Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 14

Parameter tradename should link to Drug nomenclature not to Trade name
If you click through to the latter you will see why. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

2 small fixes needed
Both changes that I'm proposing below are shown in this diff: Special:diff/684317978/684319723.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Addiction/dependence liabilities
In the "header20" field, "addiction_liability" is called immediately before "dependence_liability". This is producing some issues with automated editing programs on pages that include a different reference in each of these liability fields, since dependence liability is later defined (in "label32") as the drugbox row that precedes addiction liability ("label33"). This assigns reference numbers out of order if citations are used in these fields (if my meaning isn't apparent, look at these 2 fields in the current Modafinil revision where these fields are the 1st occurrence for the citations used).

This wouldn't normally be an issue, but it screws up automated editing in AWB on pages like modafinil which use references in these fields and cite the same references later on in the article; AWB normally rearranges all references on a page so that their ref numbers ascend, but since the parameters are defined out of order in the template, it incorrectly reverses any subsequent uses of named references that occur in these fields.


 * TLDR: I'm just asking that these 2 parameters – – be reversed in the following line of code to fix a minor technical glitch.
 * So, just find/replace this code:
 * | header20 = {{#if:{{{DailyMedID|}}}{{{Drugs.com|}}}{{{MedlinePlus|}}}{{{PLLR|}}}
 * 1) with this:
 * | header20 = {{#if:{{{DailyMedID|}}}{{{Drugs.com|}}}{{{MedlinePlus|}}}{{{PLLR|}}}{{{dependency_liability|}}}{{{addiction_liability|}}}
 * Please. {{P|1}}  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 21:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * {{done}}. See ref numbering in Modafinil. -DePiep (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 14:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great analysis, Seppi. And I do think the ascending sequence, for the reader (forgetting AWB), is a good thing: the switch can give the page view a hiccup. Never underestimate how sensitive the eye is for such page layout details. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Unknown parameter error message when "pronounce" is used
The pronounce parameter that you added is still showing an unknown parameter error message in articles where it's used, as mentioned above (to see it, just follow this link, click the "Show preview" button, and you'll see the error message appear at the top of the article). This is happening because "pronounce=" wasn't added in the "|opt=" field in the following block of text in the template source:

{{#invoke:TemplatePar

|check

|template=Template:Infobox_drug

|all= |opt= =pronounce= ATC_prefix= ATC_suffix= ATC_supplemental= ATCvet= CAS_number_Ref= CAS_number= CAS_supplemental= ... {{cob}} The error is annoying me, so I'd appreciate it if you added this fix. =/  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) If you find/replace this code:
 * all= |opt= ATC_prefix= ATC_suffix= ATC_supplemental= ATCvet= CAS_number_Ref= CAS_number= CAS_supplemental=
 * 1) with this code, it'll no longer display an error message:
 * all= |opt= pronounce= ATC_prefix= ATC_suffix= ATC_supplemental= ATCvet= CAS_number_Ref= CAS_number= CAS_supplemental=
 * Thanks and done. Will look at the other tomorrow. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 14:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

ChemSpiderID
Where are the ChemSpider ids? Is there a bug in the template code? (see e.g. Telmisartan and many others. The parameter is present but does not show.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks buggy indeed. Researching. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. ping -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Move pronunciation to the drugbox
If we look at the ibuprofen article for example, it is not clear after trying to read the first few words what language of Wikipedia you are on.

The three pronunciations IMO should not be in the first line but would fit nicely in the drugbox. Would also be happy to see them go lower in the article rather than the first sentence. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I support. The chemical elements' ledes read great because of this (see Roentgenium, Manganese). -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I love their first sentence of Roentgenium. It is sort and simple ish. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By MOS:page layout, I don't think it can be simply lower in the article (in a subsection). The exception would be some related name history (see here, section #Names). -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support removal I support that pronunciation guides not be included in the lead of Wikipedia articles. These are not broadly helpful and are a legacy of paper publishing.
 * I probably do not support pronunciation guides being added to infoboxes. American, British, and Indian English speakers should all be represented and will commonly have different pronunciations. This is a distraction to a focus on health information. I prefer that this information be put at the bottom of the Wikipedia article, or maybe only in Wiktionary or Wikidata.
 * Wikipedia is a digital publication. As such, it can take the non-traditional approach of providing audio files in which someone speaks the pronunciation. I prefer discreetly adding audio files to the infobox without explicitly making a pronunciation section. I think the International Phonetic Alphabet is inaccessible to most people, and is not a priority for the top of an infobox, and I think that the Pronunciation respelling key is unproven and does not have the respect necessary to justify giving it so much prominence. Getting audio files for every medical condition and drug might even be easier than maintaining the pronunciation guides.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am happy with just putting it lower in the article. Or maybe simply add it to Wikidata? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Must check WP:PRON for this 'lower in the article'. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * re Bluerasberry: I understand you description (i.e., remove IPA pron altogether). The main objection I can think of is: its per MOS, so it should change wiki-wide. Going into detail: I've been editing a lot in IPA topics, including those 'letters', but I still don't get it and won't learn that  language script. I also have put time in the Respell option, which makes it a Latin-alphabet readible variant. I've fought long battles to keep this one in the element's infoboxes (thanks to that same MOS). So the short route is: we can correctly move it to the infobox, with/without the Respell addition. The lng route is: let's change MOS. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever we decide we should do the same at Template:Infobox medical condition and Template:Infobox symptom Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have put it in the "infobox disease" as seen here. Not sure the best place to put it in the drugbox but have placed it above the trade names as seen here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why talk at all. Someone will change things anyway. -DePiep (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:DePiep not sure what you mean? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At Chembox and Drugbox, I meet people like Dirk Beetstra and Christian75 who sabotage my edits, even in /sandbox space. So I don't like contributing. Is why I respond this late. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. I find your contributions useful... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exemplary. If I spend time on this, sandboxing, they'll be back. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is another example. Beetstra is threatening to use admin powers & friends to get it their way (So why talk at all?). ""me and my fellow administrators to block every editor who will ..." . Is Why I Left Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits to the drugbox/chembox were very helpful IMO. I'm also sorry to see you go.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 04:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - looks better. Currently throwing an unknown parameter error though.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A comment on audio files: when present, they're supposed to be used with the key (e.g., ).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is still throwing an unknown parameter error when used in articles.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 10:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which article are you looking at? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Amphetamine for one, but pretty much any article I've added it to shows an error when previewing. Sizeofint (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, but I take it this should also be taken up at Template talk:Infobox medical condition? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * support great idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

ChemBox / Drugbox on Mobile view
Dear all, I've not been involved much with the 'back end' of wikipedia. I've also posted this at.

The problem I've found (as others may have too), is that on mobile view there is sometimes up to 6 screen full to scroll through (chembox / drugbox) before getting to the intro of the page. I would have thought that the intro should be first?

Otherwise, if intro is not first for some reason, I wondered if there is a way to have the Chembox / drugbox collapse on mobile view? I searched the archives (search terms: 'mobile view') and found it's not collapsible but found no reason explaining why?

I'm not even sure this is the right place to post this? Thanks, Spannell (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This was discussed above. I think the problem is in the MediaWiki mobile front end that currently does not support collapsing sections of infoboxes and not the drugbox per se.  This display problem also extends to a large number of other articles containing big infoboxes. I therefore filed this request  a month ago but unfortunately it has not generated any response. Boghog (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With the uncollapsed boxes in mobile view there shows the long coded definitions like InChI of the substance. These in themselves deserve a better placement (if shown at all). -DePiep (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This may be a hack, but it gives mobile users more control: let's add a full level 2 Section (==) named "Data sheet". It can use serious space to list the data now in infobox (at full page width), and the mobile user can open/close it by the section collapser. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1. United States sources; 2. Noting that states may apply additional controls?
US sources are vacant. They should include Controlled Substances Act and perhaps this | Alphabetical list of controlled substances from the DEA website.

