing_fields_should_be_omitted. In short (if I remember correctly): there was no consensus to omit the fields "Pregnancy cat., Legal status, ATC code", and hiding the chemical formula was beyond my template editing capabilities. No objections from me to hide all the ?'s. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me, although I will leave the template editing to someone else. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 11:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

this version of the sandbox should do it. I'll wait for some more input (but feel free to update). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've experimentally hidden the headers "Pharmacokinetic data" and "Identifiers" in the sandbox if the sections are empty. Could/should probably also be done with "Chemical data", but I'm not sure whether this is worth the trouble. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's just do that as well .. clean it up. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope it worked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is broken .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Aljogryph, 20 September 2011

|- {{#if: | ! NIAID-AIDS# | {{{NIAID-AIDS#}}}{{{NIAID-AIDS#}}} |-

Aljogryph (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Before implementing the above, this needs to be discussed and tested. I have added a slightly modified version to the {{drugbox/sandbox}} and an example NIAID_ChemDB link can be seen here (near the bottom of the identifiers section in the drugbox displayed on the righthand side). Finally I have created a stub NIAID ChemDB article briefly describing the database. This looks like a useful link, but I worry about the proliferation of parameters in the drugbox. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Legal Status (UK)

Legal status for the US, Canada, and Australia allows specification of which Schedule a drug is in. The UK, however, only allows a drug to be specified as a "controlled drug", which is rather vague. I'm pretty sure that the UK equivalent of Schedules is Classes - Class A is most illegal, with heroin, cocaine, LSD, MDMA etc, Class B is less harshly punished, with cannabis, amphetamines, etc, and Class C is the least illegal, most benzodiazepines are in this class (and illegal unless prescribed). Schedules in the UK just relate to how drugs have to be stored, prescribed etc, what safeguards must be in place at pharmacies and hospitals, things like that. In either case, the Legal Status for the UK allows neither Class nor Schedule to be displayed, and I believe this should be fixed, as currently the UK legal status shows far less information for illegal drugs than US/Aus/Canada legal status. Xmoogle (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem at Hydroxocobalamin.

When looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxocobalamin most of the drugbox is not visible, off the left side of the page, causes lots of whitespace where you have to scroll down to see the actual article. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hydroxocobalamin shows fine. May this be caused by a problem with the data for the InChI or StdInChI parameters on that page? Using Firefox 7.0.1 on Ubuntu 11.10. -- Jeandré, 2011-11-16t08:27z

This is a known problem if you have JavaScript disabled. (I know that doesn't help much.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

???? What, is there a difference in display between the secure server and the normal server? Does that mean that the secure server has something enabled that we can enable here as well so things do work here as well? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For me, it's broken on the secure server as well (Firefox 8, Win XP). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That is what I would expect when Java is turned off. Why can't we force in a hard way that a box (table, i.e.) can NEVER be wider than e.g. 25% of a page, whatever the content of a cell would 'force' it to do. Otherwise we either need to break an important parameter (with all problems associated with it) or take it out (which is unfortunate). Note, this is also true for the chembox, which has exactly the same problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't we have a CSS attribute "display:none" by default and use JS to display the content? This would mean that there isn't a way of displaying the InChI if JS is turned of, but that might be better than a page with a completely broken layout. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WHEEE .. try again. I think the trick is to wrap long-unbreakable strings in

<p style="word-wrap: break-word;">

and

</p>

. For me it works, the table (with JAVA enabled) does not change form or shape when clicking show/hide. Please test. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Still gets wide for me. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

)-: ... should it be 'overflow-wrap' maybe, per http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#overflow-wrap0 ?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tried, but that does not work even for me. My Opera perfectly follows it, but others seem to be broken.  :-( --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm... Your link points to a CSS Level 3 working draft from September, and word-wrap is also CSS3. I've no idea which versions (if any) of which browsers support that. But it may be a solution for the future. (Or it might not work at all, of course.) Interestingly, IE increases the width only by a few centimetres, while under Firefox the box gets wider than the screen. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What if InChI is too large?

