Template talk:Infobox drug

Active discussions

Infobox drug: Changes log
  • 2016-12-08: add ECHA InfoCard from Wikidata P2566 (// with Chembox)
  • 2017-02-14: add licence_CA, improve showing+link of DailyMedID. licence_US link broken at FDA site.
  • 2017-02-16: PubChem (CID) add option 'none'. Shows & categorised (also: CASnr, Chemspider, ATCcode), simplyfy ATC/vet, fix ATC issues, always show PubChem SID, added licenSe_EU, licenSe_CA, general code cleanup
  • 2017-02-16, indexes (2nd identifiers): use unbulleted list not <br />, use /formatX subtemplates, use standard formatting, rename some index params (hard removal)
  • 2017-02-16, tracking categories: track 2nd identifiers & indexes to help maintenance checking (incl. Wikidata), rename and deprecate some, redo the track subtemplate, add default tracking option (when no need for new category)
  • 2017-05-10: add physiological data set (endogenous drugs); parameter metabolites possible in two sections.
  • 2017-05-19: reorder to position of pronunciation in rare situation; metabolism maybe repeated in contexts; add option component #5.
  • 2017-07-20: add new parameter legal_BR, legal_BR_comment with options (Brazil)
  • 2017-08-18: add INN_EMA to allow EMA-licence showing for differently written INN.
  • 2017-08-25: add local INN variants AAN, BAN, JAN, USAN as synonyms; move synonyms into clinical data section.
  • 2017-10-15: add cat 'Drug has EMA link', rm cat 'Drug has EU (EMA) licence'. See EMA talks.
  • 2017-10-21: licence_EU and EMA: improve external link (see also subtemplate)
  • 2018-03-08: adjust TemplatePar error message
  • 2018-03-31: add tracking physiologica data
  • 2018-03-31: add section gene therapy; with 4 parameters; tracking
  • 2018-03-31: add parameter gt_target_gene
  • 2018-04-14: adjust labels in gene therapy (gt_*)
  • 2018-04-18: add links 'edit at WD' to E-number and ECHA chart ID
  • 2018-08-20: vaccine_type: allow free text
  • 2019-04-22: add DTXSID, DTXSID2 for CompTox database el (uses P3117)
  • 2020-07-05: Category:Infobox-drug molecular-weight unexpected-character: +main other

Proposal: Add a regular line for International Non-proprietary NamesEdit

Suppose I want to know more about Viagra, I search with the term viagra because that's the WP:COMMONNAME. I find that the title page is Sildenafil and it's the first name suggested in the first sentence, if I wish to find information about the origin of Sildenafil, the infobox shows that it is the name used by the FDA, and that it appears in the chemical nomenclature of its metabolite, but nothing else, I suspect the name comes from the FDA, but I cannot be sure. I assumes that Sildenafil is "the official name", but I might be skeptic about the notion of a single offical name.

I tried to add a line " INN = Sildenafil" but that just causes a tooltip to appear beneath the title of the infobox, since they are both the same, it looks weird.

I understand that by default, the policy is to name the article according to the INN, but this is not transparent to most users, who cannot navigate through wikipedia's policy to finally understand that the name comes from this thing called the INN.

If I could just add a field "INN= Sildenafil" to the infobox, it would make the naming convention explicit, and it would allow regular users to explore the concept of INN. It would also allow editors to add sources regarding INN nomenclature.

Thank you for your time.--TZubiri (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Sure our guideline is: "article title = INN", but that does not show what the INN is. Will reply more later on. (exceptions: see Category:Infobox drug articles with non-default infobox title (440)). -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(keep live, do not archive). -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
(keep live, do not archive). -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Pregnancy_US parameterEdit

We should remove the |pregnancy_US= parameter since the FDA doesn't use letter categories any longer. They were replaced by the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Final Rule (PLLR). Here is an excerpt from Drugs.com:

Prescription drugs submitted for FDA approval after June 30, 2015 will use the new format immediately, while labeling for prescription drugs approved on or after June 30, 2001 will be phased in gradually. Medications approved prior to June 29, 2001 are not subject to the PLLR rule; however, the pregnancy letter category must be removed by June 29, 2018. For generic drugs, if the labeling of a reference listed drug is updated as a result of the final rule, the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) labeling must also be revised. Labeling for over-the-counter (OTC) medicines will not change, as OTC drug products are not affected by the new FDA pregnancy labeling.

