Template talk:Infobox drug


 * 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: PubChem (CID) add option 'none'. Shows & categorised (also: CASnr, Chemspider, ATCcode), simplyfy ATC/vet, fix ATC issues, always show PubChem SID, added licenSe_EU, licenSe_CA, general code cleanup
 * 2017-02-16, indexes (2nd identifiers): use unbulleted list not, 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.
 * 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)
 * 2020-07-05: Category:Infobox-drug molecular-weight unexpected-character: +main other

Tolerance potential?
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)


 * Interesting thoughts. Got sources?  FYI, I'm working on adding an indicator on pages for drugs that have black box warnings.  I found a source database but I'm struggling to figure out the correct edits to the templates.  (Template talk:Infobox drug/legal status/sandbox, and/or Template talk:Infobox drug/sandbox...) RudolfoMD (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Tolerance in and of itself isn't an even remotely notable drug property. To the extent that it plays a role in drug dependence, it's necessary to understand. And, for what it's worth, sensitization of drug reward is the biological process that mediates the development of addiction; drug tolerance doesn't play any role in its pathophysiology. IMO, if there are any notable drug effects that tend to undergo tolerance or sensitization with repeated use, content about that should be added to the article, not dumped into an infobox with limited context.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 05:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 15 November 2023
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  based on data I've begun adding to wikidata. I have buy-in at WT:MED.

Diff: Current:

Sandbox:

([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)

(I entered the code as directed but it doesn't display properly in preview. If needed, view diff.)
 * I tried putting  around the parms to the TextDiff above, and it produced this:


 * Davemck (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Diff: Current:

Sandbox:
 * I have fixed the code display for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ See below. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Re-opening. I asked several questions below that have gone un-answered for several days. --RudolfoMD (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * * Pppery *
 * 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?
 * 3. It does, do doesn't WP:NOTBEUC apply?
 * Hello?
 * -- RudolfoMD (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @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". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not objected to this section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, someone using your account wrote "The code in the above edit request should also use Module:WikidataIB" below. That has been interpreted as an objection to this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The module is the standard way of implementing the RFC. My question below, "Why would anyone want unsourced information in Wikidata?", seems relevant. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A small fraction of it is probably unsourceable; I doubt there are any sources out there that say whether Measles should be listed as an instance of Q12136, Q112193867, or Q112193769 (three variations on saying that it's a 'disease'). Therefore having some fraction unsourced is of no particular concern to me; some of it will be obviously correct in its real-world meaning, even if editors can differ over the ideal item number to represent the obvious fact that it's a disease.
 * In this instance, Rudolfo and I have been talking about the advantages of setting a bot as a sentinel over the items. Sources do not prevent vandalism.  Auto-revert bots do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it's been clarified that there's no objection.
 * It's not appropriate that this was derailed. It's not appropriate to demand I try to make or push for someone's unrelated changes that are not even in my wheelhouse.


 * 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  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)
 * I resolved the accessibility issue, Trappist the monk. Switched to CSS: WARNING . RudolfoMD (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Trappist the monk, you wrote, I will not move Template:Infobox drug/sandbox to Template:Infobox drug because I believe that you should not be using math markup for presentation for reasons of accessibility.
 * Will you move it now? I removed the math markup and resolved the accessibility problem. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello? Feedback please!   User:Arthurfragoso, @Wostr, P.I. Ellsworth, @WhatamIdoing,  do you see any showstoppers?  We currently have many articles that warn about minor side effects but fail to higlight black box warnings.  It's a bad situation that we need to fix, pronto, IMO.   RudolfoMD (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any showstoppers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Will you move my edit live? If not, what holds you back? --RudolfoMD (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Like you, I don't have the necessary user rights to edit the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've ✅ the original edit request, since it seems to now be uncontested. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Next steps