Over at cortisol the drugbox is perversely wide, because the InChI is too long. Is there a way to hide long InChI's? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See the thread above. It should work fine when JavaScript is switched on, but unfortunately gets broken when JS is turned off. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the above thread before asking. In my case Javascript is running on Firefox 8.0. I saw the wide-drugbox-problem only on Firefox 8, not on Chrome 16, and only when I was logged in. I tracked it down to some old code in my vector.js. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DailyMed

Have people considered adding a DailyMed (NCBI) link to this template? It seems to provide some very good information and claims to index 33265 different drugs. An example URL is http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?startswith=allopurinol&x=0&y=0 - note that we can just drop a {{PAGENAME}} in there, with an option to override the search term or just shut it off if there's nothing coming, and voila, patients interested in thirty thousand different drugs are pointed to this very useful resource. Wnt (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove "AIDSNO:" from NIAID_ChemDB field

Please update from sandbox. This will remove the text "AIDSNO:" from the NIAID_ChemDB field (per WT:PHARM#Support NIAID-AIDS parameter in the drugbox, last few lines). Tx --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012

{{edit protected}} in order to correct the misuse of the term trade name as it relates to drugs

{{#if:| ! Trade names

should be changed to

{{#if:| ! Brand names

(This will eliminate the need to correct each individual page)

and

{{#if:| ! Brand names

should be added

24.6.51.171 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for deactivating your request, but this needs consensus. Many, if not most drug articles start on the lines of "X (trade name Y) is a...". The redirect category is termed Category:Redirects from trade names. And the page Trade name mentioned (although unsourced) the use of the term "trade name" for drugs' brand names. I'm neutral as a non-native speaker. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose but only because everything else refers to trade name. I feel that brand name is a more accurate term but I feel the need for consistency is more overriding in this case. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding drug mechanism data to drug boxes

vemurafenib
Drug mechanism
Crystallographic structure of B-Raf (rainbow colored, N-terminus = blue, C-terminus = red) complexed with vemurafenib (spheres, carbon = white, oxygen = red, nitrogen = blue, chlorine = green, fluorine = cyan, sulfur = yellow).
Therapeutic use	melanoma
Biological target	BRAF
Mechanism of action	protein kinase inhibitor
External links
ATC code	L01XE15
PDB ligand id	032: PDBe, RCSB PDB
LIGPLOT	3og7

The Drugbox info is really useful. Many small molecule drugs have had their structures solved bound to their protein targets and these are available in the PDB. Could this info be added? it would just need a link to the Compound browser would be needed, eg sildenafil or aspirin to be continuously up to date with the PDB archive. I have a mapping between Inchi and the PDB three letter ligand code which would aid doing it automatically. larger proteinaceous drugs are of course in the PDB too. A2-33 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be better to create a new infobox for drug mechanism that can be placed in the mechanism of action section of drug articles. An additional advantage of using a separate infobox is that an image of the drug/protein complex can be added to it. See an example prototype infobox to the right. Alternatively we could add a new "pharmacodynamic data" section to the drugbox containing similar information as this prototype template. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Integrate improvements and corrections

Hello,

I have made improvements and corrections to this template at en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nnemo/Drugbox&oldid=478751180. Please integrate this in the template. I was going to do it myself, but it's locked. Here are the changes.

Thanks,

--Nnemo (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nnemo, and thanks for your work! I copied your version to Template:Drugbox/sandbox. This is a good place for such things, as people can easily compare the new code to the old one on Template:Drugbox/testcases. To request updating a protected page with your code, just place {{Edit protected}} on its talk page, followed by a short explanation.

What is your reason for replacing simple spaces with {{sp}}? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, MediaWiki eats the spaces — which, by the way, is a bad thing.

--Nnemo (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 14:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Drugbank accession numbers

According to the DrugBank documentation, there are two types of DrugBank accession numbers, primary and secondary.

Currently there is a mix of primary and secondary accession numbers assigned to the DrugBank parameter in articles transcluding the Drugbox. Both primary and secondary accession numbers link to the same external DrugBank page, but the current usage is both inconsistent and confusing. The reason I bring this up is that I am trying to map Wikipedia drug articles to external databases (e.g., IUPHAR), and this is made more difficult by the inconsistent use of the DrugBank parameter. Hence I propose that only primary accession numbers are assigned to the DrugBank parameter.

