Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Validation output violates self-reference guidelines

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation#Infobox additions violate self-reference guidelines. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for addition: ChEMBL links

Hi, I am the Chemical Curator for ChEMBL at the EBI, Hinxton, UK. We would really like to add a ChEMBL ID link to the DrugBox. How would we go about doing this?

Thanks, Louisa Bellis Louisajb (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Louisa Bellis 16th Dec 2010Louisajb (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well,  Done. Louisajb, as I said on your talkpage, I am interested in a list of these, linked to other identifiers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DrugBank broken

I am getting broken pages when linking to DrugBank refs. In sandbox, I replaced weblink for DrugBank to http://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/, and it seems to work fine there. If this is right, can someone urgently update this template to fix this issue.

Cheers Lethaniol 00:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried a few and they worked fine. Can you give an example of a broken link? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Aspirin and Paracetamol both don't work on my laptop (firefox) or work computer (IE). Cheers Lethaniol 19:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm they both now work. Previously I had played around with it in Template:Drugbox/testcases and got it to work. Not sure what was going on here. Cheers Lethaniol 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The link from Cabazitaxel doesn't work (at the moment). The current link seems to be unreliable; maybe we should use your link after all. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please update from sandbox. The current external link to DrugBank seems to be unreliable. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Synonym isn't a chemical property

{{editprotected}} Synonyms really belong to the "Identifiers" section, not to "Chemical data". Please replace with code from Template:Drugbox/sandbox. Thanks. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No comments so I am assuming this is uncontroversial.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

We create a second medication box which will contain

1. ) official generic name at the top
2. ) image of the mediation
3. ) caption for said image
4. ) alt text with color etc (this will be useful potentially for categorization )
5. ) one or two top brand names
6. ) link to one or two sites on medications like emedicine [1] and the medlineplus [2]
7. ) pregnancy / lactation status

Most of the chemical data / physical data / identifiers will than be moved down the page to the section on chemical properties ect. This data is too detailed for the lead IMO.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea of trying to sort out the most relevant information in the drugbox at the top. It's worth a try. The previous format can still be used for articles that haven't grown that much, so the box or boxes with the rest of the information would still be found just below. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It could go in the section on Chemical properties... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there is a recommended order of sections for medication related articles (see WP:DRUGLIKE#Sections). This style guide specifically mentions that the drugbox may be included in the chemical properties section. One potential problem is that not all medication related articles contain a chemical properties section. The requested "clinical information" most closely corresponds to the current "therapeutic considerations" section of the current infobox. The simplest solution is just to add few additional fields (e.g., MedLinePlus and emedicine) to this section. The pregancy cat is already included. Boghog (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am only suggesting splitting the box when those sections exist. I agree we should also add this to the current box and probably move the therapeutic considerations up. The box should reflect the layout of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quick and dirty mock-up of what a medication infobox might look like. Boghog (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Splitting templates usually results in maintenance problems. If I understand you correctly, the split would mean that some fields would stay in the old box and be added to the new box as well, so we'd have to implement any changes twice, say, if the FDA change their system of pregnancy categories, or if Medline is revamped and we need to change the links. We'd also run the risk to forget implementing such a double change. (We already had this problem with ATC codes in drugbox and chembox.)

I agree that the Therapeutic considerations section belongs further up, perhaps followed by pharmacokinetics, and the chemical data can be moved to the bottom of the box. I also support Medline/emedicine links.

By the way, having an infobox in the chemistry section as mentioned in WP:DRUGLIKE#Sections seems to violate WP:IBX#Consistency between infoboxes (2nd bullet). The relevant sentence was added without discussion. Can we please remove it? No offence, James; I think you're doing great and very necessary work on WP:DRUGLIKE. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it better to add links to the current template and not to split it. Below is a suggestion for expanding and reordering the sections:

1. INN/USAN generic name (normally the page name)
2. Image of pills, solution, etc.
   1. caption for graphic
   2. Trade names
   3. Drug Identifiers
   4. Therapeutic considerations / clinical information
      1. MedLinePlus and emedicine links
   5. Pharmacokinetic data
3. Image of chemical structure
   1. Chemical Identifiers
   2. Chemical data

Boghog (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One way I see the breakdown is as the material that is specifically related to the chemical as a drug (pharm and legal info, formulation (pill image, administration info), trade-names, etc.) vs the chemical itself (structure diagram, chemical properties, etc.). That latter all sounds like a {{chembox}}. So one solution would be to strip out all the chemical stuff from the drugbox and have the articles also include a chembox. In other words, fork off That will help readers focus on whichever aspect they care about (important, given how much and diverse info there is). It would also resolve a concern raised on the chemistry wikiproject about redundancy (and in slightly different display formats) between the chembox and drugbox (and concerns about which to use, and difficulty in machine-parsing the different layouts). DMacks (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

