Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Support for transclusion

I've made significant modifications to this infobox template so it can support passed parameters, allowing a much simplified representation on pages into which it is transcluded. I believe in most cases the current usage has been via subst: inclusion. The first instance of using the new transcluded template is Atorvastatin. I did take pains to try and ensure that all current functionality is supported in the revised version. Courtland 12:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Courtland. I have one problem: the image is not always under PAGENAME.png. Is there any way of automating this. Specifically, is there any way to let the template default to PAGENAME if no name is supplied? This may involve JavaScript, so I'm not sure... JFW | T@lk 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of wikisyntax that would accomplish this, but I'll take a look around and see what I can find. Courtland 00:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, I can't seem to use nested templates, such as {{carbon}}, {{sub}} etc. JFW | T@lk 09:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, seriously. This needs to be a template and it needs to take the variables. Currently,(as of September 9th, 2005, I think) it doesn't insert the variables, so there are a bunch of ? on the pages that use this as a template. Pages that copied and pasted the template in are going to get stale and I think the only way to find them will be a link to IUPAC_nomenclature. The template from months ago was working fine. Why was it changed away from variables? Peter Bailey

• The confusion here is a matter of reversions to a state before the template was changed to support transclusion. I can understand someone coming along after months of not adding the template then finding that it has changed being caught by surprise. The pre-variable template was more boilerplate than template, which would be ok if it were labeled as such. Do you think that we should provide the old boilerplate below for use under certain circumstances? I think that User:Rmky87 should speak up here to talk to why the old version is superior to the new in his/her opinion before additional reversions. Courtland 13:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I've left a brief not on Rmky87's talk page asking that input be made here about what is superior about the previous version

If you are going to do what you are doing, could you at least make it look not-bizarre when not all the information is in there? The thing below this section looks much simpler and worked just fine when I copied-and-pasted it onto nordazepam (it's not just a metabolic intermediate anymore). Do we even have templates for CAS number, IUPAC name, ATC code, etc.? Because that's what the {{{blah_blah}}} would seem to imply.

Well done

This template is well done. I will produce a german template from it. Furthermore I changed the metabolism into a link, hope thats ok, -- E-Detailing 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have updated the template according to present use habbits. -- David Andel 12:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Direct links

Over the last couple of days I've added links that allow the CAS number and IUPAC name to directly link to external sites. Are there any objections to this? From the pages I've looked at so far, the use of the ATC code field was inconsistent -- some pages linked to external sites, some linked to Wikipedia subpages, and some didn't have any link at all, so I wasn't sure what standard was emerging.

Also, I'd like to propose adding a couple more fields: specifically, links for PubChem and DrugBank codes. (Obviously PubChem is more established, but considering that congress is considering pulling the plug, it would be good to have a Canadian source as a backup. Thoughts? If anyone knows better databases, of course I'd support linking to those instead -- these were just the best I could find. --Arcadian 14:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fix image stretching?

What's the best way to go about fixing structure image stretching caused by images that are smaller than the 220px specified in the template? See the Tramadol article for an example of this. Will eliminating the width in the template break other pages? --Bk0 (Talk) 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Some images are in a different size. Perhaps a variable should be introduced to control image scaling. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've put in the following changes:

• 1) Per "Fix image stretching?" above, I've added a new "width" parameter. See Tramadol for an example of how it works. It defaults to 220 when omitted.
• 2) Per "Support for transclusion" above, I've added a new "image" parameter. See Melphalan for an example of how it works. (The person who uploaded the image used a "JPG" extension, so I used the parameter "image=Melphalan.jpg") It defaults to PAGENAME.PNG when omitted (so unless the parameter is used, it works like it used to.)
• 3) Per "Direct links" above, I've added parameters for PubChem and DrugBank.
• 4) I've directly linked the CAS number to an external source.
• 5) I noticed that there was a lot of inconsistency on the linking of the ATC code. Some pages linked to an external source, some pages linked to an internal source, and some didn't link to anything at all. And all of the links were done by hand. So I split the ATC code into two parameters: "ATC_prefix" (for the first three characters) and "ATC_suffix" (for the last five) to support both internal and external linking through the template. I've updated the pages using the template (about 30) to reflect this change. There was one page that had more than one ATC code, so I split out the extra codes and made a note about it in the main text. --Arcadian 21:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm considering adding two more optional fields (they'd be set up so that if there was no parameter, the field would be absent, not just empty). They are:

• Logo. The image in Atorvastatin looks clumsy, and it would be nice if those logos could be in the same box.
• "Alternate codes". This could handle cases where there was more than one ATC number, or when there was a CAS for a closely related compound.