Furthermore, is there any reason for secondary accession numbers to be displayed in addition to the primary number? The prefix of the secondary number does have the following significance:

The 4 letter prefix of the secondary accession number (APRD, EXPT, BIOD, NUTR) indicates the type of drug (APRD=approved small molecule drug, EXPT=experimental drug, BIOD=biotech drug, NUTR=nutraceutical or natural product).

If there is a strong desire to display the secondary in addition to the primary accession number, we could create a second parameter called DrugBank_Alt. For an example of how this would look, see the right hand side example in the testcases. So is there support for adding a DrugBank_Alt parameter or is this unnecessary? Boghog (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for adding more numbers to the drugbox. The secondary numbers are accessible by simply clicking on the DrugBank link (which also should enable bots to access them if they are interested). Most people (like me until a minute ago) won't understand the abbreviations APRD etc., and this information should be pretty obvious anyway. (Small molecule, biotech product? Look at the structure or mass. Approved or experimental? Should be in the Legal status field.)

Unless any reasons for adding these numbers turn up, could perhaps a bot correct the secondary ones (hint, hint)? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My preference is to keep things simple as possible and to only display the primary accession number. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on anyones toes before unleashing BogBot ;-) Boghog (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Statistics if anyone is interested:

• Current number of Wikipedia articles that transclude the {{drugbox}}: 5084
• APRD prefix: 764 (15%)
• EXPT prefix: 21 (0.4%)
• BIOD prefix: 1 (0.02%)
• NUTR prefix: 0 (0%)

Boghog (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done All secondary DrugBank accession numbers have now been replaced with their equivalent primary numbers. Boghog (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Solubility data

Is there any way to change the solvent and temperature in the solubility data section? This is of use to the wider audience when concerning recreational drugs which users may wish to recrystallise.Testem (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This template is hard wired to display the water solubility in units of 'mg/mL (20 °C)' if the solubility parameter is defined. This cannot be changed unless the template is modified. Furthermore according to Template:Drugbox#Physical_data, adding data such as solubility is optional and "for most drugs is not helpful to the wider readership". Also, please keep in mind WP:NOTHOWTO. Those interested in recrystallizing drugs for recreational use must be a vanishingly small audience, so I doubt you will find a lot of support for modifying the solubility data section of this template. Boghog (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding drug mechanism data to drug boxes: take 2

{{Drugbox/sandbox2
| drug_name = vemurafenib
| verifiedrevid = 432742697
| image = PLX4032_BRAF_inhibitor.png

<!--Clinical data-->
| tradename = Zelboraf
| licence_US = Vemurafenib
| pregnancy_US = D
| legal_US = Rx-only
| routes_of_administration = Oral
| Drugs.com = {{Drugs.com|pro|zelboraf}}
| MedlinePlus =

<!--Pharmacodynamic data-->
| Therapeutic_use  = [[Melanoma]]
| Biological_target = [[BRAF (gene)|BRAF]]
| MOA_text = [[Protein kinase inhibitor]]
| PDB_ligand = 032
| PDB_complex = 3og7

<!--Identifiers-->
| CAS_number = 1029872-54-5
| ATC_prefix = L01
| ATC_suffix = XE15
| PubChem = 42611257
| ChemSpiderID_Ref = {{chemspidercite|correct|chemspider}}
| ChemSpiderID = 24747352
| ChEMBL = 1229517
| UNII = 207SMY3FQT

<!--Chemical data-->
| C=23 | H=18 | Cl=1 | F=2 | N=3 | O=3 | S=1
| molecular_weight = 489.92 g/mol
| StdInChI_Ref = {{stdinchicite|correct|chemspider}}
| StdInChI = 1S/C23H18ClF2N3O3S/c1-2-9-33(31,32)29-19-8-7-18(25)20(21(19)26)22(30)17-12-28-23-16(17)10-14(11-27-23)13-3-5-15(24)6-4-13/h3-8,10-12,29H,2,9H2,1H3,(H,27,28)
| StdInChIKey_Ref = {{stdinchicite|correct|chemspider}}
| StdInChIKey = GPXBXXGIAQBQNI-UHFFFAOYSA-N
}}