@Boghog: I think the ATC code belongs to the first (pharmacological) part as well. And what about DrugBank? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it would make sense to split drug and chemical identifiers as well. Accordingly, I have added a "drug identifiers" section to the above outline. Boghog (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am proposing is not duplication but a split as mentioned by DMacks who sums up my opinion well. I have removed the split of the drug box per anypods concerns but wish to discuss this further. We need a good general layout that will work on many pages before we go out and work on getting them all in line. I am sure we will need a few more weeks of discussion on how best to do this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW these are similar issue to what we have with the virus and disease boxes as I mention below.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, no. I would strongly go for having all in one box, and suggest to merge the whole lot into the chembox (see below), or to write a box which is strongly based on the chembox but maintains a an own identity (if I have time I will try to do that). There is much overlap, and some of these are just difficult to place (some chemical compounds are too much of all - drug ánd chemical compound and maybe even something else). Let appropriate sub-boxes cope with it all, and then they are a) all 'the same' (which makes it easier to find all the info one needs), and b) easier to maintain (more boxes, more problems). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

::The box is already very long. Making it longer is not ideal IMO. The medications are primarily clinical not chemical for the majority of our readers. While I do not wish to remove any of the great chemical info they already contain I do think it should be move further down the page. To move it to the section on chemical properties will require a separate box.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Caption

It does not appear that we have a caption parameter for under the images. Is this something we can add? We need to stipulate for medication images what country it is from and what dose we are displaying such as on this page Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. It's April Fools' Day.  ;-) Boghog (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was becoming tired of our discussion that does not seem to lead anywhere. Again, I think it is a really bad idea to go down this path. We should just stick with a iconic image of a pill that doesn't require a caption. Boghog (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Generics come in different doses. Some medications are only available in brand name formulations. Stating these sorts of things just seems like common sense IMO. This page for example could use a caption Hydrocodone/paracetamol Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All (legal) medications are only available as brand name formulations. The problem is that there may be many brands of a single medication and it is impractical to show the packaging and pills for every brand. Boghog (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Have started an RFC to get general input here

[3] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Making more relevant to the general reader

Wikipedia is currently getting some flack in the scientific and popular press for not presenting clinically significant information more prominently. Part of the concerns address the drugbox. Wondering if we could look at making improvement to address this. A few suggestions

1. Add a link to Medlineplus medication information similar to how we do it in the Template:Infobox disease

#Maybe split this template box in two with one section at the top containing clinical information (preg status, legal staus, routes, and links to Medline in the lead) and a second section lower down in the article with the chemical properties, physical data, and pharmacokinetics.

We must remember that we are writing for a general audience. Here by the way is the paper in question :Law MR, Mintzes B, Morgan SG (2011). "The sources and popularity of online drug information: an analysis of top search engine results and web page views". Ann Pharmacother. 45 (3): 350–6. doi:10.1345/aph.1P572. PMID 21343404. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, I think I'd prefer to get the complaints instead of turning Wikipedia into a prescription drug handbook. If the authors of those papers can't figure out the difference between an encyclopedia and the PDR, then that's really their problem, not ours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not about turning Wiki into a PDR but about presenting information in a better format. BTW if we separate this into two boxes one could contain an image of the chemical structure and the other could contain a picture of the medication.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The ability to add a link to Medline wouldn't harm. I have no specific preference on the relative order of the sections of chemical, physical or pharmacokinetic properties etc. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Law et al., paper does not support your statement that Wikipedia drug articles are "not presenting clinically significant information more prominently" and it certainly doesn't say anything about the drugbox. Boghog (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"the Wikipedia page had the lowest completeness and accuracy score and worst readability of the 28 Internet sites studied." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire sentence reads "Similarly, an analysis of sources of information about methotrexate found that the Wikipedia page had the lowest completeness and accuracy score and worst readability of the 28 Internet sites studied" which in turn cites Thompson AE, Graydon SL (2009). "Patient-oriented methotrexate information sites on the Internet: a review of completeness, accuracy, format, reliability, credibility, and readability". J. Rheumatol. 36 (1): 41–9. doi:10.3899/jrheum.080430. PMID 19004031. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). So the entire statement is based on the analysis of one Wikipedia article, methotrexate. Boghog (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Also discussed the findings with the papers author. And I have looked at our articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Drugbox image: pill vs chemical structure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 
  3 mg (blue), 5 mg (pink) and 1 mg (brown) warfarin tablets (UK colours)
• 
  Its structure

A question quite independent of whether the drugbox should be split or merged is what image is most appropriate to display in the top righthand side of the article (i.e., the first image in the first infobox). In principle I agree that the therapeutic considerations / clinical information should be listed before detailed chemical information in the infobox. Furthermore starting this section with an image of the pill does make some sense. However in thinking more about this, I see some serious drawbacks in doing this:

1. The appearance of pills of the same medication may differ substantially from manufacturer to manufacturer or even from the same manufacturer in different countries or over time. This is less of an issue if the drug is still on patent and only available from one manufacturer but as soon as generic versions of this medication reach the market, there may be large diversity of pill shapes and colors of the same medication. The question will arise which pill (i.e., from which manufacturer and from which country) should be displayed.
2. The title and scope of these articles is based on the generic name of the medication whereas the pill appearance is closely linked to a particular brand. The essence of a medication is its active ingredient and by extension the chemical structure of that ingredient, not what color coating or embossed markings a particular manufacturer chooses to use.