Any thoughts/suggestions/objections? --Arcadian 20:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a code, "ATC_supplemental", that allows more than one ATC code. An example of it in use is available at Heparin. --Arcadian 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Issue with link

JFW says I should address this to you:

While attempting to edit the ribavirin and viramidine articles I've noticed a problem the standard drug template which includes external links for things like CAS number, Pubchem, chemID and so on. The ChemID works fine because it plugs back to the http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/ database. However, the CAS# external links don't work because they attempt to plug the CAS# into the European ECB-ESIS database, and they naturally are not recognized. I think that the nih pubchem database would take CAS numbers, and would work fine if the link attempted that. So this CAS# external link needs to target to the NIH site. Sbharris 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This should really be addressed to Arcadian (talk • contribs), who has modified the template to allow these functionalities. He may have more information on why the ECB-ESIS databank was chosed over Pubchem. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sbharris 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the only change I made to the CAS number. As that time, the majority of fields using the Drugbox template included dashes in their CAS number (for example, "57-92-1" for Streptomycin.) The source you are recommending is an excellent one, but it requires CAS numbers that have zero-padding and are stripped of hyphens, as shown below:

http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/ProxyServlet?objectHandle=DBMaint &actionHandle=default&nextPage=jsp/chemidheavy/ResultScreen.jsp &ROW_NUM=0&TXTSUPERLISTID=000057921

I don't know how to address your concern, so I have reverted that change so the field is exactly like it was when I first found it. (The database I had linked to previously was the only one I could find that accepted a CAS number in its hyphenated form. It was missing about a quarter of the compounds we referenced, but I felt it was better than nothing. However, I recognize now that this caused some confusion, so the best answer I have is to unlink the field. But if you or someone else has a better solution, I'd have no objection to the template being altered to support it. --Arcadian 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked a little harder. The source you supplied was quite useful, and though we can't link to it directly, it provided other links that accept the CAS number in the URL. Sources include:

• http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+ccris:@term+@rn+57-92-1
• http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+genetox:@term+@rn+@rel+%2257-92-1%22
• http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+@rel+57-92-1
• http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2006/MB_cgi?term=57-92-1&rn=1
• http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/searchFreeText.do?searchString=57-92-1
• http://oaspub.epa.gov/srs/srs_proc_qry.search_sort?P_SEARCH_CD=C&P_CHOICE_CD=CAS&P_KEYWORD_NM=57-92-1+
• http://chemdb.niaid.nih.gov/struct_search/misc/url_search.asp?cas_no=57-92-1

For comparison, the database that was used through yesterday is below:

• http://ecb.jrc.it/esis-pgm/esis_reponse.php?GENRE=CASNO&ENTREE=57-92-1

While I have no way of knowing if any of those sources would be more exhaustive than the esis-pgm database, it would be relatively easy to switch to another source later if we so desired. Would you like any of these sources hooked up? --Arcadian 12:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In absense of any knowledge about which of the above are most exhaustive, let's try the last one, the chemdb.niaid.nih.gov site:

• http://chemdb.niaid.nih.gov/struct_search/misc/url_search.asp?cas_no=57-92-1

which should be pretty complete for drug stuff. Link that up if it takes hyphenated CAS #'s, if you would. THANKS for the help! Sbharris 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently http://chemdb.niaid.nih.gov/struct_search/misc/url_search.asp?cas_no=57-92-1 is dead right now. If you'd like, I could hook it up to another source (try clicking on the URLs above -- most of them work for me know except the last one), or we could wait a bit and see if it's just a temporary outage. --Arcadian 03:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried it again, and this time the database was up, but it didn't have entries for most of the first few I spot checked. So for now, I hooked it up to the MESH database, since it was very fast and had entries for most of the ones I used for testing. However, it doesn't do a great job of linking to other databases -- the only major benefit it provides is external confirmation that the CAS is correct. So, if you (or anyone else reading this) would rather put in a different source, I'd have no objection. --Arcadian 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

re extraneous blank line after 'ATC code'