A second issue—which might be too petty or simply misplaced—is to note that individual states may have more stringent controls (benzodiazepines are a federal C-IV drug but New York schedules them C-II) or sometimes contradictory regulations (such as legalization of marijuana recreationally in Colorado and Washington, and medically in many states). — Box73 (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? If you look at a drug like Amphetamine the text links to the Controlled Substances Act article. I don't think we're going to deal with legal statuses at the subnational level in the infobox. We already have enough trouble deciding how to handle 200+ countries. Sizeofint (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Drugbox in Hindi
How does one go about changing the drugbox in Hindi? I am looking for input for one the Medical Translation Task Force's contributions. See comment at the talk page :hi: Measles vaccine.Lucas559 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an ordinary redlink (target article does not exist in the :hi:wiki).
 * The template hi:%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%81%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BE:Drugbox has a line:
 * | vaccine = वक्सीन विवरण
 * I think the target article hi:वैक्सीन does not exist. (Must be a vaccine-related topic. It is the vaccine header in effect).
 * In en:wiki this is article en:Vaccine (header is saying vaccine description). interwiki for en:vaccine is hi:टीका (वैक्सीन).
 * Am I right? -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks. Now it links to a Hindi description of vaccines in general.--Lucas559 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed some unused code from your template. Looks better this way. Without me reading hindi. (Beautiful script!). -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Add OpenPHACTS identifiers to the IDs section of the drugboxes
Open PHACTS &lt;ref>https://www.openphacts.org/ offers an integrated database with the data coming from a number of renowned sources such as ChEMBL, ChEBI, the RSC (Chemspider), WikiPathways etc. It links together all these identifiers for the compounds/targets/diseases, in this case, drugs. The Open PHACTS identifiers could be added to the drugboxes systematically which consequently would link the drugs to their Open PHACTS page, eg. http://ops.rsc.org/Compounds/Get/403534 for aspirin. The purpose of the Open PHACTS project is to provide free access to this data for academics, pharma companies, researchers etc. and would give Wikipedia users access to other related data for drugs, such as what targets they are active for. If this mapping is done once, it would be easy to extract such further data to add to Wikipedia as well. Luca.bartek1 (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Wikipedia is starting to get fairly consistent requests from all kinds of organizations and projects that want their identifiers listed here. Are you from this field? Can you engage a little more deeply and contribute to the conversation about how anyone should make a determination of what databases should and should not be linked? The space is limited and there are more candidates for linking than we have space. We need to develop a way to judge what should be included. Do you have ideas?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re It would be great if somehow Open PHACTS gives free & full access to all those databases (that are often shielded, eg by paywall). -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and if that is not possible, there is no addition by this intermediate. Even better: Wikipedia should be that intermediate: we are the Open one! -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding new countries
Hello, this topic already came up in discussions in other places, but this might be the proper one actually. I'd love to see bigger countries that have their controlled drug schedules listed on Wikipedia to be added. Especially Germany, see Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz. -- Aethyta (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Frietjes did not even communicate. . Silently claiming everything is OK. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was surprised by the speed at which this change took place. Sizeofint (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Topic is supposed to run sync with Chembox. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * /doc was not updated. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated it. Sizeofint (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bugfix done. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc for Template:Infobox drug/legal status not complete yet, DE options missing. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC) - Done.
 * Updated -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandboxing and preparing documentation in Chembox. Testing. -DePiep (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed unsourced options from _DE. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Deployed in Chembox. I want to thank the secretive editor for pushing all this extra work on someone else's plate. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz is about drugs as in recreational narcotics. Not including "medicine" as in the English sense. The Betäubungsmittelgesetz only has Anlage I, II and III. Now, should the DE option require medicine classes too? How would that be sourced? (eg, "drug X is Rx-only": common in UK, not present in the BtMG). I propose limit the DE options to the three Anlage's. What do you think? -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of previous related proposals
I collected these for context.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeking comment on a new kind of drug infoboxes, WikiProject Medicine talk page, June 2015 - This June proposal is the precursor to this present proposal. There are a range of objections there still unanswered here, but also this proposal responds to some criticism there. Also in that proposal there is the discussion of including price, which as of November 2015 has a Wikidata property which followed that discussion about drug prices - see d:Property:P2284
 * Perhaps this infobox should not be the primary medical condition infobox, Template:Infobox drug talk page, February 2015 - Infobox medical condition is asserted to contain catalog data but not human readable data. One interpretation of the outcome is that it is very difficult to maintain any good human readable content in this infobox, and it would be a massive and complicated project to try to do so. No change to status quo.
 * Making the template more useful for people, Template:Infobox drug talk page, August 2015, proposed moving catalog data from current drug infobox into a second infobox. One interpretation of the outcome is that there was not consensus to split the data currently contained in infoboxes. No change to status quo.
 * Poof it works – using wikidata to build Wikipedia articles about genes, October 2015, a team of data scientists connected information in Wikidata to infoboxes in English Wikipedia. This is the first major proof of concept of this. It would be nice to replicate this with something other than gene and protein data based on their precedent. See on-wiki documentation listed at d:User:ProteinBoxBot.

New proposal
Here is what I did and am doing -  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This proposal has already been implemented as six infobox insertions in six drug articles. Feel free to revert if you like. See below in "Content added. Comments?"
 * 2) Consider the six proposed infoboxes and content at User:Bluerasberry/Template:Infobox drug information 3
 * 3) Those infoboxes are added to the following articles as second infoboxes with human readable content:
 * 4) Lorcaserin
 * 5) Suvorexant
 * 6) Donepezil
 * 7) Galantamine
 * 8) Rivastigmine
 * 9) Zohydro ER, which is a subsection of Hydrocodone
 * 10) Use the infobox prototypes as talking points for developing infobox drug
 * 11) Begin to answer or consider the following questions:
 * 12) What information do readers want from drug infoboxes?
 * 13) How should infoboxes be presented technically - long?, collapsed?, split into multiple?
 * 14) Consider Wikidata - how can more information for infoboxes be stored in Wikidata from where it can be reused and more closely monitored?

QAF - questions to ask frequently
I anticipated questions, concerns, and non-Wikipedians wanting to learn more about Wikipedia's infoboxes for drugs.


 * 1) Why change anything?
 * This proposal seeks to include information for patients and consumers in infoboxes on drug articles. This demographic is probably the majority user of Wikipedia’s drug articles judging by Wikipedia's traffic to medical content. Right now, there is not information for this group in infobox drug, and it would be useful to consider if, when, and how that information should be served with infoboxes.
 * 1) Who is behind this?
 * I am,, and I work for Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports is a nonprofit organization which provides health information to consumers, and is considering using Wikipedia to distribute more drug information as part of its nonprofit educational mission.
 * 1) What information is being added?
 * Probably nothing controversial, but it is consumer information. This proposal suggests that fields be added to infoboxes to have the article briefly answer the following questions: What is this drug for? Who might consider taking it? When was the drug approved? What precautions should I take? What other choices are there?
 * 1) Why add this information?
 * Experts at Consumer Reports assert that drug consumers want this information to guide their perspectives and personal healthcare choices. Google in their Knowledge Graph likewise presents consumer information about medical conditions. Based on the precedent of consumer use of this information, and because the information is the sort that Wikipedia presents, it is worthwhile to consider presenting it in infoboxes.
 * 1) Why should anyone think about opposing this proposal?
 * Infobox drug might be the single most discussed template on English Wikipedia and it is well liked as it is. It does not change often or casually. It appears in many of the most read articles in Wikipedia. It appears in a lot of articles. It is also more likely than most infoboxes to get professional attention from very smart and well funded people in government, industry, and the nonprofit sector. Any changes to Infobox drug might influence media coverage of pharmaceuticals. Regarding consumer information specifically - it is often very difficult to know what information to share with consumers, whereas the catalog or numeric information shared in Infobox drug currently is much more objective.
 * 1) Why should anyone support this proposal?
 * The information is good in itself. Having a second infobox is not so invasive, and is comparable to adding more information to the existing infobox, but perhaps less invasive than that. The proposal is to add a second infobox to some drug articles which are popular but not too popular. This proposal is a pilot and feedback from this proposal will guide future development of the infobox. The infobox is going to need to be updated eventually because of Wikidata or access to new datasets.
 * 1) Instead of a second infobox, why not add more fields to the existing infobox?
 * The existing infobox is already very long and more information would be burdensome in its current state. On mobile devices the infobox is especially cumbersome, and mobile readers are about 50% of our audience. It is controversial and difficult to add new fields to the existing infobox. It would also be difficult to set up a fork of infobox drug just to add a few more fields for the drugs in this pilot. Having a second infobox in a few articles is the easiest technical way to add this kind of text to a few drug articles.
 * 1) What outcomes are desired as a result of this test?
 * Delivery of this information to readers; audience feedback; Wikipedia contributor feedback; increased discussion about the nature and purpose of infoboxes; increased conversation about storing datasets in Wikidata then porting them to Wikipedia in all languages; and increased comments and feedback from health publishing and educational organizations who are interested in open data trends.
 * 1) Who is managing the results of this pilot as a research project?
 * No one. This is Wikipedia. New things get tried and in a haphazard way people start expressing what they think of the result. This is sort of research and sort of Wikipedia-chaos-as-usual. I wrote this proposal, I care about the outcomes, and I am sort-of here, but I cannot commit strongly to report on this or follow it to any end which may come.
 * 1) If the information is added, then what?
 * After about 3-6 months the addition should be revisited, assuming that it stays. There would need to be discussion about the usefulness of expanding the idea, migrating content to Wikidata, integrating new fields into Infobox drug, and getting better consumer information for infoboxes from trusted databases. These are all very tough decisions and complicated processes. It probably is not worthwhile to think of next steps without support for expansion of Infobox Drug to include consumer information.
 * 1) Why do this now?
 * Several things have changed recently. One is that there is increasing confirmation that consumers use Wikipedia to inform their health care decisions, and because of this, it might be worthwhile to align Wikipedia's coverage to serve health care consumers as a demographic. Another change is the maturation of Wikidata as a tool for the use of presenting databases of information to Wikipedia's readers, and even translating those databases into other languages. Another development, which is difficult or impossible to verify, is the Wikimedia Foundation's investment in Wikidata and the integration of data into Wikimedia projects. As compared to a few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation's budget has suddenly doubled to include another USD 30 million annually. The reporting on how this money is used is not coming in a medium that is easy to digest, but I personally believe the rumors that say that incorporation of databases of information will be a focus of software development and financial investment. I think it is worthwhile for Wikipedia's medical content to be positioned to pilot projects showcasing Wikipedia's new features.

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Content added. Comments?
This proposal is already executed. See the infobox addition in these articles:
 * 1) Lorcaserin - archived version including infobox - diff
 * 2) Suvorexant - archived version including infobox - diff
 * 3) Donepezil - archived version including infobox - diff
 * 4) Galantamine - archived version including infobox - diff
 * 5) Rivastigmine - archived version including infobox - diff
 * 6) Zohydro ER - archived version including infobox - diff

I already added this content. Per WP:BRD anyone can revert this. If you do, please discuss here. Thoughts? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is my own commentary to come to understand these infoboxes - First - all of these drugs are unusual for having narrow medical uses. It would be much more difficult to make a consumer drug infobox for drugs with many uses.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lorcaserin, a weight loss drug - this is a complicated infobox because the drug has a lot of effects and an odd usage which is hard to summarize. This is an example of a lot of text being put into an infobox, almost to the point of making the infobox too bulky.
 * Suvorexant, an insomnia - nice example of what I am wanting for drug infoboxes. Assuming that the information here is comprehensive enough, this is a small easy-to-understand infobox that I feel is more attractive for its brevity than the text of the Wikipedia article. This would translate nicely into other languages and merge well into Wikidata
 * Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine, dementia drugs - from the perspective of a naive these drugs are nearly the same because they are used in a similar way and have similar effects. Ideally if their effects were put into Wikidata, then the same side effects could be coded with the same item in a uniform way. This means formatting one side effect would standardizing reporting for all of these and all other similar drugs. One of these is administered by patch and this consumer infobox did not capture that.
 * Zohydro ER, opioid - this is a formulation of hydrocodone, and right now, Wikipedia hardly even distinguishes formulations. There might be side effects of certain formulations which are not side effects of the base drug.