Hence I would argue that it is more appropriate to display the chemical structure of the medication rather than an image of the pills. Boghog (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that pills (or a package of them) is not a good choice for many, if not most drug articles. I imagine an average European reader typing "Possia" into the search box and arriving on a page with a package of Brilinta as its most prominent feature... and that drug isn't even generic. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the warfarin page it has an image of a number of pills and a box... Unfortunately often the image will be region specific it is still better than the chemical structure that says little to any general reader.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Boghog that an image of pills and/or packaging isn't very appropriate for the drugbox. There is no getting away from the fact that all the data contained in the drugbox is specific to a chemical compound, not to a pill, formulation, package, or branded product. Including in the box a chemical structure is an important complement to this information. Pills and packaging are going to vary considerably depending on many factors and therefore an image of these items will very often be irrelevant or even outright misleading to readers. If it is perceived that a chemical structure says little to the general reader, then I think the solution is to de-emphasize it (perhaps moving it downward in the infobox, or putting it in a show/hide box) rather than replace it with something else, particularly something less relevant. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the drugbox should contain information that isn't specific to a chemical. For example, it wouldn't be unreasonable to include a list of standard formulations (e.g., Amoxicillin is very commonly available in both pill form and liquid form). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A drug is a chemical. Without that chemical, there is no activity. In my opinion an infobox minus the chemical structure is no longer a drugbox. Boghog (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. A drug is more than just the active ingredient(s), and sometimes it is specifically no chemical (e.g., the placebo pills in packages of oral contraceptives). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You raise some Interesting semantic questions. Concerning placebos, I think that this is a very special case in which a drug box in any form is probably not appropriate.

Concerning pill ingredient(s), according to FDA definitions:

• "Drug substance means an active ingredient that is intended to furnish pharmacological activity"
• "Drug product means a finished dosage form, for example, tablet, capsule, or solution, that contains a drug substance, generally, but not necessarily, in association with one or more other ingredients."

The scope of a Wikipedia drug article, unless it is about a specific brand of drug encompasses both the substance and one or more products that contain that substance. I don't have any exact statistics, but I believe there are very few articles about specific brands of drugs. The few that are brand specific (for example Tylenol) don't generally contain drug boxes, but instead link to the corresponding active ingredient article (for example paracetamol) that do contain drug boxes. One possible division of the drug box would be into drug product and drug substance. In the wafarin example, the division is partial. The first box contains information about both the substance and several products whereas the second box is almost entirely about the substance. I don't think it makes any sense to completely eliminate information about the substance from the first box, hence even in that box, I feel the chemical structure should be included. Furthermore the chemical structure should not be separated from the drug substance information. Therefore I would argue that the box should not be split. Boghog (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How would you handle Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or Hydrocodone/paracetamol? These are certainly important drug products, each containing two drug substances. In the case of the first, the combination may be more important than either of the active ingredients. It's easy enough to put up a picture of a couple of pills, but would you provide two chemical diagrams, two sets of chemical characteristics, etc?

This occurs to me primarily because I've been wondering about corner cases: What would you do for insulin? For 70/30 insulin? For a vaccine? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the present way that the combination drug examples that you give (Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or Hydrocodone/paracetamol) handle it is just fine. In these cases, pictures of pills are more appropriate since these drug boxes contain links to the respective component substances. Including the chemical structures in the combination drug box is redundant since the structures are displayed in the component substance drug boxes. In the case of large molecules such as proteins or complex, incompletely characterized biologics it is of course not practical to draw a chemical structure. The only case where drawing a chemical structure would make sense is for a small molecule drug that contains a single active ingredient. Boghog (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And why not show all of it? Showing the chemical structure for the chemically oriented peope ánd a depiction of pills to show that we are talking about a medically relevant thing? I agree, when we look at Aspirin, we see only chemical structures, while a picture of some generic brand of commercially available aspirin tablets (or just a heap of white tablets) does give the impression quicker that we are actually talking about a drug. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of something similar. Perhaps a collage containing both the chemical structure and a depiction of the pill. Boghog (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, the chembox can contain up to 8 images in different layout forms (though generally, if one needs more than 4 it starts to be too much ..) - drugbox on Aspirin would indeed need a collage now, as it can only hold 2 images. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