Currently there is a blank line shown after 'ATC code' and the code number itself. There is a new line in the template code after the </br> mark-up, should this not be removed, from:

| '''[[ATC code]]''' <br />

[[ATC_code_{{{ATC_prefix}}}|{{{ATC_prefix}}}]][http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/indexdatabase/index.php?query={{{ATC_prefix}}}{{{ATC_suffix}}} {{{ATC_suffix}}}] {{{ATC_supplemental|}}}

to look like:

| '''[[ATC code]]''' <br /> [[ATC_code_{{{ATC_prefix}}}|{{{ATC_prefix}}}]][http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/indexdatabase/index.php?query={{{ATC_prefix}}}{{{ATC_suffix}}}

I'm tempted to do the edit myself, but have little (no) idea how templates work, and would hat eto mess things up over a large number of pages :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented this change (I think.) I spot-checked a few pages that used this template and they seemed okay, but if you see anything that looks messed up, feel free to revert. --Arcadian 14:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. David Ruben ^Talk 16:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguities

Copied from User talk:Fuzzform:

The bioavailability, half-life and even the metabolism and excretion will vary with the administration route and precise formulation. For example, in addition to i.v, midazolam may be swallowed as a syrup, held in the mouth to be absorbed via the buccal mucosa (largely avoiding digestion – though some may get swallowed) and even sprayed intranasally (PMID 11802661). For other drugs there are creams, suppositories, patches, soluble powders, tablets, enteric-coated capsules, etc, etc. I think that where there is a risk of confusion, the drug box should state e.g. "xx% (oral syrup)". If there is room for more than one entry in the table cell, then that would be good. Otherwise it could be moved out to be discussed in the article and the DrugBox left with "varies", or some such phrase --Colin 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a problem, one which I hadn't thought of. Bioavailability is by definition 100% when injected intravenously. I suppose I'll have to go through all the articles and differentiate. Fuzzform 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As with all these pharmacokinetic parameters, they all have strict definitions, and the further you go into it, the more complex it becomes. In fact the bioavailability is defined as the percentage fraction of the drug that reaches the systemic circulation, incontrast to the absorption, which is the percentage reaching the portal circulation. I would suggest that bioavailability in the table should be taken to imply oral, since that is common usage and implicitly obvious where a drug is taken orally or iv (the iv is of course 100%), but where drugs are given by several routes, then that extra detail should be added. After all, i.m. BA is invariably taken to be equal to 100%, and there are few drugs given transdermally as well as oral (hyoscine, GTN, sex hormones spring to mind). So I would suggest that the table cell simply list the one value, with a comment if it has other routes. See the entry for Tramadol, which has the curious property that BA varies for repeated dosing - you could leave it to be discussed in the main article, but for quick reference, a few words in the table clarifies the detail without upsetting the conciseness of a quick reference table. bignoter

What about chloramphenicol? intravenous chloramphenicol achieves a concentration in blood that is only 70% of that achieved when the same dose is given orally. How do you report bioavailability then? --Gak 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

May 2006 update

I updated the drugbox for aesthetics and readability. Probably the only issue I can think of is abbreviation/contraction of entry names: molecular weight, chemical formula, pregnancy category and routes of administration. I found that it was necessary to fit these entries on a single line. I think that if people are in doubt they can always click on the name. As a bonus, the new format seems to partially alleviate the printing problem discussed on Wikiproject Drugs. Let me know if you have any problems with the new box. -Techelf 11:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate use smaller font size to make the template box narrower (especially for long IUPAC names) and hence abbreviating the heading titles.