By the way, when 'N' is used for |pregnancy_US=, the text "US: N (Not classified yet)" appears in the infobox. The "yet" should be removed. It is confusing to readers and some editors try to find the category to use to replace the 'N'. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Replaced by a 'narrative' I understand, and so not fit for the infobox. Will work on this removal. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
{{Infobox drug}} also has |PLLR=, free text input (label link). Was added 2015, see also this talk.
See the monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug.
|Pregnancy_US= 1315 articles (mainspace)
|PLLR= 0 articles (mainspace)
@Whywhenwhohow: Remove both? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: Some articles use |pregnancy_category= instead of |pregnancy_US=. I think it makes sense to remove |pregnancy_US=, |pregnancy_US_comment=, |pregnancy_category=, and |PLLR=. Australia still assigns category letters to medicines. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
We'll remove |pregnancy_US=, |pregnancy_US_comment=, |PLLR=. Their input will not be shown at all. The comment usually refers to the Code too. (Will not remove them from the infobox in articles). -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
That is: |pregnancy_US_comment= is used as a reference input (added unspaced). Todo: {{Chembox}} too. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020Edit

Please replace all code with all sandbox code, in these two templates:

Changes, talk and test: See § Pregnancy US parameter; US pregnancy category code abolished, so no showing. /testcases3. DePiep (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To DePiep and Whywhenwhohow:   done, Happy New Year and thank you both very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Paine Ellsworth, and best wishes to you, all year long! Nice to ping WWWH btw, and Have Nice Edits In 2021 :-) -DePiep (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


FYI, DrugBank changed domains from drugbank.ca to drugbank.com. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. Official website seems to be:
go.drugbank.com (https)
Formatter for DrugBank ID (P715) says:
https://www.drugbank.ca/r/DB$1 Jun 2020, "/r/" for resolve
What to use in code?
See also: {{DrugBank}}, WD: DrugBank (Q1122544), DrugBank ID (P715)
WD not used, here for reference:
Plus, we could think of adding the WD link automatically (with overrule by local enwiki input).
-DePiep (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The official website is now https://www.drugbank.com/ and any drug detail pages using the hostname www.drugbank.ca are redirected to use the hostname go.drugbank.com. For example, Asprin was at https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00945 and is now at https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00945. The only changes to the URL appear to be changing www.drugbank.ca to go.drugbank.com.

Do we support using |Drugbank= for uses other than drugs? For example, here is a sample target and a sample indication.


The use of "r" for resolve appears to be old. For example, using https://www.drugbank.ca/r/DB00945 for Asprin is the same as using https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00945 and is now at https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00945.

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is |Drugbank= used in the {{Chembox}}? If so, it would need to be updated too. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Another use is for salts but using drugs in the URL redirects to the salts. Using any of these


redirects to here


--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, /drugs/ seems to do the job. Will work on this. Chembox to be checked. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 January 2021Edit

Please replace all code {{Infobox drug}} ← {{Infobox drug/sandbox}} (diff).

Change: re-insert three parameters into the whitelist, to prevent excessive error categorising. No effect in mainspace rendering.
Background: This edit correctly removed three parameters (do not show any more). Also, the parameters were removed from the "Know parameters" whitelist. Unfortunately, this reports almost all {{Infobox drug}} articles, ~5500, into the Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Infobox drug (36) making it useless ;-(
Consensus: administrative (maintenance) change only, no effect in Mainspace. DePiep (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done Izno (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Date(s) of patent/patent expiration/generic potential availabilityEdit

<revived discussion;

https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/p/graph/index.php?graphname=patentbytradename&step=byyear&tradename=MAVENCLAD, etc>

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

Yes good idea.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
In principle this is a good idea, however deciding which drug patent to include may be non-trivial. The original composition of matter patent (if there is one) is probably most relevant, but there also may be relevant "use", formulation, and/or process patents as well. In addition, patents are country specific and have different issue and expiration dates. One way around this is to instead list the international patent application (WIPO). Because of these complexities, I think it is more practical to add patent information to the history section of drug articles, including of course citations to relevant patents ideally formatted with {{Cite patent}} template that includes fields for filing date, granted date, etc. The WP:PHARMMOS does not currently mention patents. Perhaps patents should be mentioned (e.g., in the history section). Boghog (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Good points. Mention in the history section or society and culture section may be best. Than greater details can be given with respect to different areas of the world. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I see additional problems. For example, there were two ranitidine patents filed worldwide several years apart (so-called "original" and "polymorph"). I knew a patent agent who resigned from GSK when instructed to enforce the second one, which was widely thought, and which some courts held, to be invalid for lack of novelty. Also, continuing patent applications under US law add another layer of complexity. Further, there is no guaranteed date for patent expiry; the term is shortened if you stop paying the renewal fees or if the patent is invalidated or revoked (not the same thing), or extended if you get an SPC. Narky Blert (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