 * Hi Bluerasberry! Thanks for the initiative. However, my first impression is that these boxes are in conflict with WP:NOTADVICE. More specifically, we do not give medical advice, e.g. answering questions such as "Who should not take it?", "What precautions should I take?" etc. That's what package leaflets are for (and of course us pharmacists and physicians ☺), not an encyclopaedia. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Useful feedback. It is not my intent to add new kinds of information to any Wikipedia articles, but only to take content out of the body and put it into infoboxes. "Medical uses" to a layman seems a lot like "who should take it", and if desired "should take" and "should not take" could be replaced with "indications" and "contraindications". About safety alerts - the NEJM published "Drug Safety in the Digital Age" saying that Wikipedia should give safety alerts to mirror package leaflets and updates to package leaflets. Wikipedia got a lot of external press over that issue following that article, but still, I think criticism like that should not necessary guide what Wikipedia does and does not cover. Everything you raise is excellent criticism and good reason to reconsider doing this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that these boxes can be useful for readers; I was just raising the point that Wikipedia sees itself as an encyclopaedia and thus considers certain information, however useful, as not belonging here. Just prepare for some difficulties when arguing your point, but I'm optimistic that some kind of improvement to our drug articles will come of your proposal :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right that this is a type of information readers are likely to be looking for. I am not at all convinced that it's a type we should be providing. The style is 100% advice, from the leading-question headers ("What precautions should I take?" Seriously?) to the instructive bullet points ("take only before bedtime", etc.) Those questions wouldn't get answered on the ref desks, for example. Yes, it's simple, easy to understand, written in a way that even a very clueless reader will get the point - and that's exactly what we shouldn't be doing, because those people should be talking to professionals and not believing whatever they find on the internet. It's true that I tend to reflexively object to "patient information" styles of presentation whenever I find them in articles about chemical compounds that are used as drugs (often it seems that our articles are written about drugs that just happen as a side point to be made of chemical matter), but I am very much against this style, sorry. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First impression: I recognise the NOTADVICE point raised above. Added to this concern is that the headers read like "What precautions should I [sic] take?". However, maybe this can be solved textually. Because, such info is not only available in contact with professional medical. It is also on the package leaflets: explicitly (and often legally required to be) available for the medicine-user. Other things aside, if we'd publish the package leaflet we'd provide that same information on internet! I beg to claim that this is just as encyclopedic. At least for its interaction with humans (we also report fire-risks and other hazards). We may encounter border issues and grey areas, but no blanket dismissal from this point IMO. -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not a big fan. Have trimmed a few. The rest can be seen in the archive link: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This content should go within Wikidata or in the preexisting drugbox.
 * It is point form while we should be writing in prose.
 * The box appears in one section while the content is about many sections of the article
 * Not happy with the American brand names in it
 * it is written as how to advice
 * some of this content is already in the drugbox

Similar concerns. The encyclopedia is not supposed to act as a patient advice leaflet. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

it has pros and cons, it would expand the amount of information the reader obtains, however it may need to be presented in a non "how-to" manner...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-starter. Violates WP:NOMEDICAL. Furthermore, the added information is similar to a package insert, in other words, instruction manual and hence is contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO. Boghog (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so sure. NOMEDICAL states that we do not doctors advice. Butr we can write what a drug does, on which symptoms, etc. As for the leaflet: did you read one lately? It is not a instuciton manual at all. It is a description of various factual aspects, very often from scientific research. Our Drugbox today has pharmacokinetic data options that can be on the leaflet too. All this to say: the leaflet has encyclopedic parts too. The manual you have in mind is that printed sticker on the box right, that has my name on it. -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I need more time to reply. I have been away from my computer a bit and hope to reply within another week. Every concern that has been raised so far is serious enough to be addressed and a reason to not make changes. Thanks for sharing.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am still thinking. I posted what I think is the same idea to address the same concern at Infobox medical condition. Please see at Template talk:Infobox medical condition. I am reflecting on how these two cases are the same and how they differ. From my perspective, they are almost the same, but I have heard others say that they are different and I am wondering if that might be so.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance categories regrouping
I have created:

They only contain subcategories, not articles.

This is to create more overview for these topics, especially in and. Now it is organized by topic (such as CAS RN), not by maintaining template like ), not by issue ('missing', 'not assigned'). Probably more identifiers to follow. -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's add "E number"
Talk is at Chembox. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ in too: E_number. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a references for these? It looks like E number list all the entrys from the International Numbering System - not all are E numbers. Btw E is for Europe (not EU) Christian75 (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just a cross-check: articles mentioned on E number and having . Sources should be at E number, of course. If someone wants to edit the articles, they're welcome.-DePiep (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * re : "E is for Europe (not EU)": sharp point. If so, we'll have to change the infoboxes a bit. Nothig bleeding though. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But where doers this mistake happen? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Other changes (13 December 2015)

 * Tech note, don't get distracted ;-): I plan to remove those type-restictions. So any section with input will show, not testing for type-setting. Should have no visual effect, unless there is nonsense-input (eg when both vaccine_type and combo chemicals are entered). I'll put these error articles in a maintenance category for us to check. Good idea? DePiep 11:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Working on this. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ See below. -DePiep (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Only some 50 combo drugs are listed. Some have a single CAS RN, which is strange. Adjust Drugbox? -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Would it be helpful to have categories for type=mab, type=vaccine, type=combo articles? Visible for the reader, i.e. not hidden maintenance cats. -DePiep (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ See . They are hidden maintenance cats though, so not in public view. Could be useful for editors who work on vaccines etc. Also a nice check for type usage. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange: there are some 48 vaccine drugboxes, while there are over 350 pages in . -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Font color in chemical formula
When the chemical formula is entered by element, uses font colors per chemical element. Example: aspirin, parameters, shows.

I propose to drop this habit, and show the plain formula instead:. The reason is that while the element coloring is helpful in graphs, with ball-&-stick or spheric elements (see aspirin again), as a font color, it is not clarifying or helpful. Note that to give some effect, the symbols had to be bolded!

In, one can also enter chemical_formula with editor's choice. Out of 6300 pages, some 5900 use the colored formula.

As a separate issue (in the same topic), I propose to not link to the elements, as they are not defining for the fact. -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That carbon and hydrogen have the same color does make it kind of unhelpful. I suppose the base components of molecules are really polyatomic ions so linking the elements is somewhat misleading. Sizeofint (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Coloring the atoms isn't helpful in any way, in my opinion. What good does a rainbow of colors do in a chemical formula? I would strongly prefer a plain formula instead.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now sharing the subtemplate (formula buildup) with, so same input/output by definition. See also Chembox talk.
 * Now sharing the subtemplate (formula buildup) with, so same input/output by definition. See also Chembox talk.


 * Molecule charge: Will show after any number, not exactly above: O42+
 * Into full empirical form (IUPAC Red Book 2005, section 4.2)
 * Order of elements is full Hill notation: when any C present -> CH in front, then other symbols by abc. When no C present: all elements by abc. (bug fix) (Red Book)
 * Applied rule 'no space before a ref'. ie, no space between formula and ref note: O4[1] and also O42+[1]
 * rm link to each element. Symbols do have a html title.
 * Not changed:
 * - Molar mass calculation
 * - Showing input for chemical_formula plain input (ie will show unedited ie as a fixed text string)
 * -DePiep (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Drugbox changes (15 December 2015)
Preparing:
 * Use smaller fontsize for possible those very long strings: IUPAC name, SMILES, InChI, InChIKey. Also reduced line-height. Huge effect on mobile view, because then they are not collapsed (always visible).
 * Identifiers: remove limitation on synonyms and IUPAC_ligand: they will show always, not limited by type setting any more. Up to the article editor not to enter illogical input, as always
 * Track StdInChIKey_comment for future deprecation (one option too much).
 * Fix mainenance-cat bug in identifiers (too much false positives).
 * Reduce prominence of verification-footer with its ✅ (unbold & smaller symbols).

I think none are controversial. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By now, StdInChIKey_comment is removed completely and some more maintenance checks are performed (re images for example). -DePiep (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Contradicting parameter values
See the new

By type in, some parameters are not to be used together. For example, a combo does not have an IUPAC_name. The category lists articles that do have such contradicting parameters. Clear errors are to be cleaned of course.

But maybe we should look at the "contradiction" logic now in, so we could find improvements. For example: is it correct that a combo can not have pharmakinetic data? -DePiep (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed a bug (incorrect listings). Number to be less than 200 pages. -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Today there are 49 P in the category. Alls have combo, and the crime is that they have a single identifier only like one CAS RN. This looks like a maintenance task or infobox change need: to which composing chemical/drug does that CAS RN refer? (note: at the moment I'm working on a 2nd-identifier option, eg adding CAS_number2 to the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox drug changes, 29 January 2016