• 'MW' seemed unecessarily short, as 'Mol.Weight' fits and will be more obvious (especially as many articles just give a number without including the units of g/mmol).
• I liked the previous 2x2 arrangement of CAS, ATC, PubChem, DrugBank. Is there anyway to include these as just 2 rows in the table (i.e. reduce current 4 lines to 2) thus forshortening the length of what is quite a long overall template box ? David Ruben ^Talk 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The 2x2 arrangement (which usually took up 4+ lines anyway) always seemed a little inconsistent to me, but the main reason I changed it to four separate rows was ease of coding and because drugboxes with more than two ATC codes were a little unwieldy under the old design. I did a quick comparison of a few pages and the new box seems to be around the same length (but looks longer because it's usuallly narrower). -Techelf 01:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, I agree new arrangement looks smart & neat. As for the optical illusion, must check how long its been since my last eye check ... :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the new appearance. Now that DrugBank is on its own row, we now have the option of making it an optional parameter, so the line disappears when there is no value provided. Thoughts? --Arcadian 02:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I like the idea. Might need your expertise on this one, Arcadian, because I don't know how to do this while keeping existing infoboxes compatible. -Techelf 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Failled attempt - not all drugs have a DrugBank entry so just leaving the details blank might just imply that the article's creator forgot to provide the value (vs that there is no value that can be supplied). So making the whole line optional is sensible. See ParserFunctions#IF: which determines if a value exists and then shows expressions if it does Else if it does not (the Else expression is optional and any '|' within an expression must be enclosed within curly brackets if it is not to be seen as the parserfuction-#IF: separator for the 'else' expression or the end of function).
• Thinking that some of the other Identifiers field require trudging around to find their values, I've used the same technique for their values (rather than the whole line for DrugBank). If the other identifer details are not provided then a '?' is shown or a link to the organisation's search page so that the details can be looked up.
• The data in the other sections (Chemical data, Pharmacokinetic data,Therapeutic considerations) does exist, whether or not an editor can find the data and so I have not added optional '?' if the data is not supplied. But let me know if this seems inconsistant. David Ruben ^Talk 13:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Miserable failure - I tried copying over technique from other templates, but clearly I don't understand this - for while template itself looked ok, a quick check on a drug article showed the {{|}} failled to be interpreted properly, not the rest of the conditional parameters. My past efforts in the history section will show what I was trying to achieve, but I'll leave it for someone better than I to implement correctly :-( David Ruben ^Talk 14:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Techelf & David: it looks stunning. My compliments. A large improvement. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made DrugBank an optional field. --Arcadian 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Vd and Protein Binding

I hope people do not object to the fact that I have added Volume of distribution and Protein Bound fraction to the template. These can be important considerations in the use of a drug and such information may be interesting to some readers. --Copperman 17:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As a General Practitioner, I can just about recall the improtance of protein binding (low protein levels in the infirm/alcoholics will obviously have an effect), but what has volume of distribution have to do with any day-to-day decission I make about using a drug? And if I fail to see its relevance then wikipedia, as a general encyclopedia, can have little reason to include Vol.dist for the general reader (there are those lovely links to DrugBank, PubChem etc that can give pharmacological/physiological data).

Also such additional data needs be optional fields as per previous section. David Ruben ^Talk 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you have a fair point there I guess with the optional fields...I guess if one starts to add such information one eventually runs out of space and arguments arise as to what info SHOULD be included. --Copperman 17:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Second image & Optional fields

Some articles, such as Paracetamol, could not previously use this template as the articles used 2 images. I've added an extra optinal fields for image2. I would have prefered a more flexible system like the OMIM_mult field in template:DiseaseDisorder infobox.

With optional fields now in place, viewing the template itself will not show these options. I shall therefore try to place instructions on using this template up to the front page.David Ruben ^Talk 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely done. I took a look at Paracetamol and noticed the boxes for "Physical properties" -- do you think we should extend the Drugbox template to accomodate those values as optional parameters? --Arcadian 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule no - very few drugs for which such info useful - I suppose relevent for aspirin, and perhaps penicillin V vs penicillin G. However such info is difficult to add, as I had to force an extra table manually. Of course should this template's style change, then the manual table will also need to be hand-edited to match - the whole point of a template should be to make such tasks redundant.

So yes, as optional extra section yes would be helpful - BUT ONLY if the absence of data in all its extra parameters results in no display of the section (i.e. the section is hidden rather than single items such as DrugBank).