IMHO, one major omission from the drugbox is information about the biological target and mechanism of action (i.e., "pharmacodynamic data"). This data could be added in a separate infobox as proposed above or incorporated directly into the drugbox (see example to the right). Is there support for adding this type of data directly to the drugbox? Boghog (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note the "PDB drug" link provides a list of all the structures of proteins that have been complexed with this drug while the "PDB target" link contains information about how the drug interacts with its target (depicted as a LIGPLOT diagram).
• Also note this previous proposal to add class of drug or mechanism. The objection raised at that time was there was not room and it could not be explained properly. I agree that in some cases (especially for drugs with unknown mechanism of action), adding this data would not be appropriate, but in the case to the right where the drug has a well defined mechanism of action, I think the explanation is fairly clear.
• There is also this previous discussion where the argument against adding drug class information is that it duplicates information that should be contained in the lead and in addition, many drugs have more than one use (and by extension, possibly more than one mechanism of action). While this information should be contained in the lead (and also a mechanism of action section), often it isn't, Even if it is, it is often presented in an unstructured way this is difficult figure out what the mechanism of action is. If this information is in the drugbox, the reader can quickly figure out how this drug works. In cases where the MOA is not known or if the drug works through multiple mechanisms, I would agree it would not be appropriate to display this section in the drug box. Boghog (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Support adding these data to the drugbox. That's clearer and quicker to find (and edit) than if we had two boxes. We could mention in the drugbox documentation that more than 2 or 3 uses/mechanisms are discouraged. Perhaps we could link from the drugbox to the appropriate section in such cases (especially in long articles).

I think the header Pharmacodynamic data is suboptimal. This section contains data that are interesting for the general readers, and not many people know the word pharmacodynamic. What about Use and mechanism? Any better ideas? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Briefly as I don't have a huge amount of time to comment right now. I think we are in danger of second guessing (incorrectly) what the user might want. By putting PDB info in a 'mechanism of action' section assumes that all drug structures in the PDB relate to the pharmacological target, and that users looking for protein-drug complexes require this information. The PDB structure might be of the target, or a resistance mechanism, or the last step of the biosynthesis pathway. Equally, this might be the information the user is looking for. Perhaps therefore the box name isn't quite right. For instance there are 16 structures containing chloramphenicol, most are not the ribosome.

If there are several structures of a drug in complex with the target, which ligplot is linked to?

Does the link to 032 page provide much more information than is available in the drug box anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2-33 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me how cases with more than one mechanism will be handled in this box. There may be structures in PDB for which the exact mechanism is not well understood. Also from discussion above it would be good to be clear n what exactly we want to achieve by adding the extra information.

• Do we want to give easy access to "mechanism" information?
• Do we want to give information about "interaction" of drug with macromolecules?