I am not aware of any website that list drug patent dates. Futhermore, I am not sure how to get these other than digging through the patent literature. Finally, why would a doctor be interested in the patent filing, issue, and/or expiration dates of a drug patent? What I think you may be getting at is whether generic forms of the drug are available or if not, when they may become available. An expired patent of course is a prerequisite, but even if a patent is expired, it may take time for generics versions to reach the market place. In addition, these dates will differ from country to country. Given this data is difficult to find and is country specific, I don't think it is practical to add it to the drugbox. Boghog (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
When generic become available is very important especially for our colleagues in the developing world as this affects the price. am unable to find this information. If someone knows of a place would be happy to look at it. Most drugs become generic at the same time around the world with international patents. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
While the following estimates are for the US, they may also give a rough indication of when generics might become available in other countries:
  • "Estimated Dates of Possible First Time Generic/ Rx-to-OTC Market Entry" (pdf). Medco Health Solutions, Inc. 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-30. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link) Boghog (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks great. Wondering if we should add a line to the infobox for this info or just add it to the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What's going on with this? I search the page and there isn't even a mention of 'generic' or 'patent' to add this info manually. Let's do something that's better than nothing.

Add field year1stPatentEnds to the template. Feel free to be more ambitious, but I'm just requesting a simple static field that accepts a number. (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hard to judge this idea (bad layout and it includes 2011 talks). In general, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, describing drug. Not a medical self-help-page. HTH. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. From an inclusion standpoint, sure, patent status seems as encyclopedic as other legal status, i.e. whether controlled in various countries. Invention/discovery date seems important enough to feel like an omission to me. But it seems there are practical (evergreening) and possibly npov (worldwide point of view) considerations that need to be fleshed out in more detail. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:MED: Infobox drug - redesign talkEdit

See this discussion about redisigning {{Infobox drug}} at WT:MED: § A slimmer, more reader-friendly drugbox?. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A follow-up, there's a discussion here regarding which external links we should move to a new {{Drug links}} template in the External links section. Please chime in there. Ajpolino (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Add ABN fieldEdit

Consider adding the other name fields too.

Australian Approved Name (AAN)
Australian Biological Name (ABN)
Australian Cell and Tissue Name (ACN)
A botanical name for a herb (AHN)
A herbal substance Name (AHS)

For example, the ABN for the newly approved COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is ChAdOx1-S. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  • About AAN: already in, with other 'INN variants' (see /doc). Should not repeat INN.
  • About ABN, ACN, AHN, AHS:
I question whether these (regional or synonyms) lists should be included. They are not defining. First idea: in See also section (using an #anchor!).
So far, we have not even added the 'WIDA doping list' parameter, which is international and has high implications.
What do others think? -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Whywhenwhohow: I'm not sure I'm understanding. Could you give an example of a page where you think the ABN (or one of the other non-AAN names) should be in the infobox as its own separate field. The example you give of the AstraZeneca vaccine already lists the ABN in the |synonyms= field. In my mind that would typically be a better place to list national/regional names than having a separate field for each? That would give page editors a bit more flexibility to pick the relevant synonyms for each? But maybe an example or two would help make things clearer for me.
Also a note that at least for the AZ vaccine, the Wikidata item doesn't have the ABN. Perhaps we could fix that at least (sadly, my Wikidata know-how is pretty much zero). Ajpolino (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
It may useful to explore why we have entries for AAN, BAN, JAN, and USAN. The |synonyms= field may be used for those too. An ABN is just like an AAN and is assigned instead of an AAN for a specific class of therapeutic goods. COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has an ABN instead of an AAN. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah ok, I see. Then yes I agree that maybe it'd be best for all to go in the |synonyms= field, and then to update the documentation accordingly. Perhaps the documentation page could link to the gov't databases of names so an editor could quickly check the names from each when they're setting up an article on a new drug? I assume the AAN, BAN, JAN, etc. are sometimes the same? Ajpolino (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
These are added to the "Other names" list. See See the monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox drug..
As for using Wikidata: we can make "Read from Wikidata, and allow local (=enwiki) overwrtite" (I advise). -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine targetEdit

The documentation examples state that the vaccine target is the antigen/bacteria/toxin/virus to protect against in the comments but the infobox labels the field as Target disease. The label in the infobox is incorrect since the vaccine targets the cause of the disease, not the disease itself. Please remove disease from the infobox label. Thank you. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Changed the documentation. I did not find the text "Target disease" in a vaccine IB (eg Alemtuzumab). -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Alemtuzumab is not a vaccine. Here are some mixed examples