But what would be wrong with separating this into two different boxes as done here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, no matter which box you put in the lead, some readers will be looking for the information in the other box. So that's one unavoidable problem with having separate boxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We are writing for a general audience though... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And that audience includes chemists. Boghog (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are writing for a general audience. Hence, if you put two infoboxes, you have one high up in the lede for, at best, half of the audience, while the other half of the audience has to scroll down to the other box (and for those of the other half who are too lazy to go to look for that (how often do I go to a page, and if I don't see the info I need in the lede, then I press back to my Google results and find it somewhere else?), then that does not work. If you have one box, which can accommodate all info in a clear and visual way, then that is thé solution. The {{drugbox}} does that very good for compounds which are mainly that, drugs, the chembox is doing that for all other chemicals (and can also contain a lot of/all of the data of the {{drugbox}}, as some compounds which are mainly of chemical use, or have a very strong chemical use (some alkaloids are used as ligands for organometallic complexes which can subsequently perform catalytic reactions for the synthesis of compounds which may be a small building block of new compounds which will never make it to the drug market for veterinary use). Is a {{drugbox}} the best box on such pages, I doubt, if chemists are looking for the chemical data on that alkaloid. Having a {{chembox}} with the drug-information prominently displayed may very well be a good alternative there. Having two boxes (say {{drugbox}} in the lede, {{chembox}} lower) there confuses, duplicates, and the Wikipedia editors need there to make a choice whether the chemical information is less or more important to the drug information .. a choice which is not necessary when the two boxes, which both talk about a chemical compound, are combined. If all have one and the same box, then chemists know that they have to look in the properties module of the chembox for their chemical data, and pharmacologists or medical specialists know that they have to look for the pharmacology modules of the chembox, while both may have use for the identifiers-module of the chembox (which, for chemists, links to a.o. pubchem, cas, chemspider, and for pharmacologists links to a.o. KEGG, pubchem, ChEMBL). And that brings another problem, so, the chemical data of the chemical compound should be in a {{chembox}}, the pharmacology data of the compound should be in the {{drugbox}}, and then we need a third box, a {{chemdrugidentifierbox}} for the identifiers, which may be interesting for both. I am sorry, it does not make any sense. Should I toss in Trinitroglycerol .. which is interesting for pharmacologists, chemists and people working on explosives? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

These are not equal groups. One is much more populous than the other. Per WP:DUE we should present more prominently information that is more relevant.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While the general population is far more numerous than the population that is interested in chemical structures, the later population is by far more likely on average to read these articles than the general population. Hence it is important that we address the interests of both groups equally. We have worked hard to increase the interest of the technical community in Wikipedia articles (see for example here which resulted in IUPHAR adding links back to Wikipedia drug articles). The reason is these people are extremely valuable in adding high quality content to drug articles. In addition, prominent blogs such as In the pipeline often link Wikipedia drug articles precisely because these article contain detailed technical information on the drug. If we make this technical information harder to find, it will decrease technically sophisticated traffic to Wikipedia articles. This would be a disaster since these readers are highly competent potential contributors. Boghog (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What information is more relevant, Doc James? The explosive nitroglycerin, the pharmaceutical nitroglycerin, or the chemical nitroglycerin. Now the box displays all three of them .. and we do not have to make a choice ... that is not preferring one group over an other. There is no bias there. WP:DUE does not apply. Warfarin is a drug, that should contain a drugbox. If you want it to put some med-box there, because it is a medicine, then you should do the same for nitroglycerin .. and thén we are talking about giving undue weight to the medical applications of nitroglycerin, and if you do not put the same box on nitroglycerin as on Warfarin, then the people that are looking for specific data have to find it somewhere else on Warfarin then on Nitroglycerin. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (post of yesterday, forgot to sign).