I also think that adding a link to PDB which only describes the molecule is not adding any extra information instead if we add a link to PDB structures e.g. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe-srv/PDBeXplore/ligand/?ligand=AIN for aspirin so then it shows all structures that have the molecule and the extra information about domains, assemblies etc. and something like http://www.ebi.ac.uk/thornton-srv/databases/cgi-bin/drugport/GetPage.pl?template=drug.html&drug_id=DB01614. This would be more useful in drugbox. A2-25 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. Obviously the proposal needs to be fined tuned before it is put into production. I agree that "pharmacodynamics data" section heading is not ideal, but one advantage of this heading is that it is consistent with the "pharmacokinetic data" heading that is already contained in the drugbox (unfortunately this cannot be seen in the example to the right because this data is apparently not yet available for this drug). All the structures in the PDB containing a given drug may not relevant to the mechanism (but may be relevant to pharmacokinetic, e.g., drug metabolizing enzymes, transport proteins, etc.). The idea of the LigPlot link is that would be specific to the known target of the drug. The idea of the PDB ligand ID link is that it would provide links to all the structures containing the drug , some of which may be relevant to mechanism, others of which might be relevant to pharmacokinetics. In the current link, one has to click through to see the structures so that I agree that it is not ideal. I don't have much more time to comment at the moment, but I will resume experimenting in a day or two to try to incorporate your suggestions and address your concerns. Boghog (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Boghog. A2-25 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Per the above discussion, I have changed the title of the "pharmacodynamic data" section "mechanism & use" and moved the PDB links to the identifiers section and link changed the links so that list of all structures containing a particular PDB ligand ID are displayed. My original thought for including the PDB target links (as a LigPlot diagram which in turn linked to the PDB structure) in the mechanism section is that it provided better context for the links. Now the query link will provide a list of all structures complexed with the ligand, and it is up to the reader to determine whether the associated biopolymer is a target, metabolizing enzyme, transport protein, or has some other function. The changes can be seen in the infobox to the right. Does this look OK?
• Concerning mechanism/target data, I was (and still am) hesitant to include this type of data for drugs that have more than one mechanism of action because it would be difficult to locate and explain this data. However I recently noticed that the DrugBank database maintains a comprehensive list of targets for many drugs (see for example amiodarone targets). Furthermore one can download this data. Hence it would be possible for a bot to systematically add this data to drugboxes. In addition, this data could be displayed as a optionally collapsible table of Actions/Target pairs. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view (working in a pharmacy), "Mechanism: Class III antiarrhythmic" would be enough. I'd even say the CYPs and ABCs given on the DrugBank page are more interesting than to which subunit of the Ca channel amiodarone binds. What about a data page like the ones from WP:CHEM (eg. Ethanol (data page)), or a table (formatted by template) in the mechamism/pharmacokinetics sections? If people want to have all the pharmacodynamics data in the drugbox, a possibility would be to condense the mechanism/target fields into "Mechanism: BRAF inhibitor" (for vemurafenib), "Mechanism: Class III antiarrhythmic (hERG)" or something (for amiodarone). Just ideas. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The new changes look good. I was looking at drugbank data and it would be good idea to add these links using a bot. A2-25 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Any progress on this front? A2-25 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will put on hold for the moment the "Mechanism & use" section but request that PDB ligand ID be added to the production version of the template (I cannot do this myself since I am not an administrator). As soon as this is done, I will fire BogBot to add and populate the PDB_ligand parameter. Boghog (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Any progress on this front? Is this waiting for any data related issues or for an administrator to put it in production? A2-25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

DailyMedID no longer works

The URL format for Daily Med has changed and links in Drugbox templates for DailyMedID entries no longer work.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example where the link doesn't work? The DailyMedID link for furosemide seems to work. Boghog (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The DailyMedID link fails in the template on these pages

Phenoxymethylpenicillin, Atorvastatin, Bimatoprost, Mometasone/formoterol, Losartan, Pregabalin, Gabapentin, Xyrem

The DailyMedID link fails on these pages, but not in the template

Fentanyl, Flumazenil, Radionuclide cisternogram, Metformin, Clomipramine, Tribulus terrestris, Loperamide, Nizatidine, Pemirolast, Iopamidol, Clopidogrel, Anabolic steroid, Belching, Iodixanol, Zileuton, Emsam, Zolpidem, Gadoteridol, Sodium chromate, Demeclocycline, Topiramate, Lactated Ringer's solution, Quinine,

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. However even after reading the DailyMed documentation, it is not at all clear how to fix these links. It only the base url has changed, then this can easily be fixed in the template. If the accession numbers/format has also changed, this will be much more difficult to fix. Any ideas? Boghog (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

After doing some more digging, DailyMed provide some Web Services that might be useful in bot assisted fixing of the links. For example:

• http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/services/v1/drugname/bimatoprost/spls.xml

returns an xml containing the setid which in turn can be used to create a link to the DailyMed product insert:

• http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=6094c742-7cea-429d-8d21-b7cbf8bfe1bd

Unfortunately the drug name services doesn't seem to work for all INNs (for example http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/services/v1/drugname/atorvastatin/spls.xml). Boghog (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that they are moving from using drugInfo.cfm?id= in the URI with a code parameter to using lookup.cfm?setid= in the URI with a GUID parameter and state that it is a permanent URL. If you use the drugInfo Minocin URL to view the page it displays a permanent link on the page using the lookup Minocin URL. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The drugname search is more specific. You need to use atorvastatin calcium (or lipitor) instead of atorvastatin -