 * Add parameter chirality. See and template talk:Chembox
 * Check for wrong unit in molar mass. (should be g/mol not dalton or u). See #Change:_Molecular_mass_->_Molar_mass. CAtegorized.
 * Use of section Pharmacokinetics: not limited to mab, plain checical. Can be used for vaccines and combo drugs too. Main rule: do not enter nonsense.
 * imagename deprecate and remove.
 * Maintenace categories used & adjusted accordingly.
 * preparing. -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think its a little confusing that chirality is under "chemical data"; its not the chemical which is a racemate, but the formulation of the drug. Christian75 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Disputable positioning, I can understand. But Pharmaceutical? AFAIK it is a property of the chemical structure (we cold add Chirality to the general correctly). So, it is independent of the pharma effect. If one form has different pharma effect, that is interesting and should be noted. In article text I think. How in the infobox? -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not were to put it. Yes, chirality is a property of the structure, but a racemic mixture is a mixture of two different compounds (two mirror images). Christian75 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, specific_rotation was in the Physics section (quite logically, since it is about light), but I decided that it was better to keep those two together, and go by the chem structure base for the whole. (BTW Chris, this sort of parameter changes were my first concern: bad parameter name / keep the info. Now solved). -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Molar mass
It seems to be calculated automatically from the chemical formula if no value is entered manually (and also looks prettier, g·mol−1). Is there even a need for user-editable molar mass in this case? It only seems to cause potential for errors. Or am I missing something here? Aethyta (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * re by notes:
 * - Yes, when molecular_weight (ouch) is empty, it is calculated from input  empirical formula input (which is simpler than a structural formula, with brackets and n).
 * - That simple calculation is done by the Chem molar mass calculator.
 * - It uses CIAAW Atomic Weights. Do see the template for docuumentation: that is where the CIAAW numbers are explained best (I wrote it some months ago).
 * However: there are some drawbacks wrt that calculator:
 * - 1. Uncertainty is not used. That is the 1.234(5) bracketed value that CIAAW adds. When adding weights of tens or hundreds of atoms, this is an issue. (it is a mathematical puzzle to add uncertainties). So: until solved, and while CIAAW numbers are right, don't use the calculated number as a law.
 * - 2. Quite often, the calculated mass differs seriously from a published mass (eg by PubChem). Another issue to be solved. What atomic weight numbers does PubChem use?
 * - About "prettier, g·mol−1" yes it looks better, but only to our trained eyes! We are used to it. However, for The Reader seeing "g/mol" is way, way more easy & comfortable than the negative exponent. I think of making that the default.
 * - Also, best is to follow article style, and so add to the infobox the option: / or ·.
 * -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I usually use this tool for most infobox data - yet weight numbers slightly differ from the ones on PubChem usually. One might expect them to calculate it the same way, but apparently that's not the case. MarvinSketch gives a third different number, so that's no help either. Which one is the most accurate? Who knows. Aethyta (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I found CIAAW as the best sourced atomic weights (per atom then). From there, its a calculation proces only. PubChem etc does not publish their AW do they? Anyway, given the CIAAW number+(uncertainty), we could calculate the molar mass explicitly & openly (being maths only). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

calculation

 * Why not just use the standard deviation of the uncertainty of each atom as done at or ? Looks like the uncertainty for an individual molecule would be the square root of the sum of the squares of the uncertainty of each atom. Sizeofint (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's the way to go. Still expect differences with outside sources (like PubChem), b/c we don't know their atomic weights used, or maybe even their calculation differs. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Change: Molecular mass -> Molar mass
The parameter molecular mass should be changed to molar mass, because molecular mass doesn't have units and g/mol is unit for molar mass.Ssschhh (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Does this mean that the actual number of the value is the same? (Including possible uncertainty added?). And, some articles have Dalton added as a unit. Should these be edited? Inversely, is the unit always to be g/mol? (the tempalte could add that then). -DePiep (talk)
 * Yes, the value is the same. Articles which have Dalton as a unit should be edited (they're a few such articles, and easily can be changed with data from pubchem ). The unit may always be g/mol, because other units (such as kg/mol, g/mmol are rarely used, almost never).Ssschhh (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ step 1: label now Molar mass (lefthand text). Todo step 2: check units, edit unit Dalton. Via maint category. -DePiep (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ step 2: categorise bad units for editing. See under "U" (~180 P now). Ping  (glad this is getting cleared up by now. Confusing topic for me) . -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the process, I change  into plain unlinked g/mol. No need to link SI-units I'd say. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also encountered: kDa so kg/mol. left that (instead of changing the number by 1000). -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But you have converted a lot of KDa to g/mol, I reviewed some of you latest edits, see, . , and . Probably a lot more ... Please, review your minor edits Christian75 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Step 3: change parameter names like molecular weight (ouch) into molar_mass. Background only (no effect on reader), so no hurry. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Racemic mixture parameter
I've started this topic at Talk:Chembox. Please join in there. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added parameter chirality. Together with specific_rotation in section Chemistry (not Physics).
 * Related: imagename is deprecated and to be removed (too confusing). Quite often imagename can be changed to chiralitry (racemic notions). -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

IUPHAR ligand ID
I would like to change "IUPHAR ligand ID" (since this legacy database ceased in 2011) for IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY ligand ID for the drug box. How can I do this. I tried to edit this into the BIAL 10-2474 entry unsucessfully (the citation of my blogpose was appreciated BTW) Cdsouthan (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , moved your post here. Sizeofint (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * re . I think you meant to say BIA 10-2474 (not: BIAL), your edit.
 * We have parameter IUPHAR_ligand. It shows like:

What is the problem? -DePiep (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The IUPHAR database no longer exists. If IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY is too long we would prefer to be contracted to GtoPdb_ligand = in the template. Can you do this? Cdsouthan (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'no longer exists' is not true; it is renamed. Still has IUPHAR/PBS in title. In this demo, both lefthand and righthand text link (click) to the correct page. I see no need to change the data label 'IUPHAR/BPS'. We do not have to define it here, we should take care of clear & useful identification. And a generic title like 'Guide to ...' is not helpful to the reader, as it requires extra knowledge. Maybe in a few years the new name is leading, but only then. Then, changing the parameter name is not needed. It is internally only, not visible to the reader. For the editor it is clear enough. So, no need to change that either. The demo is fine. -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also see no need for this change. As already pointed out above, infobox drug displays IUPHAR/BPS, not IUPHAR_ligand. The choice of the GtoPdb acronym is really unfortunate because it is confusing. We already have another parameter called PDB_ligand.  When I think of the Pdb, I think of the Protein Data Bank which has been in existence a lot longer than the Guide to Pharmacology.  In another words, the PDB acronym is already taken. Also it is not precisely defined what is meant by Pdb (Pharmacology data bank or Pharmacology database?). Finally the change of parameter name would cause a lot of unnecessary work. Boghog (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Add Beers Criteria?
What do people think of adding information from the American Geriatrics Society's Beers Criteria to the "Clinical Data" section? Strikes me as analogous to Pregnancy Category. 2015 criteria are here. Zefryl (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What would the LH text (and wikilink) be, and what input for the parameter to be expected? - DePiep (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Drugbox title and INN
About the situation that the infobox title is not the INN name.

Situation to be solved: the Infobox title is set, but it is not the INN name. Example: Heroin, LSD. Basics: The title is either set by default (PAGENAME), or by drug_name. WP:PHARMOS states that the title must be the INN name. All fine, for example Aspirin and N,N-Dimethyltryptamine. However, with heroin the page title is chosen for different reasons (most common name), and now the INN-name is totally unconnected.

Solution: I have added parameter INN to, only to be used when infobox title and INN differ. It adds a second row to the title: "INN: ...". See /testcases8#Heroin and #Lysergide.


 * Entering none will supress the 'tooltip' notice. And, in any future, can be used more widely.
 * Mousehover title added. Will not show hen there is a separeate INN provided.

Things not solved:
 * Only implicitly do we state that the infobox title is INN. (Note that the new version has a tooltip (mousehover-text) that says: title=INN).
 * Users have asked parameter(s) to add BAN, USAN, AAN somehow. With this change, we still don't have that option.
 * There is no service for rINN and pINN.

Note: there is that lists all articles with drug_name set. They are potential candidates for using INN this way, but it appears most of those &lt;100 pages are adding "(INN)" to the title, which is wrong (because all titles are INN).
 * preparing. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Effective:
 * 'tooltip text' for title says that it is "INN"
 * INN subtitle added (see Heroin)
 * none suppresses tooltip text
 * All affected articles listed here. -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Parameters inn, usan, ban, jan, aan
In my humble opinion we ought to have the following parameters.

inn= usan= ban= jan= aan=

(INN, USAN, BAN, JAN, AAN)

Also, common_abbreviations=

(eg, sulfamethoxazole = SMX)

This would be an improvement, for several reasons. It would move this type of info out of the text, where its handling has been inconsistent/piecemeal, and it would facilitate machine readability, APIs, etc.

The existing parameter drug_name= and the article title typically use INNs where possible, which makes sense and would continue. But there is no good reason not to also have |inn= |usan= |ban= |jan= |aan=, in my opinion. I would be bold and create them myself, but my coding abilities are low. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually multiple countries have the same approved name so we'd be listing the same name (potentially with minor spelling changes) several times. This is valuable information but the infobox is already long. Perhaps this is something that should wait until we have a clear path forward following improvements to Infobox medical condition. Sizeofint (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As Sizeofint says. Maybe INN is a candidate parameter, in cases where INN differs from infobox title. (Prevent adding "(INN)" to the title). Abbreviations can be added to synonyms, I see no need to differentiate between names, abbreviations and code-like abbreviations. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd actually like to see an INN parameter added for that purpose, since IMO it's a bit odd when the infobox title and article title differ.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 01:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "infobox title is not the INN" is a different situation from "page title and infobox title differ". Sure we'd want to prevent having the infobox title repeated to note that it is INN. (The other way around could be ok: a synonym can have (INN) added). -DePiep (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But what about codons, for example in Serine? -DePiep (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be in Chembox if at all; not a drug if I understand this correct. -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * By now:
 * The infobox title must be INN per WP:MOSPHARM
 * One can use drug_name to overwrite the (default) PAGENAME).
 * When title can not be INN (eg, Heroin), addd .. to add the deviant name.
 * When teh drug has no INN at all, add none
 * All others (BAN, USAN, AAN, ...) should be mentioned in the text, if at all. (One reason for mentioning could be: differs from INN).
 * Conclusion: INN is in top, the other *AN's have no place in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox change proposals (27 December 2015)
I propose to make the next changes to Not: PubChemSubstance2= (SID). Need?
 * For each Identifier, add option to enter a second identifier, eg CAS_number2. Also, for ATC code (not an identifier). See list at right. Mentioned in June 2015, inconclusive then.