Note: To prevent this discussion from just dying down after all views have been represented, I will ask at WP:PHARM for an uninvolved admin to close it with a binding decision 14 days after it began (i.e. 04:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) at the earliest), unless anyone objects to this procedure. If no one responds, I will ask at WP:MED and WP:CHEM simultaneously, at least three days later. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a page on Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology). While the nitroglycerin page should give an overview we also have a subpage that specifically deals with the medical aspects.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, that is a nice fork. I see duplication. Maybe those two should be merged, does not make too much sense to have two, not too big articles, about the exactly the same compound .. or should nitroglycerin be a disambig, and we have Nitroglycerin (pharmacology), Nitroglycerin (explosive) ... note, the man in the street will come to Nitroglycerin (whether it be a common interest person, a pharmacologist, or someone interested in explosives) - they now will hardly ever find the pharmacology page. On my way .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Placing images of pills in drugboxes is nonsense. This has no information content whatsoever. This could be a chemical structure of the drug, a graph showing sales of the drug, whatever informative, but only not the image of pills.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is far from true. I get people coming in fairly often who say I am on this pink pill and my child took 10 of them. Here it is and they have no idea its name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this situation; but the problem is that the pink pill might be red in Europe, green in Australia, and its generic forms have all colours and shapes you can imagine. Which should be put on the page? And even assuming that there is only one form of tablet: How will you search WP for a drug page containing a picture with pink pills? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You tag images by country and you tag images by color. This will allow you to sort based on those two parameters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the chemical structures should be there .. but for chemicals we also sometimes show a picture of the actual material - that could be done similar here (where there is a suitable image available which does not promote one company over another. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Orlistat page. Not sure how to get the caption or the third image to appear? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the current version of the orlistat article looks fine. I don't think it is even necessary to show the third image (3D stick diagram) since it depicts an arbitrary conformation of a very flexible molecule that probably has no relationship to either its active conformation or thermodynamic global energy minimum (for a more relevant conformation see the graphic in Orlistat#Mechanism_of_action). The 3D image may have been included to provide some eye-candy which is now provided by the pill image. My only quibble is the height of the pill image is a bit too long. Boghog (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree it is a little long. How do we get the caption to display? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved the image of structure down to attempt to deal with the lenght issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your solution creates an even bigger problem than it solves. The 2D structure needs to be kept in the drug box next to the systematic chemical name. I therefore have moved it back. Boghog (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say, either the drugbox gets adapted so it can (not: has to) take more images, or we swap it over to a chembox which already has that possibility built in. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is about 2 images, the box can take both. If you worry about the size of the box, then the images should be made smaller. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Emedicine health shows images of pills. We could do something similar but better adding methods to search them by color and country. This of course would be independent of what image we use in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Searching pills by color is wrong because each of them can be provided in a variety of different colors. This is very different from an image of person, molecule or animal. Besides, placing large images of pills like here is ugly. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do sometimes search pills by color. There is a text called the CPS that does this here in Canada. I agree that the formatting of the other page was poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I largely agree with Hodja Nasreddin here, I think the chances are very slim that someone needs to find pink coloured pills which are sold in Greece by country and colour (and if that person does that on Wikipedia because the kid ate 10 of them .. well .. that person should already be in a hospital with the kid, and let the experts figure it out .. not be looking on Wikipedia while the kid may be dying). The only function that a depiction of pills (or ampoules, or whatever prescription form) would be that it is more clear we are talking here about a drug that is actually being sold (either OTC, or even pills/powders/solutions that no-one ever would see as they are only used 'behind the screens' in a hospital). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And it is really hard for the experts to figure it out. Thus Wikipedia could help us experts with this. A picture of a pill or bottle of pills does clearly illustrate that the article is about a medication which the picture of the chemical structure does not.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with with Hodja. Using Wikipedia to identify medicines by their appearance is a profoundly bad idea and would violate WP:MEDICAL. In addition, there is the tricky question of which brand to choose for generic medications. Finally it would be difficult to implement given the variety of appearances the same medication from different manufacturers can adopt. As Dirk mentions above, the only purpose of providing a depiction of a pill is as an visual clue so that the reader immediately understands that this article is about a medication. As such, we could incorporate a small generic graphic (for example File:Tabletten.JPG) just below the top border of the drugbox infobox that we be displayed in all articles that transclude the template. (Some flexibility could be provided to for various classes of medications, for example small molecules, vaccines, biologics, etc.) Boghog (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Regional variations make a difference. Does Wikipedia aspire to be the Pill Book? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia aspires to be the sum of all human knowledge... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding pill images—and especially having them as the lead image—is a terrible, terrible idea. It's been said above, and much more eloquently, but: (1) regional variation is such that this is impractical at best and dangerously misleading at worst; (2) a drug is a chemical compound, first and foremost. A picture of a single pharmaceutical form cannot possibly serve as a representative image of the article subject. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion: Make separate templates of drugboxes

With the WP:STRATEGY of making it easier for newcomers in mind, I propose making drugboxes as separate templates, so that, when pressing an article's edit button (such as that of aspirin), a {{Template:(drugname)-drugbox}} is shown at the top of an article, followed by a hopefully humanely presented intro text, rather than the daunting wiki-syntax that currently overwhelms the poor editor. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a good idea. We did something similar with Gene Wiki articles where a single purpose template was transcluded into each article (see for example hERG that transcludes the single purpose {{PBB/3757}} template which in turn transcludes the general {{GNF_Protein_box}} template). This make the parent article much cleaner. Boghog (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm—without giving it much thought, it does seem like a great idea. That would also make it much easier to keep track of subtle changes (and revert vandalism, etc.) Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? (Have we? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Elements people do that, e.g. {{Infobox palladium}}. I suppose you can even have a "view debate edit" template as seen on navboxes as well. But some people frown on single-purpose templates. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So, apparently, such templates have been successfully implemented in other projects, which makes me more confident that it would be better for drugboxes too. Besides from a more simple edit view and specific edit histories, it may also be easier to make global changes (such as a merger with chemboxes as discussed above). Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

For a live example of how this would look in a drug article, see Lisinopril (please note the new edit link that is located right above the drug infobox). One minor issue is that we need an unambiguous name for each of the special purpose templates. For this example, I have used the CAS number (see {{Drug/83915-83-7}}). Boghog (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks great so far. Some comments: I think we should use the article title as the template subpage, because it's easier to remember, and it's easier to detect attempts to mess with it. I don't expect drug articles to be moved a lot, so let's not worry too much about it. Unless you want to be careful to differentiate different salts, for example? Also, it would be nice to bring the [edit] button lower. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go with {{PAGENAME}}, particularly in light of the naming convention. I'd personally prefer an edit button within the template, not the page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the consensus above, I have renamed {{Drug/83915-83-7}} to {{Drugbox/Lisinopril}} and changed the calling parameter name from CAS to page_name. I am not 100% certain, but it should be possible to include a {{Navbar}} template inside the Drugbox infobox that will provide "view/talk/edits" links to the special purpose template. I have experimented with this but unfortunately I have not be able to get this to work. These links are included in navboxes, but I have not seen this used in an infobox. Is anyone aware of an example of the later? Boghog (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