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/services/v1/drugname/atorvastatin%20calcium/spls.xml or

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/services/v1/drugname/atorvastatin+calcium/spls.xml or

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/services/v1/drugname/Lipitor/spls.xml

Use Penicillin V Potassium instead of Phenoxymethylpenicillin - http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/services/v1/drugname/Penicillin%20V%20Potassium/spls.xml Whywhenwhohow (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless DailyMed provides a more flexible searching mechanism, it will be very difficult to script a bot to find the appropriate links. DailyMed web services searching should be made more flexible. Searching using the INN should be sufficient. As it stands, these links will have to be manually updated. Boghog (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A script could obtain the generic name from the drugs.com monograph and use that in the DailyMed web service search. How will a script decide which setid to use from the web service query results? For example, take a look at the results of the http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/services/v1/drugname/Atorvastatin%20Calcium/spls.xml query. I suppose it could use the one with the latest published_date.

Please add a new parameter to the template, something like DailyMedSetID, that uses the permanent URL format so that Daily Med links can be added/updated in articles. Over time the existing IDs can be migrated to the new ones. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia drug articles are named after the INN. In principle a much more straightforward solution is to search for the INN, for example using this query:

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/advSearch.cfm?startswith=NAME:(*atorvastatin*)

and then extract the setids from the raw html. But then one needs to decide on which setid to use. I would argue the earliest rather than latest setid is most appropriate. This links to the original brand and formulation that is most likely to be approved for the widest indications. Furthermore product inserts are updated with new information, so even though the original version of the product insert may be out of date, it should be replaced with updates as they become available.

Alternatively why not just link to the INN search query results? If there are multiple brands, formulations, etc for a given drug, the decision on which product insert to link to is rather arbitrary and ideally should be left up to the reader. The disadvantage of course is the reader will have to click twice to get to a product insert. Boghog (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Include SMILES string

Please update from Template:Drugbox/sandbox -- per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Please include SMILES string directly in the drugbox. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There are some other changes in the sandbox by User:Boghog from earlier in the year. Can you confirm if these are ready for deployment as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As explained in more detail here, the DrugBank_Alt parameter is not needed and I have removed it from the sandbox. The PDB_ligand is useful and I would appreciate if that parameter were included in the production version of the drugbox. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 deployed Thanks for clarifying — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Add Adverse Effects to the box plz

Please add "adverse effects" to the Drugbox. Under "Metabolism" would be suitable.--Taranet (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Drug_name

The template documentation includes ...

| name =

...as one of the parameters for the template. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything. However, the parameter...

| drug_name = 

...is used as the drugbox title. Is this just an error in the documentation? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion, the "name" parameter adds a {{Navbar}} to the top righthand side of the drug infobox. The name of the "name" is not very clear and probably should be changed to something like "path". In any case, this has not been documented. I will fix this. Boghog (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The "name" parameter was documented but was misplaced in the "clinical data" section of the documentation. The documentation for this parameter has now been moved here where it should be easier to spot. Sorry for the confusion. Boghog (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've boldly modified the documentation to discurage users from using the name parameter. I have been removing it from at least a dozen drugboxes in the past few months to get rid of the "v t e" redlinks. It is only used correctly on two pages (Lisinopril, Atorvastatin), and Template:Drugbox/Metformin is not linked from Metformin since the latter has a chembox.

The links at the drugbox tops should either be hidden if no subtemplate exists, or the param should be removed altogether. Thoughts? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The original idea was to un-clutter drug articles by moving large complex {{drugbox}} templates to separate transcluded pages. I similar thing was done with {{GNF_Protein_box}} templates some time ago. I still think this is a good idea. A bot could systematically go through all the drug articles and create transcluded templates. If there is support for this proposal, I probably could convince BogBot to do this in the next month or two ;-) Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Support. Could your bot then periodically look out for new drugboxes to move to template space, to keep things consistent? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)