 * Background: today, some 40+ Drugbox articles have a second identifier added (that does not show; see this Category). Of course there are many more potential articles for this. That shows a need IMO, and the info appears to be relevant (two chemicals in one drug). All Drugbox articles that use such a 2nd parameter will be categorised (tracked for maintenance checks). I see no problematic overlap with combo drugs (in ): chemicals that come in two forms versus combining drug by design. If I mistake and an overlap does exist, we can try to reorganise the Infobox into that.
 * Using two identifiers, sub-identification is required. For this, two parameters are added:
 * index0, index2
 * When an index is present, each 1st and 2nd parameter will have this value prefixed. So the indexed id's "blank" (=0) and "2" each must correspond to the same substance. Example: see testcases5. (This is different from indexes Chembox, where such specifiers have to be added by CASNo2_Comment etc for each identifier). image2 is not treated the same, behaviour does not change.
 * index0_commment, index2_comment
 * To add, in top of the Identifiers section, an explication if the two Indexes (once for all indexes identifiers). See testcases5.
 * New
 * Note: the #2 parameters will not be added to CheMoBot for verification/tracking. I don't have the impression that the bot checking process is being used intensely to improve the data, these years. . -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Add caption2 for image2 as separate option. Existing behavior wrt caption does not change. That is: when 2 images present, show caption below the second image.
 * pronunciation 2: deprecate & remove. (unused today). By infobox setup, it is unclear to which name this parameter refers. We and the Reader can expect that pronunciation refers to the infobox title (drug name). But there is no "2nd" name as such. Any addition needed can be added to pronunciation as free text.
 * imagename: deprecate & delete. As used, very confusing (is it drug name or image caption? Some specifier?). I've changed occurrences into one of those. Remaining are: those that refer to racemic etc. See specialized discussion about this topic here.
 * Remove automatic image adding. Old logic: when no image was added, any existing  was shown automatically. This is undesired, because adding an image requires editorial judgement (quality check: is the image correct here?). BTW, today, none is shown this way. Drugboxes missing a (structure) image are listed in  (190 P now).
 * change 'pages' into 'articles' into (747 P drugbox today, incl combo, mab and vaccines). -DePiep (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * todo: let's not list those mab, vaccine, combos 'missing' a CAS RN. Would reduce number with ~500 P I guess. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * postponed -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Any comments? -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With exception to the last bullet, these all sound fine IMO. In the last bullet, I have no clue what you meant by "change 'pages' into 'articles' into ", so I can't really comment there.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 01:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Category name change. Old name:
 * into new name
 * -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Prepared (sandbox, testcases5). -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I am having trouble following what is being proposed here.
 * If I understand correctly, this proposal is to add fields to better document drugs which are a combination of substances. Like for example, supposing that a given drug is actually a formulation of two substances. I think you are saying the "combo" field was used to describe that previously, but now, you want to add a field for an additional CAS Registry Number. That makes sense, because each drug in the formulation could have its own identifier. Is that correct?
 * I think you are saying that if there are two CAS numbers, there also needs to be two index fields, but I am not following why. Can you explain that part again in a different way?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Good and major question. Difficult for me to answer (in my wikiedits, I typically do Chembox and Drugbox improvements -- not core medics or chemistry). I'll try! btw, this is live now, not a proposal any more. Some points:
 * I've updated the drugbox/doc#Second_identifier showing this "CAS_number2=" option.
 * combo remains unchanged in this, full stop. Combo's are combinations of other drugs-by-themselves as I understand it. (btw, see, 187 P).
 * It's not just clarifying those two chemicals, but first of all being able to add a second chemical! CAS_number2 is a new parameter.
 * Articles with 2 id's as intended here: see, eg Diminazen. Today the number is about 40. These exist because editors added a SMILES2= or so (I did not).
 * Adding indexes like index2 is optional, and can be used to clarify the difference between two chemicals.
 * Interestingly: a lot of these second id's for a drug are IUPHAR_ligand2, which was added i.c.w. a wikidata mass update months ago.
 * Extreme examples are in /testcases5 (still, none is combo).
 * More questions, after this 'motives overview'? -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, this is the current situation (see ):
 * In ~40 P, lots have two SMILES. I can not detect whether they are diff substances; could be same substance/diff SMILES.
 * Sometimes a 2nd id is given, but the 2nd id does not help or relate to the article (it is just a new uncommon chemical). Often with PubChem id's. In other words: the PubChem2= is a weird (related) substance.
 * Good: IUPHAR_ligand2 really adds info.
 * I suggest: in time, check & remove any 2nd identifier that is useless. After that, we could reduce this new thing altogether. (Maybe the useful IUPHAR_ligand2 could stay). -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still hardly understand but I am going to try to reply.
 * I need an example. There is Co-codamol, which is a combination of codeine and paracetamol. The infobox uses the "type=combo" field to show that it is these two drugs. At the bottom, the CAS field is blank. Are you saying that it is blank because without the changes you have made, there was no way to list the CAS for drugs with multiple components? Are you saying that you want to make a CAS2 field, so that the CAS for each component may be entered? In the past has it been typical to not have a way to include multiple CAS numbers for drugs with multiple components?
 * What is going on with Diminazen? There are these fields being used right now -


 * index0 =
 * index2 =aceturate
 * CAS_number = 536-71-0
 * CAS_number2 = 908-54-3
 * Does this mean that index0 matches with CAS_number, and index2 matches with CAS_number2? It is kind of strange that the numbering is not the same for the first field. Also - why are the CAS number links not currently working? I clicked on the number in the live infobox and it took me to a "nothing found" page.
 * About the SMILES - this seems like another identification field. Suppose a a drug has two components. How many fields should be duplicated? Not all of them, right, because that is too much duplication. Are you saying that SMILES was one of the fields which has been historically duplicated already, but that previously there was only one CAS?
 * I am talking this through - I hope you will be patient.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * re. General setup: A single chemical component drug CAN have two chemicals needed to describe it. If so, can show a second identifier for each identifier. That second one is indexed "2": e.g. CAS_number2. All #2-parameters should refer to the same (second) chemical. Additionally, indexes can be used to add prefixes to the identifiers: index2 for chemical #2. (All this is not for combination-drug; see combo documentation).
 * re. About Diminazen (type so single substance). Good example. I reused the parameters that were already in there by some other editor . Clearly there are two CAS's, I have put in CAS and CAS2 (shorthand notation). The same I did for UNII, assuming that UNII2 == CAS2. Then I used the one available specifier ('aceturate') to differentiate between the two: aceturate is the prefix shown for #2. This is a good example of intended use of the two identifiers (#0 and #2) and their index/prefix. (so, when some #2 is used, all #2's used are about the same chemical, and their optional prefix is index2).
 * Now it could be that the double input is wrong all along. In that case: one can correct/remove the error.


 * re. About Co-codamol (combo). As I tried to explain, the new #2 indexed input is not intended for the combination drugs. So CAS2 should not be added for component2. Just use class2 as before. For all components 1-4.


 * However. In the new situation (today) one can enter CAS and CAS2; both will show. As you say, that is undesired and so should not be done. Is what I'd call bad input. Some time ago, there was a coded check like: "when type=combo, do not show CAS". I have removed some of these, mainly to simplify the drugbox (-documentation). So today an input CAS does show in a combo-drugbox, which is likely to be nonsense. But that's for everything: bad input=bad showing. (If you think the checking code should return, pls say so).
 * re SMILES: yes, is treated as an id field. "suppose ... two components" - then do not use SMILES2; just combo (Same as with combo & CAS2). My example: Talipexole. "Are you saying that ... historically" - If I understand you right: yes, some editor had added SMILES2 time ago and now it shows. I did not even have to edit this one. (My problem is that I don't know if one substance can have two SMILES strings, or that the second string really defines a different substance; i.e., fit for a true SMILES2 with possibly some CAS2).
 * Re. Your tech notes: index0 better be index OK. CAS link leads to a "nothing found" page (on the CAS site): for me bad too. But that's the CAS link, not this indexing issue. I find the link almost never gives a hit (same for Chembox). CAS site changes over time? We should consider removing this link altogether, in some other thread.
 * Re in general, there are ~40 such drugboxes listed in tracking . All these had some index "2" input before (but they just did not show until I made this December addition). Today, consider their status "to be checked for correctness" (which I can not do). If all end up being wrong today & corrected into single-CAS etc, that is fine with me. That could also mean I can remove all those #2 indexes. IOW: I made the existing #2 input show for a cleanup sweep. The alternative was: remove all unused #2 parameter input right away, from ~40 drugboxes. Note: I have the impression that the IUPHAR_ligand2 additions were wikidata-based last June and are quite serious.
 * Re: background of indexes. I build indexing into Chembox some time ago. In indexes are useful, there can be variants within one article (indexes are CAS to CAS5; that's 6). A list is in . Some 8 id's are indexed there. There are differences.
 * -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I need to backup again. You say that Diminazen is a single substance. You say that it needs two chemicals to describe it and use two CAS numbers. One number seems to be for a chemical called "Diminazen", and the other seems to be for Aceturic acid. What does this mean? How is using two CAS numbers different from saying that the drug is combo?   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Long time ago some editor added CAS_number2 to Diminazen, plus the aceturic acid specifier (they were here already: ). I did not do that, I can not check it, I just noted that there are two CAS numbers in that drugbox. And I just made that second one appear (show). From this, I can not check, verify or remove that CAS number: out of my league, I can not research drug definitions.
 * Now if CAS2 represents a second drug, then do change it into combo with all consequences. If not-related, then remove it. If it is a related chemical indeed but not a drug: then leave it as it is.
 * This applies to all ~40 categorised drugs. If that category is empty after such scrutinization, we could remove the CAS2-option altogether. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Another example of multiple-chemical drug not a combination: CP 47,497. Cannot even be described in two chemicals. How to handle this one? (candidate for ?). -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Side question