View, discuss, edit are at the bottom of the palladium infobox, somewhat similar to the navboxes. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Duh! Of course. Sorry Rifleman for not spotting this earlier. I now have included a navbar at the top of the {{Drugbox/sandbox}} template. See the Lisinopril article for an example of its use. Boghog (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks all fine to me Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks perfect—excellent work! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Why don't you get Beetstra (talk · contribs) involved for the eventual merger of Drugbox-->Chembox? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Beetstra (talk · contribs) should be involved since there is consensus for the merger of the drugbox into the chembox (see above). However before we do that, I think we should first agree within the pharmacology project what the drugbox should look like. Boghog (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Clinical data

As stated above, there is at least some support to add clinical data to the drug box, although there was no clear consensus as to where it should be added (see discussion). To facilitate discussion, I have made a initial mockup of what an expanded drugbox might look like in the Lisinopril article. I would be interested to hear opinions on (1) what additional data should be added and (2) the order of the data. Boghog (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A hugh step forwards :-) Thanks. A couple things: 1) can we add a link to The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists such as this http://www.drugs.com/monograph/lisinopril.html ? They are really great pages and better usually than emedicine which is mostly disease based. 2) Can we combine "clinical data" and "considerations" under the single heading "clinical data? They are sufficiently similar. 3) Have we added the ability to add captions for the pictures? Most will not need a caption but the ability would be nice for the situations that do. 4) Legal status is country specific. Some drugs are prescription in some countries and not in others. Thus if we keep this section a country needs to be added and a ref for verification ( to help with updating if status changes ) 5) What about adding a drug monograph? I guess the one issue with this is that it too is country specific. The FDA would be easiest but other countries have them too http://www.drugs.com/lisinopril.html. What do people think?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feed back. Per your requests: (1) The on-line ASHP site for drug specific information appears to be safemedication.com so I linked to that site instead. If you take a look at the links in the Lisinopril drugbox example, the ASHP and MedlinePlus pages are formatted a bit different, but contain close to identical information (one must have been copied from the other). (2) Have merged "clinical data" and "considerations" sections into one. (3) Option for figure caption added. (4) and (5) – deferred until consensus is reached. Boghog (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you compare [phttp://www.safemedication.com/searchresults/DisplayDrug.aspx?id=a692051 safemeds] and the monograph they are definitely not the same. Medline plus is good for simple info. We need a second that has professional quality info. The monograph is the best I have seen so far. Far less adds than emedicine which IMO we do not really need if we are using the monograph. Looking more closely medline plus and safemeds are exactly the same. Even have the same id number. Thus we should just stick with medline plus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have added the Drug.com monograph link and commented out ASHP (redundant to MedlinePlus) and eMedicine (low quality) links for now (again see the Lisinopril example). Boghog (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The drugs.com info is copyrights as "AHFS Drug Information". Thus wondering if we should not simply call it AHFS and link that to American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) rather than label it drugs.com? It does appear that ASHP creates AHFS [4] and [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added the AHFS link while retaining the Drugs.com link (i.e., AHFS/Drugs.com). I realize that this is awkward, but the AHFS is the source of the data while Drugs.com is the publisher therefore I think we need to provide links to both. Boghog (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But probably best unless we can find a link directly to their content hosted on their own site.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Once we finish this I am planning on approaching the AHFS to see if they would be interested in collaborating and potentially publishing something on the effect of Wikipedia linking. Ie. We look at before and after traffic to there site. (BTW does anyone know if this can be determined independently of the AHFS through Alexis or something?)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If we link to AHFS/Drugs.com, ideally they should link back to us. Cross linking would hopefully increase traffic to both sites. Boghog (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would be ideal but I am not sure how likely.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the five requests that Jmh649 made, the Drugs.com monograph (request #5) link has now been implemented. The only remaining issue that has not been addressed is request #4 (legal status). I wanted to point out that country specific codes are already available for the Australia, Canada, UK, and US (see Template:Drugbox#Legal_status). Also it is possible to add an in-line citations directly to the template to verify the legal status in a particular country if necessary. However I question whether it is desirable or practical to add codes for additional countries. This section could get quite long (although it could be collapsed if it became excessively long). Another problem is adding additional code to an already complex section of the template which will make maintaining the template more difficult. Finally who is going to implement and maintain these country specific legal status entries? I can see this creating an enormous amount of work with relatively little payback. And as Colin stated, we don't have enough editors as it is. We need to guard against feature creep. Boghog (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A similar discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Must_a_template_be_used_on_more_than_one_page.3F. Transcluding filled-in templates, rather than placing the template directly in the article, is not exactly a new idea, but hasn't been adopted before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes

Up till now, I'd have said that the drugbox and chembox should be merged. In fact, this has been proposed several times but never been done – I suppose because it's not an easy task to merge two complex templates. Having two boxes per drug article seems to be an alternative solution, and at the moment I'm not sure which I prefer. At any rate, given that stripping the drugbox from chemical data probably means it will never be merged with the chembox, I suggest evaluating the two possibilities carefully before we do it one way or the other. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Advantages of a drugbox/chembox merger

• Complies with practice of other WikiProjects and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Consistency between infoboxes. Having two infoboxes probably doesn't, and putting one in the Chemistry section is definitely against the MOS. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk)
• Easier for newbies. Having to place two templates into a newly-created stub to be able to mention the chemical formula as well as the pregnancy category complicates things for inexperienced editors. (From MOS infoboxes: The average editor will merely use templates without making changes to them. To make things easier for them, we should aim to minimize the number of different templates they must be familiar with) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk)
• No need for an additional box in articles that are primarily chemical. (Would DDT have a drugbox in addition to the chembox just to show the ATCvet code? Or would we include this parameter, and possibly others, in both boxes?) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk)

Comment to merger proposal. I think a merger proposal might make sense as long as the display of the drug specific or chemical specific parts of the infobox could be completely suppressed as needed. With conditional statements in the infobox code, there should be no problem doing this. Boghog (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chembox already has modules for the stuff you need for the drugbox. If a field is left blank it is not displayed; if a section is left blank it is not displayed either. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support merger. Merging needs to be done carefully, of course, with full consultation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. Will be nice to remove duplication of information (e.g. chemical formula) and free up some space in drug/chemical articles. Ben (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support merger. Easier to maintain (one box in stead of 2-3), and more/easier overview of data (all boxes are the same, chemists who encounter a drug(-molecule) (i.e., a compound or mixture with mainly a non-chemical-drug-use) know where to find their chemical data, pharmacologist who encounter a chemical (i.e., a compound or mixture with mainly a non-drug-chemical-use) will know where to find their drug data). The {{chembox}} allows for clear grouping of data by type, without the need of much duplication. I am thinking of an intermediate 'trick' here (more local flavouring of colours and so on, but making the main layout completely the same), but for that I need to do some testing and thinking. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support merger. If the new template gets all the functions of the previous ones, then nothing is lost, except for a source of decision anxiety. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support merger to increase consistency and reduce the confusion as to which infobox should be used in an article. Boghog (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Support The problem is that IMO we have too much chemistry information in the leads of medication articles. This appears to just add more. We I do not think any chemistry information should be removed from the article I do think it should be move out of the lead to a box lower in the article. I do not see any problem with two boxes in a article such as what we occasionally do for articles that deal with diseases caused by a single virus.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Doc James, the drugbox and chemboxes are displaying hard physical data, and what shows first and last can easily be adapted in that. The infobox is not the same as the lede (actually, I do not see an infobox being part of the lede, but more that it is displayed on top of the page to represent the core data). I agree, the focus of the article could easily change, even the focus of the intro paragraph, but drugs are what they are: drugs, and hence need a specified box which displays the important drug information in an easy and clear way. That can be done with the {{drugbox}}, or with the {{chembox}} which both contain the same type of data (the chembox contains more, but omitting certain modules leaves out data which is for drugs non-important). {{chembox}} can be more easily adapted to give more info, one could design an extra module for certain data for it. Having a {{chembox}} does not mean that there is more chemistry in the lede, but just that these chemicals (which most of the drugs with a drugbox are anyway) have a easier overview of the core data. And note, by far not all drugs are medically relevant, some of these compounds have completely different main functions and just function as a bit as medically relevant. IMHO, it would be silly to split off the medically relevant drugs into a separate box and have mainly be handled by a medical project, then have the rest of the drugs into an own box, handled by a second group, and then a third group of chemicals which have some obscure drug use handled by project #3. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree if the box is given the flexibility to deal with chemical, medications, and recreational drugs and emphasis the information that is important to each I would support the merge.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Support merger to reduce redundancy, simplify data curation, and end the occasional chem->drugbox or drug->chembox squabbles. The parameters can be ordered as desired anyway. For example, if appropriate, \after the identifiers (name, formula (and thus MW), synonyms, CAS#, pubchem id, etc.), we can have the pharma type information first, then the physical properties. I think it's a really bad idea to pretend that small molecule drugs are not indeed chemical compounds with discrete structures and observable physical properties. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Merger Chembox is already nicely sectioned - users will grow used to knowing what sections they wish to view for their own particular interest.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

---

I suggest asking an uninvolved admin to close the debate above with an official decision from the drugbox group. Also, is it necessary to reach a similar consensus at corresponding entries on the chembox side, such as at Template talk:Chembox or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry? Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a corresponding entry now at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox#Merging drugbox into chembox. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Advantages of having two infoboxes per article