Target disease influenza virus

Target disease Cholera

Target disease Corynebacterium diphtheriae

Target disease Haemophilus influenzae type b

Target disease Neisseria meningitidis

Target disease Whooping cough

Target disease Ebola virus

Target disease Hepatitis A

Target disease Hepatitis B virus

Target disease Human papillomavirus (HPV)

Target disease Measles virus

Target disease Poliomyelitis

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 March 2021Edit

Change: fix label5 text, per request #Vaccine target. DePiep (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 March 2021Edit

Please replace all code {{Infobox drug}} with sandbox code (diff)

Change: updated and more consistent vaccine types. Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request stands (after low-key discussion below). -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ftrebien. Looks like a sound improvement. I have made a testcase for all new output options here. Please take a look. (I am not familiar with the topic). Some questions, none is fatal:
  1. Should we change the label from Type into Vaccin type for clarity? The word 'type' is used in more meanings, wrt drugs. Now looks like having an implicit or jargon meaning.
  2. No wikilink available for "Live bacteria" then?
  3. Current usage of |vaccin_type= is here. (Look for "vaccin_type" in the lefthand column). You think coverage is OK? For example, I see |vaccin_type=mRNA for 3 Covid vaccins; make into an entry?
-DePiep (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  1. It makes sense to me.
  2. With the exception of "live virus" (which is a somewhat obscure type of vaccine where the pathogen is neither inactivated nor attenuated, it is fully infectious), "live" usually means "attenuated", which some sources call "live-attenuated" in contrast to the "inactivated" type. As far as I understand, inactivated and attenuated apply well to any kind of organism, while "killed" and "live" do not apply well to viruses, which are not alive.
  3. We can certainly add an entry for mRNA. But I wouldn't try to be exhaustive because Wikipedia does not yet have articles for several common types vaccines, only for the components or technologies used by those types. But I can try to propose some sort of taxonomy. I am not an expert, I started reading about this subject while helping to maintain the article on COVID-19 vaccines. Here is a summary of my findings after going through various sources. In quotes are common ways of referring to each type.
Summary of findings by Fernando Trebien
Whole-pathogen, natural or modified
  • Inactivated ("killed")
  • Attenuated ("live-attenuated", "live")
  • "Live" virus (fully infectious, not attenuated)
Subunit (parts of the pathogen injected into the receptor)
  • Protein subunit ("protein", "protein-based subunit")
    • Recombinant protein subunit ("recombinant", "recombinant protein")
  • Peptide subunit ("peptide", "peptide-based subunit")
    • Recombinant peptide subunit ("recombinant peptide")
  • Polysaccharide
  • Toxoid
  • Conjugate
  • VLP (virus-like particles)
Nucleic acid (parts of the pathogen produced within the receptor)
  • Viral vector
    • Recombinant viral vector ("recombinant vector")
  • DNA (plasmid)
  • RNA
    • mRNA (modRNA)
    • saRNA
Heterologous (combination of vaccines)
"Recombinant" means that some organism involved has chimeric DNA (a combination of the DNA of other organisms):
  • For viral vector vaccines, the viral vector is chimeric
  • For subunit vaccines, the organism producing the subunits in the lab is chimeric
So, a protein subunit can be made from the pathogen itself or from another unmodified organism, but a recombinant protein subunit can only be made by an organism modified with another organism's DNA. And a viral vector may or may not carry DNA from another organism, it can carry purely new, synthetic DNA. Since some types are much more common than others, some people use some of those expressions interchangeably.
Many only use "subunit" to avoid getting into excessive detail. Some use it in constrast to the "whole-pathogen" category on the assumption that subunits may lose effectiveness against new variants because they present fewer antigens, and more antigens are likely to induce some immunity against non-mutated targets in the pathogen, although this assumption is often described as purely theoretical.--

Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

OK User:Ftrebien. (I have collapsed you content-list).
re #1: I have changed label6 into "Vaccin/e type" [1], as part of this change.
re #2, #3: no comment, all fine.
Note: do we spell "vaccin" or "vaccine" in mainspace? ;-) The article is Vaccin. Is why I 'paused' this ER. When clarified, we can reactivate the ER. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it is vaccine. Vaccin is only a redirect to Vaccine. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
OK. Edit Request reopened. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: storage conditionsEdit

I would like to propose these new fields for storage conditions:

| storage_conditions  =
| storage_temperature = 
| storage_humidity    = 
| storage_dark        = 