 * Briefly - can you say again what is the difference between chembox and Infobox drug? These two contain much of the same information, right? How did it happen that "chembox" is not in every chemical and drug article, then "infobox drug" exist only in addition to chembox and to describe particular drug characteristics? If you are developing chembox, you must be seeing things duplicated, right? What do you think is the usefulness of having two boxes - infobox drug and chembox?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Drugbox has extra sections for medicine, Chembox OTOH for more chemical (physical, structural, ...) subsections. Their overlap parameters are mostly in the Identifiers, Legal, Chem and Phys properties, molecule structure, and images being chemical structures.
 * When a same data point (like CAS RN) is used in both templates, I have tried to format & link them alike. And the verifying CheMoBot tracks both the same way. Chembox does have parameters like ATC, pregnancy-category etc (used a few times), so I made them use the same lookup table too.
 * Useful to have two: yes, for the next years. alone has 500 parameters; and it is still a wikitable not an infobox. Merging with  (100+ params) would make it uselessly big (think of documentation required). Any merge reason would be overlap: I think it is fine when we keep that to overlapping data to be the same (merge those, in the background). So a merge should be done per data row only (using the same formats &tc).
 * My aim, when changing, is: 1. keep/make same data point show the same; 2. improve links & formats; 3. in the background, they can share resources (like same lookup-table for preg-cat codes "B1" etc.)
 * Major changes to be done: decide on CheMoBot continuation (who uses those symbols?); make a regular infobox not a wikitable; use wikidata; allow split-off of data to a datasheet template, way below on the page (reduce infobox size; remove those InChI coded strings out of sight); and improve documentation. That's all, cannot do all this in Februari though.
 * Need more? -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TL;DR: No need to merge: would give a 600-parameter template, very hard to document well for article editors. Shared data points (like CAS RN and chemical names) best be shared at that data level (per row); already happening. Non-overlaps (medical data, detailed chem/physical data) do not win anything by merging. Good experiences by responding to individual data-point issues on the two talkpages. -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with DePiep. While in theory, Infobox drug could be merged into chembox, both infoboxes have become enormously complicated and merging the two would create an unwieldy template that would be difficult to document, let alone use. More importantly, what  exactly would be the advantage of merging these two templates?  The merger would create a lot of unnecessary work with absolutely no benefit. Boghog (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with DePiep. While in theory, Infobox drug could be merged into chembox, both infoboxes have become enormously complicated and merging the two would create an unwieldy template that would be difficult to document, let alone use. More importantly, what  exactly would be the advantage of merging these two templates?  The merger would create a lot of unnecessary work with absolutely no benefit. Boghog (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Bold: law downwards in section Clinical

 * ✅ moved the "legal" block to the bottom of section Clinical. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bold: change link in header

 * ✅ Section header now linked: . Improve error message re parameter list. -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Identifiers and names
At the moment, the order of the identifiers appears chaotic. I propose a new recognisable order. Guides:
 * 1. CAS RN in top, the most common id
 * 2. ATC code is not an id but a class, so should be separated (eg to bottom, or extra header) better: into section Clinical.
 * 3. Synonyms belong under "Names"
 * 4. Add StdInChI and SMILES to the identifiers ( in Names!? ) -- No, better keep below in chemical data section.
 * 5. the rest: alphabetic
 * Added 14:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6. Rename sectionheader 'IUPAC name' into 'Names'
 * 7. Add to this Names section: synonyms, tradenames.
 * 8. Order of sections: see below, next talk section.

Proposal then (please use the sort button in the order-columns):
 * For the more complete table (current situation), see Drugbox/doc


 * . See for current proposal + demos. 23 Februari 2016.


 * -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps put synonyms first, second, or last. I think along with CAS number synonyms are frequently desired information. Sizeofint (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the new order in the table. I think the new order looks good. Sizeofint (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just click "order-proposed" sort button. That gives the abc-order proposed. -DePiep (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Put the table in proposed order. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Extended proposal: reoreder names too. See added rules 6 and 7, and section "Names" in the table (former IUPAC name section). ping -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The identifiers will still come after the clinical data? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * re please take another look. The order of sections before & after is the same: section Identifiers above section Chem data. OK? -DePiep (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea DePiep. Looks good. Doc James does make a good point. Where do we want to put the identifiers section? Currently it is after Pharmacokinetic data and before Chemical data. Perhaps we should make the identifiers the last section of the infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want the grand order of sections to be changed, please go ahead and in a new proposal write it down. (However, it does not affect this proposal). -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We can reorder the sections. I will add the question below -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there are no changes in the order of sections being proposed. This proposal is just to change the order of fields within/across the identifiers section. Or am I missing something? What is very confusing is that Clinical data is included in the mockup table. This field should be removed. Boghog (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * re this edit: I did not see this as a discussion point and have undone it some time ago as being a mistake. In such future situation, please describe your point & allow me to understand it. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already stated just above, including the clinical data section in the mock-up was confusing, especially in the order it was presented. Before my edit, the clincal data in the "order-proposed" was at the bottom (value = 500) after the identifiers section which is a non-starter. The clinical data section needs to be placed before the identifiers section, so I moved it up to the top.  Now I see that the clinical data section is in second place, not at the bottom as it was before. So you have not completely undone my edit ;-)  Increasing the number of fields in the chemical names section from one to three, while logical is also problematic since it pushes the clincial data section down.  This is precisely the reason why we did not do this before. Boghog (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I heavily object to your way of acting: making a point by editing instead of arguing is unacceptable. I had to spend a lot of time to understand your edit at all, having to re-construct your argument (the es just said: "no", remember). A loss of editorial energy. As you did see, I spend a lot of time to improve this proposal, processing written comments. I think that is the way to go. The fact that I did honour your edit is just because I spend that time, and I don't go with the "see, just trust me" logic. I appreciate each and every talk contribution from you, but this was wrongfooting me (I only discovered it glancing at this talkpage history). You could have noted: 'hey, you got the current order wrong' or so. You afterward-arguing here just now: I'd like to have read before, that is what I want to say. So I restate: written arguments welcome, and I can claim I handle them carefully. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * re : No. -DePiep (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. No sure if the SMILES and InChI should be moved up to occur after the systemtic name User:DePiep Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit more explanation: indeed, section order unchanged until now. Added is: sectionheader Classifiers for ATC code. Within Identifiers, it's just reordering. But ATC, synonyms, tradenames are moved into an other section. Sectionheader Clinical data is in there because today, tradenames is in there (as shown when you sort by old order).


 * re SMILES and InChI: are Identifiers, so they should be in that section (not in Names, right?). And then abc-ordered. Is done this way in Chembox. However, I left them out because they are non-human readable long strings and showing in full in mobile view, making the box ugly. Therefor below they are best, I thought. I had hoped you'd not notice ;-). In the longer term I want them out into the new Resources box (Authority control-like). I'll put them in the demo table. Pls say where you want them in the new style. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * re Order of sections: new subthread below. Doc James@Boghog -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ATC code: could it be in Clinical data? -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed proposal table into this. In : into Section Pharmacological data. -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * pronunciation: should be moved to top somehow (in Names) to keep clear which word it refers to (that is, the drug name=article name usually). Will add this to table. -DePiep (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Order of sections
So most sections only appear in a specific type, but always in the same order.
 * see also testcases6

As says, Identifiers could be repositioned. Way below? Right under Names (as in )? I'll make a demo table later on. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure happy with that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For the mockup demo: See below


 * Changed: Identifiers more below. Comments? -DePiep (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed: put section "Names" in top, right under the image(s). Type-specifiers (vaccine,mAb, combo) are below. The type-details are details and so should be secondary in this respect. So far, no drug articles will be affected because the (older) "IUPAC name" section was not shown when the type was specified. However, with synonyms and tradenames in the same section (proposed), it will show in more situations. -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While we're at it: rm limit type=mab, other requirement for pharmacokinetics? There is the general rule always: do not enter wrong or nonsense data .-DePiep (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: These days I am reorganising the demo's to make them useful overviews. After that, I will formulate a consolidated proposal. -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Consolidated proposal

 * I've brought the discussion so far, into this mockup. Some open questions below. -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The mockup shows current discussion status, so may change over time.
 * Latest version showing: 17:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC):


 * Changed/moved sections:
 * Names (expanded), Identifiers (to bottom).


 * Changed/moved parameters:
 * pronunciation, tradenames, synonyms, ATC code, InChI, SMILES,


 * Testpages show templates nicely side-by-side (old, new drugbox).
 * Demos: /testcases9 (asperin, amhphetamine)
 *  with all data rows present: /testcases6


 * In the proposal:
 * Section Names is expanded to have all sorts of names. Will show in virtually every box.
 * Includes pronunciation, near the box title it is about. Also moved into this section: tradenames, synonyms. Names are in subsections. See below under.


 * Section Clinical data:
 * Now having the ATC code.


 * Section Identifiers:
 * Moved to the bottom. Nicely keeps the long & coded (non-human readable) InChI and SMILES way down, while now in their correct section. Main sorting: by ABC.
 * -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Open questions:
 * Names section:
 * noted that this pushes the (important) Clinical data section downwards, which is undesired. But IMO, these Names really are drug names, and so should be in top. Clinical data are properties only. I subtly add that in the old situation, 'Clinical data' is opened by ... pronunciation and tradenames -- which has the same effect pushing the true data downwards. So the only diff is by 'synonyms'. Reduces the Boghog objection point I think. -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Legal status: create new section for the licence_US, legal_US sets? Under "Legal data" or "Miscellanea"? Is not clinical data. OK in section Clinical data.
 * Chemical, Physical data: merge into one section "Chemical and physical data"? Just to reduce number of sections. Together, their total max is nine data rows only (in the new situation). Done. Feb 2016.
 * Comments? ping: ,, . -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The changes look good! I don't have any objection to having the "Names" section above "Clinical data". The clinical data is second and isn't pushed down that far. I'm also not opposed to a "Legal data" section. I think merging the physical and chemical data sections is a good idea. It reflects what we do in the article text for physical and chemical properties. Sizeofint (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Uncertain I spent a few minutes looking at this and I am not sure how to begin thinking about this. I look at these proposals then step away, sometimes.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * re . I am sorry this could give you a headache :-( . I give you this to consider: the only changes as proposed, are the order and implicit grouping of things. That could be sections, or individual data rows. So, what you see in the collapsed box is what you (might) get. Given your experience, I'd like to read your impression, even by intuition. Also, I could make more examples if you could use that. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked at this a couple of times and I still do not know what to think. In the collapsed box above, I presume that left is old and right is new, but could you label them? Also, could you present a live example using the new box, and link also to the comparable old version?
 * Can you confirm - no data field is added or removed, and this proposal is just about reordering? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re . Yes, left=old (existing), right is proposal ('sandbox', now labeled in title). Yes, just about reordering no field removed or added. However, section titles might change (remove the 'IUPAC' header; merge Chemical & Physical data). About a regular drugbox demo (old and new side by side): sure, but. For that, I must make a drugbox/sandbox template with all proposals in there. That's a job. Now below the Names are discussed, and the current proposal to put all names in one top section (as the demo above today shows) seems not a good idea. The names better be scattered over subsections (eg, IUPAC name into Identifiers). So the mockup above will change one of these days. With that, it's worth making a nice Drugbox/sandbox to show the changes. Then I'll give you a ring when it is showtime, no need to puzzle with todays versions. -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the rearrangement of names. The names were ordered without discussion or documentation, and it would be worthwhile to reconsider the order. The discussion you are starting is useful and I expect that the change in order is also.
 * I understand why you do not have a mockup right now. Things are changing. Ping me when you do have one, whenever that might be.
 * It can be troublesome in wiki to have side-by-side mockups. If you like, do your mockup live in an article and compare to a previous version. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Roger. (Good experiences with s-by-s demo: Template:Infobox drug/testcases6. Both use the very same input, so good setup. As said, today Drugbox/sandbox is not yet showing any change). Will ping. -DePiep (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposal is in sandbox now! Feedback processed. Nice demo's now in the testpages, like /testcases6, /testcases9. Any pet-drug articles you want to see there too? New descriptions below. Clear enough? -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 *  (comment seppi333 moved to section; time-order) 