Consensus is that one infobox per article is generally preferred

It's probably easier to find what you're looking for, if you have a smaller infobox about your area of interest, rather than one huge template crammed with everything under the sun. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC) We already use two info boxes in articles about viruses [6] as there are two specific components 1) the disease aspects 2) the viral aspects. This issue is sort of the same. I agree with WAID that having everything it one box makes it confusing. Some of the stuff currently in the drug box should not be in the lead per WP:DUE.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I have created a rough example of the wafarin page of what two seperate boxes would look like here --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I get the point of 'crammed with everything', but there are molecules which have more a drug then chemical use (but still have a significant chemical use - which deprives the chemists from wanted data), and there are chemicals out there which are also used as some strange drug, where the pharmacologists would be deprived of their data). Easier to find, nah, if they are all the same, then after a short while everyone knows which sections of the ...box are of interest to them, and where to find the exact data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Some people only use Wikipedia for this type of info infrequently. Thus we want to make finding what they wish to know easy the first time they try to do so.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC) True, but then you would have to judge which are used frequently, and give those another focus, while all are pharmaceuticals. Having one type of box on all pharmaceuticals makes then the info easier to find. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Adding here, that sometimes two infoboxes is not enough. Doc James made User:Jmh649/Wafarin (sic), which is mainly/only a drug. I would like to invite Doc James to do the same for nitroglycerin - which needs under this premises at least 4 infoboxes, a medical one, a chemical one, a pharmaceutical one and an 'explosive' one (and maybe to avoid duplication, also a 'general one', otherwise the pubchems, InChI's and deltaH's will appear in at least 2, and in some cases in all infoboxes). And which one to display on top (IIRC, after one of the episodes of House MD, its pharmaceutical properties may have been boosted ..)? I am sorry, these are pharmaceuticals/medically relevant drugs/chemicals/explosives with one common denominator - they are all chemical compounds, and the {{chembox}} was designed to accommodate all of that info in a proper and visible manner. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC) That being said, I have no objection to having a seperate drugbox for specific drugs, and those with 'mixed' properties to have a chembox, but two different boxes IMHO only adds to confusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC) How is this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, a good example of the problems this would get us into. The source of this image doesn't say these are nitroglycerin tablets, and I very much doubt they are since nitro is a liquid and usually comes in soft capsules. Even if they are some exotic formulation of nitro, the image just conveys the information that the article is about tablets, which is at best misleading. We could try to find a better image, but then nitro comes as a spray as well, and probably (as has been pointed out) in different kinds of capsule; so for many readers it'd be as if they typed "Albert Einstein" in the search box and arrived at an article with a picture of Niels Bohr at the top. Any finally, the readers who are looking for scientific/chemical info have to scroll right to the bottom. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Yes it is harder to get a good image of the medication. While nitro dose come in pill, patch, intravenous, and spray form which I will take picture of tonight this is not one of them and thus I have removed it from the articles. Yes I have been convinced that two separate boxes is a bad idea but would like to propose that we instead add this clinical information to the current drug box as outlined below.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Add clinical data to the drugbox

Would like to propose we merge in the newly created {{Infobox drug}} into the {{drugbox}} as suggested by Boghog above. This would include adding the ability to add captions to the images. And adding a section on "Clinical information" which would include tradenames, emedicine, medlineplus, preg cat, legal status, and routes. This would occur just below the section on IUPAC name.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. I think we have already agreed more or less that clinical/pharmacological information should go in the top part of the infobox, and chemistry should go below. My only question: If we merge the two boxes, why don't we merge the whole thing into chembox? Adding fields for the missing parameters (emedicine, preg cat etc) would be easy; the chembox can display any section on top, so we'd just need to specify the order in the style guide; and it would have all of the merger advantages specified above (no discussions which box to use, easier for bots, etc). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree we should merge all three... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On a further note the drug information from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists [7] as displayed by drugs.com for metformin in this link [8] is cleaner and better laid out IMO (less ads). May be we should use it instead of emedicine?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

E-medicine does not even have an entry for metformin although they do link to third party sites. It still might be worth including links in the template to both sites in case one or the other site does not have an entry on a particular medication or if one of the web sites is temporarily down. All these links would be optional so that if the parameter were not supplied to a site, no link would be displayed in the infobox. Boghog (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay but IMO we should stipulate that the AHFS link is preferred and emedicine should only be used if no link is available. We do not wish to make the box too long.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The AHFS also lists drug class such as "Class: Antineoplastic Agents" for methotrexate. I think this would be something useful to add aswell.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a bit much. The infobox should not duplicate what is in the lead, and drug class should be in the lead sentence of any drug article. Furthermore, methotrexate is not an "antineoplastic agent" alone; that's a convenient classification (certainly for formulary purposes), but an inaccurate one, as it has other effects and is used for other purposes (perhaps even more so than in cancer chemotherapy). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the rest of the clinical data such as links to medlineplus and the AHFS info from drugs.com? And how about the suggestion to move the "Therapeutic considerations" to below the IUPAC section in the drugbox which is possibly the section the previous information could be added to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Other possible solutions

Note: To prevent this discussion from just dying down after all views have been represented, I will ask at WP:PHARM for an uninvolved admin to close it with a binding decision 14 days after it began (i.e. 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC) at the earliest), unless anyone objects to this procedure. If no one responds, I will ask at WP:MED and WP:CHEM simultaneously, at least three days later. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)