To be rendered as:

 | label1  = Storage conditions
 | data1   = {{{storage_conditions|}}}
 | header2 = {{#if:{{{storage_temperature|}}}{{{storage_humidity|}}}{{{storage_dark|}}}|Storage conditions}}
 | label3  = Temperature
 | data3   = {{{storage_temperature|}}}
 | label4  = Relative humidity
 | data4   = {{{storage_humidity|}}}
 | label5  = Light level
 | data5   = {{#switch:{{lc:{{{storage_dark|}}}}}
  | yes      = Dark
  | no       = Any
  | #default = {{{storage_dark}}}

The storage_conditions field would be used for short or non-standard descriptions, otherwise the other fields would be preferred. Usage examples:

Storage conditionsCold, dry, dark
| storage_conditions = Cold, dry, dark
Storage conditions5 °C, 50% RH, dark
| storage_conditions = 5 °C, 50% RH, dark
Storage conditions2-8 °C, 40-60% RH, dark
| storage_conditions = 2-8 °C, 40-60% RH, dark
Storage conditionsAmbient
| storage_conditions = Ambient
Storage conditionsDry
| storage_conditions = Dry
Storage conditions
Relative humidityDry
Light levelDark
| storage_temperature = Cold
| storage_humidity    = Dry
| storage_dark        = yes
Storage conditions
Temperature2-8 °C
Relative humidity<60%
Light levelNo sunlight
| storage_temperature = 2-8 °C
| storage_humidity    = <60%
| storage_dark        = No sunlight
Storage conditions
Temperature2–8 °C (36–46 °F)
Relative humidity40-60%
Light levelAvoid light
| storage_temperature = 2–8 °C (36–46 °F)
| storage_humidity    = 40-60%
| storage_dark        = Avoid light
Storage conditions
| storage_temperature = Ambient
Storage conditions
Relative humidity<60%
| storage_humidity = <60%

Drug specifications vary slightly depending on the country. For example, it is unusual to specify a lower humidity limit, even when it has one, because low humidity is rare in many regions. For drugs with less stringent requirements, it is common to provide only a description instead of specific values for temperature and humidity. Most medications should be kept out of direct sunlight and light in general, so non-default values for storage_dark should be rare.

What do you think? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not enthousiastic. See WP:NOTHOWTO #1: encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. If storage temp is excessive (as with some corona vaccins), this could be in the body text all right (+explanation: "because ..."). But still not in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The infobox alreadly sufficiently confuses active substance with pharmaceutical product. No need to take it further. Storage and handling requirements vary per product/formulation (e.g., tablets vs solution for injection vs dermal patch) and per country (regulatory differences are particularly visible in the case of biological products, gene therapies etc.).
If sometime we agree to move all the chemical data to Wikidata and to keep only product-focused information in the infobox, then it may make sense. — kashmīrī TALK 17:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2021Edit

Please replace all code {{Infobox drug}} with sandbox code (diff) Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Adds |mrna = [[mRNA vaccine|mRNA]] to preformat-options |vaccine_type=. -DePiep (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Also adds |peptide = [[Subunit vaccine#Peptide subunit|Peptide subunit]], |polysaccharide = [[Subunit vaccine#Polysaccharide subunit|Polysaccharide]] and |vlp = [[Subunit vaccine#Virus-like particles|Virus-like particles]]. While mRNA is an emerging type during the pandemic, the other 3 types are other common types of vaccines for other diseases. Some editors prefer to specify the more general type (always a superset), and some prefer to specify the more specific type. Based on current usage and other findings. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
(Sorry, I missed those in my visual check.) -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
To Ftrebien and DePiep:   done, and thank you both very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding a short descriptionEdit

Could someone add additional code, please, to create an automatic short description, such as "Drug"? That would be a great help in reducing the number of articles that are missing such a description. Pinging RexxS: would you be able to help? MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Drug" would be too unspecific (into uselessness). Maybe use INN? -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"Drug" is perfect, and nothing more complicated is needed. The description needs to be kept short and non-technical to comply with WP:HOWTOSD: "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". Short descriptions are intended not to define the subject matter but are primarily to allow mobile users who are looking at a long list of titles after carrying out a search to decide whether a particular article is in the right field. It helps them decide whether some term they've never seen before is, for example, a drug, a disease, or the name of a computer game. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, perhaps there are too many exceptions, where the infobox is used for things that most people wouldn't normally describe as a "drug". Not easy to separate those out. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
All fine, but let me note that "Short description" is not a short description. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Should toxicological information be included?Edit

Something like say LD50? --Palosirkka (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Return to "Infobox drug" page.