about Section moves 2
Recap per 23 Februari 2016, after feedback:
 * See testpages, like /testcases6, /testcases9, for side-by-side comparision of drugboxes old/new. Changes are marked or  etc.
 * Names are put or kept into their best section (eg tradename in Clinical data). See below.
 * Section header "Systematic IUPAC Name" removed; IUPAC name moved to section Identifiers (see below)
 * By result, for single-substance drugs (not mab, combo, vaccine), section Clinical data now is in top right below the images.
 * Sections Chemical data and Physical data are merged
 * Section Identifiers:
 * Has Systematic IUPAC name in top, and then Trivial_name (nw)
 * SMILES and InChI (long, coded data) is kept at bottom of infobox
 * All other Identifiers are ordered alphabetically (CAS number ... UNII)


 * Parameters changes: see below
 * -DePiep (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

about Names

 * I think IUPAC name should either be together with the image, or down in the chemical section. The IUPAC name is not the name of the drug, but the name of the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the formulation of the drug. The infobox has the problem that it both try to describe the drug, and the active ingredient (at the same time) and its not very clear when the entries are about the drug or active ingredient. Christian75 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Christian. The original intent was to keep the IUPAC name as close as possible to the chemical structure. Lumping together the IUPAC name with pronunciations, synonyms, and trade names is confusing. Either the IUPAC name should be the first name listed in the names section or it should be moved to the identifiers section. The later makes sense since (1) IUPAC names are unique and hence can be considered identifiers. (2) InChi is also an IUPAC invention hence placing these two identifiers next to each other is logical. (3) IUPAC names tend to be unwieldy and difficult to read even by chemists, and hence is of less importance both to average and chemically inclined readers.  Moving the long IUPAC names to the bottom of the infobox has the additional advantage of moving up the clinical data section. Also, as Christian points out, there are two classes of names, one for the drug substance (i.e., the active ingredient) and a second for the drug product (active ingredient + formulation).  The  IUPAC name, international nonproprietary name (INN), pronunciation of the INN, and nonproprietary synonyms all refer to the drug substance.  Trade names typically refer to a specific drug product. Boghog (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We all know the IUPAC name is not the name of the drug. No one ever claimed so. I don't understand why the difference between "formulation" (huh?) and active chemical substance would matter in this. For example, the image we show is the chem structure not the drug box sold, either. In short: if the drug and the chem substance differ, one should use a different solution. If not: does the job. -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The IUPAC name is one of several legitimate names for the active ingredient of the drug. So yes, I am claiming that the IUPAC name is one of several names for the drug substance. Distinguishing between drug substance and drug product does matter. The inactive ingredients that are added to a drug substance to produce a drug product (i.e., the pharmaceutical formulation) can have a marked influence on bioavailability, how rapidly the drug substance is absorbed, and even the recommended route of administration. The IUPAC name, INN name, and synonyms all refer to the drug substance.  Trade names typically refer to specific drug products which differ from each other by their formulation. What is confusing about the current proposal is that the drug products (trade names) are inserted in the middle of the names of the drug substance.  It would be less confusing if trade names were moved to the bottom of the names section or if the IUPAC name were moved to the identifiers section. Also it would be less confusing if the INN and its pronunciation where displayed on one line. Boghog (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to show that I am not making this up: Boghog (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Time to rebuild the names overview by now. We have the drug substance and drug product (this is about single-chemical drug only, not type=combination/mab/vaccine drugboxes. Single-chemical are about 90% of our 6000+ drugboxes see). IMO we must e be very careful to apply implicit connections. Until this moment I, a half-layman, did not see or get these two separate associations (chemical, product). For me, and for a random reader, this difference does not exist.
 * Note that our wiki article title and drugbox title may differ too from other names. That is drug_name or . (Adding two more to the list of names we are talking about!).
 * IUPAC name in Identifiers (indeed unwieldy, but still in top there for being a name). Now if we put IUPAC name with the Identifiers all right, there is the substance images still in top! Too isolated, with INN and Clinical data all around?
 * Tradenames: I understand these could be OK in section 'Clinical data' (in top, because its a name not a property).
 * INN: there is no rule in Drugbox documentation that the drugbox title is INN. So far, we have no good solution at all to note: 'this is the INN'.
 * Pronunciation must pertain to the infobox title, from reader's subconscious expectation. For this, the pronunciation could be right below the infobox title, let's think about it. If pron is added for some other word (e.g., a tradename), it must be added with & near that other text. However, it is rare and unadvised to have pronunciation added for a non-title word.
 * Q: What with synonyms? What are they supposed to be synonyms of, chemical or product?
 * Note: repositioning all names well-based, would remove the Names section completely. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Drug nomenclature gives a good overview of the types of drug names. Just to be clear, the scope of most drug articles includes both drug substance and drug products. The current name confusion originated by the desire to move brand names and pronunciations from lead to the infobox.  When this information was included in the lead, there was less confusion. The problem with adding this data to the infobox is that we have lost context. Concerning each of the individual name parameters:
 * drug_name Per WP:PHARMOS, it recommended that the article title and by extension the drug infobox title use the International Nonproprietary Name (INN).
 * pronounce is ambiguous and could refer to either the INN or a brandname. The pronunciation should be in parenthesis right after the respective name.  If there are several names, this gets really messy.  Perhaps we should get rid of pronounce altogether since it is not clear what it refers to and instead, include in the pronunciation in the tradename or drug_name as appropriate.  If anyone cares about metadata, these comma delimited lists with optional pronunciations in parenthesis could be parsed.
 * IUPAC_name As I already stated above, I would prefer that the IUPAC name stay where it is (right after the structure) or moved to the identifiers section.
 * tradename (aka brandname) The logic keeping the brandnames in the clinical section is that specific brands are what are prescribed in the clinic.
 * synonyms is somewhat ambiguous. They most probably refer to a trivial chemical name but also possibly to some other nonproprietary name. Perhaps  synonyms should be replaced with two new parameters, trivial_names and nonproprietary_synonyms to remove the ambiguity.
 * Boghog (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I feel about grouping all these names together, but my gut reaction tells me this is a bad idea simply due to the distinction between active/inactive components that Boghog has pointed out.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 00:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding drug_name, I think DePiep is referring to articles like Amphetamine or Heroin where the INN differs (in spelling or completely) from the article name. For pronunciation, perhaps we could change pronounce to pronounce_drug_name to make it less ambiguous. Sizeofint (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I plan to overhaul the block-of-names, spread them across the box as Boghog suggests. wrt pronunciation: not the parameter name is an issue, but where to show that (IPA) text. Should be near the infobox name (above images?). Or if we can't prevent confusion/unclarity: remove from box, back into lede. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. We should probably standardize the convention for drugbox titles.  Of the 4 significant/high-traffic drug articles that don't use their INNs in the article title – #74: diamorphine, #69: amfetamine, #18: lysergide, and #27: metamfetamine (#value based upon the December 2015 medical traffic rankings) – only 2 use the INN as the drugbox title.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Point in there. Shall we move this to a different, new talksection? Way too complicated and long already. -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That'd be a good idea IMO since this is a bit tangential to the initial naming issue that was discussed in this thread.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

about Names 2
I tried to apply the feedback. -DePiep (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See demos (sandbox next to drugbox), eg /testcases6 (most rows showing) and /testcases9 (asperin, amhphetamine)
 * Systematic IUPAC name: now in section Identifiers, in top.
 * Added trivial_name  below that: drug substance name.
 * Deprecated: synonyms : unclear for which these are. Title? Trade name? Chemical name? Formulation name?


 * Trade name: kept, in top of Clinical data.
 * Added tradename_pronunciation ; should be obvious, right below the trade name.
 * Added tradename_synonym, names as used clinically; i.e. drug product name.


 * Identifiers, order: 1. Names in top. 2. SMILES and InChI codes in bottom, 3. other names sorted alphabetically in between (CAS ... UNII).