 * Yay! Bravo, all.  There's still work for me/us left - e.g. NIRMATRELVIR AND RITONAVIR (Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is one of the drugs I/OpenRefine failed to mark in wikidata; not sure why.  Need to get the import/match to work better.  I wonder how many pages the warning is displayed on. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In its current form this is not useful and is exceptionally bulky in the infobox. For example, on clonidine, I see the "[WARNING]" box beside Rx-only, and yet neither hovering nor clicking on either the warning nor the citation give me any indication as to what the warning is for this drug. It is barely helpful to know that there exists a black box warning for the drug in the infobox. I suggest either adding the black box warning text to display when hovering over the "[WARNING]", or updating the citation to dynamically link to the appropriate drug's text, or at worst internal-link to an anchor in the article's body that specifies the black box warning. In fact, in this particular article, there is no other mention of the black box warning, and so all that's left is a bulky and uninformative box in the infobox. Kimen8 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding information about the specific warning would require a lot more work. This may be a step towards that, but the goal here was just to say that the drug had earned a boxed warning.
 * If we reach that greater goal in the future, I might suggest DailyMed as a standardized source (clonidine, which has two boxed warnings). But it might also be better to have this in the article itself, cited to whatever the best sources are the editors choose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that DailyMed link does display black box warnings, and appears to have a uniform url-syntax, can that not just be used to effectively do what I had suggested/hoped it would do in my comment above? I understand the preference for an FDA link if the FDA is issuing the warnings, but at least to me the value of having information in the infobox is that if I (the reader) want to learn more about something that isn't expounded (in the infobox or article), I can follow the links and sources to learn more. As you said in a comment below, in order to do this with the FDA link as it is, I have to download a file (and is it searchable HTML? I didn't go that far), because the information is not actually present at the link provided. Ideally yes, articles mention black box warnings in their body and use appropriate sources in doing so/explaining that, but until then, I think the autogenerated bit in the infobox could be more useful. Kimen8 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The file is a .csv file, so your computer will probably open it as a spreadsheet. That means that it's both searchable and filterable.
 * The DailyMed id numbers are not intuitive (e.g., ), and I believe there is a different one for every single formulation by each manufacturer.  See https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?query=clonidine&searchdb=all&labeltype=all&sortby=rel&audience=professional&page=1&pagesize=200 – but I think that only these four:  https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?adv=1&labeltype=all&pagesize=200&page=1&query=34066-1%3A%28clonidine%29+ have boxed warnings.   They'd have to be matched up by hand.  This is possible but hours of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, the url looked simple enough but it makes sense that specific preparations etc would have different entries in dailymed (and thus may or may not show black box warnings). I will have to be satisfied with the current implementation. Kimen8 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see this as an incremental improvement. It took us years to reach this point, and it only happened because of a couple of months of work by @RudolfoMD.  The next step will be more complex, but maybe we'll be able to manage that some day, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do see the value in this, and my first reaction was one of letting perfect be the enemy of good, mixed with the aesthetically-unappealing presentation in the infobox of the "bulky" [WARNING] text before the Rx-only phrase (not that I can think of a better way to do this at the moment). It is indeed a step towards making sure that black box warnings make their way into articles. Kimen8 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want you to think of your reaction as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather that you think of it the way I do, which is helpfully advocating that we not stop here, but continue to look for even greater improvements.      WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, unless I'm missing something, the link in the autogenerated citation seems to only list drugs whose generic names fall in the range "A""C" (I checked lamotrigine to make sure that the "A""C" link wasn't specific to clonidine, which begins with a "c", and the same link is on that page). Kimen8 (talk) Kimen8 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have to scroll to the right part of the page, or even click the arrow to go to the relevant page. Only 200 items are displayed on each page.  As the list changes over time, there is no way to predict in advance which page a given item will fall on.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see 15 pages. Page 1 starts at "A" and page 15 starts at "C", hence my comment. Kimen8 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The citation says to use the "Download" button. It's >10MB, which would not be a friendly thing to dump on unsuspecting readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A week ago, here, I had already proposed/made a request for help for doing essentially what Kimen8 is suggesting.  I wrote in part, The text of each warning is generally concise and consists only of the most import warnings, so it may be worth [importing from the FDALabel database,] storing [in Wikidata] and adding to articles via wikidata.  I'm flattered. :-)
 * Regarding linking to a viewable page with the warnings: There's already code in the template to link to dailymed for some drugs. Perhaps we could use that, but my concerns include that the dailymed data may be less accurate than the FDAs, and strictly speaking, it would not be truthful to say dailymed is the source of the info.
 * I think we can and should do the import of the warnings themselves. But we'd be want them to appear in the body of articles, right?  I think so...
 * Also, see the new edit request below; the wrong code was migrated.
 * And "(Use Download Full Results and View Query links.)" is in the footnote, as WhatamIdoing noted. We could add the formatting I added.
 * RudolfoMD (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Kimen8,
 * I welcome your further thoughts on next steps.
 * The bulky warning box is fixed. (Obsolete code was migrated due to miscommunication.)  I put the (now-smaller) box before the Rx-only phrase intentionally, but if there's consensus, it can be moved.
 * Let's discuss this further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, at least if it's not about the Infobox. --RudolfoMD (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that the Warning should be after the Rx-only phrase (such as or along those lines), because the order in which I deem the information important is: The infobox parameter is about legality/scheduling so the legality/schedule should go first; the black box warning is auxiliary information and should go second. Kimen8 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The WARNING doesn't belong in the legal section. It is part of the FDA label and not a legal status. Its placement is annoying and distracting. The black box warning is not in the article. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Solubility in water"
It looks like filling in the  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  to "&amp;nbsp;" at least removes the suffix "g/mL" part. Kimen8 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Template:Chembox has:
 * SolubleOther  =
 * Solvent       =
 * but I don't know if that's supported here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 December 2023
The current boxed warning indication uses LaTeX, which is just plain silly. LaTeX causes a whole image (with italicized text) to be added to the article for no good reason. Can't we stick with text?

Replace |legal_US=

With | legal_US=

So we can see WARNING  instead of $\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}$. Looking at the previous discussion, it seems that the CSS approach I want is the final consensus, but it didn't replace the initial TeX version in the sandbox for some reason. As a result, the wrong version was applied. --Artoria2e5 🌉 06:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Correct. I (oddly!) didn't notice that * Pppery * did the original edit request, instead of the the edit request as it existed when they edited the template and marked the request done. But note: we may have further improvement come out of discussion with User:Kimen8 soon. -- RudolfoMD (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What I actually did was base off the code in the sandbox, and didn't even notice the midstream edits you made to the talk page on 2 December (yes, you did point them out, but there was so much noise in that discussion that I didn't see them). Anyway, ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What about the name of company that manufactured that drug?
What about the name of company that manufactured that drug? Abhiramakella (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Black Box Warning
I had a question regarding how the Black Box warning code is implemented and if the following is possible.

Many drugs have Black Box warnings only for certain preparations of the drug. Is there a preferred way to mention this? I thought about putting the sentence "The US FDA Black Box warning only applies to certain preparations of the drug, including ___, where the warning says: ___" or something along those lines, but it's clunky.

For example with baclofen, neither the preparations Lyvispah oral granules, nor Ozobax oral solution have black box warnings, but Lioresal intrathecal does. In the case of this particular article, the contents of the black box warning are mentioned in the Adverse Effects section, but there is no explicit clarity if someone sees the Black Box Warning symbol in the infobox and goes to the article body to try to see the details of that.

I was going to ask on 's page but it seems they are indefinitely blocked.

Kimen8 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Units for molar mass
Please see discussion at Template talk:Chem molar mass that is about the display of part of the Drugbox. DMacks (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)