 * Notes: For now, labels (lefthand text) are singular ('Trade name'). Later to refine. Is this grammatically OK always? New parameter names are singular consistently.
 * Deprecated parameters should be edited into correct usage:
 * pronunce : back to lede, regularly near bold name.
 * synonyms : use a new parameter to specify: for substance (chemical) or for tradename (formulation, clinical).
 * Comments, or need more clarification? -DePiep (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the current testcases (permalink as of 23:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)). Based upon the proposal/examples, my thoughts are as follows:
 * I think it's a good idea to merge chemical/physical data into a single "Chemical and physical data" heading since it saves space. Drug articles are supposed to cover "Physical and chemical properties" under a section with that heading anyway, so there's consistency with that as well.
 * Renaming "Synonyms" with "Chemical names" seems fine IMO; "Trade names" should be retained as a distinct field though.
 * I'd prefer to keep the pronunciation in the drugbox since the template output looks awful when placed in the lead sentence of an article - I imagine some people might not recognize what the outputted pronunciation is either unless the pron parameter is added to the template (i.e.,  with the "pron" parameter displays: ""; without the parameter it shows: ""). In the drugbox, the left-hand side clearly indicates the field as a pronunciation and the pronunciation is neatly placed alongside it within its own table row, so I think it has the advantage of being more recognizable and more organized when included in the drugbox.
 * In regard to the IUPAC name, it seems more organized to include it under identifiers; however, the original placement as the first heading has the advantage of providing an unambiguous/systematic identifier of the drug. E.g., IUPHAR's entry for a ligand lists the IUPAC name and then the INN under their own headings at the top of its compound summary, while it lists the rest of its identifiers separately under a heading for database identifiers.  I think it may be better to use the original placement with the IUPAC name at the top, but I don't feel particularly strongly either way.
 * I have no opinion about moving the ATC code since it seems applicable to both identifiers and clinical data.
 * I have no opinion about moving SMILES or InChI either since it seems appropriate under both the chem/phys data and identifiers headings.
 *  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Re . About the three names. In general, we have three sets of names: title/INN, drug product (trade name), drug substance (chemical name). Each can have their own pronunciation guide and synonyms. For immediate clarity, each set must be visually together (internally), but the three may freely be separated from each other. So drug product trade name pronunciation and synonyms must be near the trade name (if present at all). Same for drug substance synonyms and pronunciation: must be near IUPAC name. "Near" usually means "right below" or "right next to". But: title/INN may be distant from trade name-set and IUPAC name-set.
 * (That is why I've split synonyms: unclear to which set it belongs. Interestingly, Sepps IUPHAR demo has one header 'synonyms' only, which confuses in the same way). (To be solved later: when INN is not the title (eg heroin), this should be clarified). Recap: we have three sets, each is internally tied close and externally unconnected.
 * about pronunciation. I agree that the article looks much better when in the infobox. The problem is: how to link the pron key to the word it is describing? Today's example of bad: aspirin has pron in top of section Clinical data, but it does not describe the trade name, it describes a word somewhere else on the page. Better: if pron key is to be in the infobox, we must find a way to tie it visually to its word (title? INN? First bold word in the lede?). IMO, that would be right under that word always. We can not write an IPA pron as stand alone. (More at MOS/Lead#Pronunciation, MOS:PRON#Placement). This would mean: in the infobox, the pron is right below the title word. But boy, that looks ugly too. Recap: these are guidelines to keep in mind, but I can't find a nice & correct solution. Any other infobox placement suggestions?


 * about IUPAC name. You write: "providing an unambiguous/systematic identifier of the drug [in top]". Sure that is true, but so are the INN-title and the trade name! We have three such identifiers. But there is no need to put all these names in top, making it crowded and maybe even separating them from their synonyms? This is the improvement in the proposal: Clinical data is the top section, with the trade name = drug product opening it. Great, because that is where the drug is doing its working (first stop for most readers). The drug substance (chemical names) are way below, together, in section "Identifiers" ideal too. (A thinking excercise. There is one more step of 'keep drug substance visually together' completely, and that is to move the images to below, near sections Chemical data and Identifiers. But keping images in top has good reasons). Recap: IUPAC name must be presented visually & textually as drug substance name first and foremost. Together with its synonyms. No need to present it as name for the whole, possibly confusingly mixing it with drug product names and INN. -DePiep (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite serious: I think the IUPAC name should be in top of section "Chemical data" (with its trivial names). Because: "Identifiers" is not really Infobox stuff. They are external links, and therefor should be in article section "External links". Likely in a navbox-like template. Think about it! See Gout for the idea. -DePiep (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Based upon the demo:
 * The "drug substance name set" looks fine.
 * I really don't think it's useful to have or worth including a pronunciation for pharmaceuticals in the "drug product name set". Pronunciations are more relevant to dictionary entries, so pronunciations are more relevant to a wiktionary entry than a wikipedia article.  The pronunciation for an article title is simply included by convention. I don't think it's necessary to have the synonyms parameter in that group either; the only thing it would intuitively refer to are the nonproprietary names of the pharmaceuticals, e.g., a modified INN.
 * For the title/INN set, would this proposed reordering add the pronunciation on a 3rd line in the title of articles like LSD/heroin/amphetamine? I think it's fairly unambiguous that a pronunciation refers to the infobox title (in most articles), based upon its current placement as the first parameter listed under clinical data. In the rare cases where this might be ambiguous, like heroin's current drugbox, an editor could address this simply by adding the term which the pronunciation refers to immediately before the pronunciation. E.g., I'd probably populate that parameter with something along the lines of
 *  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 21:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (hope its the right thread - otherwise, feel free to move it) - I think the identifiers are messy - its not very clear which ones are for the API and which ons are for the drug. Why not move all API related identifiers to the new "chemical and physical" section? If possible, the image should be in that section too, and an image of the tablet could be at the top. Christian75 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes you are in the wrong thread. Don't ask others to solve it, move you yourself. You are abusing other-editors time by being this careless. You did not even reads this thread's topic, did you? -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But your titles of your proposals are a little messy too. The title of this section is "Order of identifiers and names" Christian75 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. I was the right place. I oppose the reordering proposed. The IUPAC name should be togehter with the API image, wherever its placed. Christian75 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear co-editors. Christian75 is a fucking troll. For example, see how he derails this serious subtopic by going personal (even on my talkpage!). Not worth replying. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox drug changes 22 Februari 2016: Licence data
With regard to the licence (regulation) data block, I am preparing:
 * change DailyMed link to use https (per Jan 31 2016 ); also rm space in shown name.
 * add licence country-ish by abbreviation (EU, US)
 * change link format from link into regular external link: per WP:EL (esp #How to link, last paragraph).
 * Kept behavior: when DailyMedID is used, no licence_US (FDA) link is shown.
 * See /testcases3#Licence testcases
 * preparing. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it looks better to use the word "link" than the bracketed number in an infobox EL.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * pls see WP:EL#How_to_link, last paragraph "If there are no meaningful words ...". I add that for an average reader it should be clear that the link is off-site (you are leaving wikipedia). -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ... but we can use the keyword provided of course: shows text now. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can someone confirm the spelling: licence = noun, to license = verb (or is there a British-en vs. US-en difference?). -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's British/American English respectively (license - usage notes). The replacement of the "link" term with the drug name was a good idea.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I will add option engvar to alter the template (label text) between en-BR/en-US articles (did so in phosphorus infobox). WP:ENGVAR. btw, sure it was a good idea. It was yours ;-). -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to have helped.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * recap WP:ENGVAR, wikt:license, wikt:licence
 * Noun
 * en-UK, en-CA, en-AU, en-NZ: Licence
 * en-US: License
 * Verb
 * To license (everywhere)
 * (en-UK, en-CA, en-AU, en-NZ: To license)
 * (en-US: To license)
 * This means that today the template is en-UK. I'll propose a change, adding engvar for text showing:
 * en-UK --> Licence data, to license (+ the other listed en-XX variants)
 * en-US --> License data, to license
 * Question: should the default be set to en-UK (today) or en-US (change)? -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is more common? I'd imagine en-UK because en-UK is more prevalent in India. Sizeofint (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's, not most common by reader count, but by instances. We have ~6000 Drugbox articles. What's the most common article language over those 6000 articles? Setting (keeping) the default text to en-UK "Licence" would require maybe 5500 articles to add en-US. (The opposite: en-US "License" as default text, edit ~500 articles by adding en-UK). -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Demo in /testcases2, showing new US-default & en-UK options. -DePiep (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, then en-US sounds more reasonable. Sizeofint (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Default spelling: "License" (US). en-UK &rarr; "Licence".
 * Added parameter license_US next to strange licence_US name (same behavior). -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

On the legal links

 * Slightly offtopic, but while you're at it could you also please change legal_DE to link to Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz (and II and III) instead of just the main article? Aethyta (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but only after you provide the extra texts for DE that illustrates like "Anlage I (Illegal)", three of them. here (DE). Deal? -DePiep (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Controlled, Prohibited, Prescription only. However the last one is a bit iffy, as drugs such as modafinil are also ℞-only, but not listed as controlled drugs. Aethyta (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I better not add "iffy" for III, agree? It's a one-for all, I'll do it. But hey, target link Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz is just the list itself. No extra information. Does not say 'Controlled". More like a category: "This drug is on list X" -- click -- yes, it is on the list. But no info on what that list actually is. -DePiep (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Is it really required though? Australia has it this way; however CA, US, UK, NZ, UN etc. don't? Do you want to something similar for them all? And I pretty much used Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act as template for Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz. I'm going to add a small description on there for each Anlage. Aethyta (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really would like to have each code having a clarification. (the overview list is here). 99+% of our Readers don't know "Schedule I", "Class A", etc. So when you came along here, I thought I'd ask for your specialty DE. I am actively waiting for an NZ'er. Don't you think it is an improvement? -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

CAS number formatting
The CAS Registry Number formatting is up for discussion here at. You might want to take a look. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ : added external link icon for all links. Added css-title. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Add field "Is WADA listed"?


For example Meldonium (which should have Drugbox not Chembox btw). Recently, athlete did not know it is the same as mildronate, and neither did her doctor. For 10 years.

Should we add a data field like yes? . Of course this example won't need it any more, but maybe other doctors and managers and athletes are actually reading such notifications. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure. "Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times." covers 95% of all drugs. Aethyta (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a white-list would be more appropriate if we want to add something like this. E.g. WADA_permitted. Of course a lot of drugs WADA permits are only allowed with a prescription. Sizeofint (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, let's drop this. (the WADA List does not even have an article or section. World Anti-Doping Agency). -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)