I'm not sure how the "hidden class" works (can it test multiple parameters and does it allow blanking of multiple lines). If not, then the newer #IF: system seems as if it might be more flexible (e.g. choice of side-by-side second image rather than vertical placement, and optional separate captions for images 1 & 2), however I failled to grasp how to code it correctly (see previous failled edit attempts in the edit history). David Ruben ^Talk 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

During BorisTM hard work at trying to ensure red-link not shown if no image either defined or already upload as PAGENAME.png, he included a separate width2 parameter for image2. I have added this to the live template, and ensured this takes priority if defined else, as for the first image, width is used if given with a default value of 220 otherwise used - description added to teh template page. David Ruben ^Talk 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

New fields

For now, so the old template could be replaced in the Testosterone article, I've added three new optional fields to the existing "Chemical data" section, for Melting point ("melting_point"), Specific rotation ("specific_rotation"), and Standard enthalpy change of combustion ("sec_combustion"). An example of what it looked like before the update is available here. However, I wouldn't object to moving them to their own section, if we were able to address the concerns David mentioned above. --Arcadian 21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Optional Physical data section

• I contacted BorisTM and he kindly converted template from use of hiddenStructure class to hide specific parameters to the {{#if: test | then text | else text}} (see ParserFunctions#IF: and other such options).
• With this he also added an optional Physical data section that only shows the section title if one or more of the parameters is definesd.
• I have extended his demonstration of the technique to include some of the other (very optional) parameters previously mentioned.
• I also added the optional parameters of Smiles and Synonyms which together with the Physical data section now allows the previous messy Aspirin and [[Paracetamol] to use Drugbox without having to mimic the template or use additional table appendages.
• Too many articles already specify the units of molecular weight to have the article add this automatically - Anyone care to edit them or use some form of bot to do this ? But also note some articles provide various weights fo r the drugs different available forms, e.g. Clomifene.
• For the new parameters, the density, melting & boiling points etc, the template will add units and convert the provided Celcius temperatures to Fahrenheit - see the template for the updated description of use David Ruben ^Talk 13:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal Status

Standard Abbreviations?

On the Clomiphene page drugbox, under "legal status", it says "POD". What is that? Is there a set of standard abbrevations for legal status of pharaceuticals? If so, there should be a link to it from the Template:Drugbox page, and perhaps also it should always be linked to from an instance of one of those abbreviations used in a drugbox.

Perhaps it would also be nice if the Template:Drugbox documentation contained some hints as to how one can find out what the legal status is, and where to link to as a reference to that status.

Firstly, please sign comments and add new comments at the end of the comments page. Anyway, I had a look at the clomifene page and figured that "POD" probably stands for "prescription only drug". But I agree, there is a need for standardised abbreviations for legal status – I'll put my proposal under a separate subheading. Unfortunately, I can't tell you any easy sources (at least publicly-accesssible ones) that discuss the scheduling of medications – someone else might have a suggestion. -Techelf 08:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for standard abbreviations

In response to User:KarlHeg's comment above, I'd like to propose the following set of standard abbreviations for discussion. I think that these should be listed in alphabetical order (by jurisdiction), separated by a comma, and with only the first instance of a country abbreviation in a drugbox wikilinked – e.g. clomifene.

Abbreviation	Meaning
Australia
unscheduled (Au)	Unscheduled/exempt
S2 (Au)	Schedule 2 Pharmacy Medicine
S3 (Au)	Schedule 3 Pharmacist Only Medicine
S4 (Au)	Schedule 4 Prescription Only Medicine
S8 (Au)	Schedule 8 Controlled Drug
United Kingdom
GSL (UK)	General Sale List
P (UK)	Pharmacy Medicine
POM (UK)	Prescription Only Medicine
CD (UK)	Controlled Drug
United States
OTC (U.S.)	Over the counter
℞-only (U.S.)	Prescription only

This is largely based on the standardised markings and abbreviations used widely amongst doctors and pharmacists (Australia) and/or on product packaging that I've encountered (UK and U.S.). I've already been using these, and hope that these will be useful as standardised abbreviations across the drugbox templates. -Techelf 08:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Until now, I've always wikilinked the UK terms as [[prescription drug|POM]], [[Over-the-counter substance|OTC]] or [[controlled drug]]. I can, if thought useful, insert code in the template to autolink the terms.

In essence we would have parameters legal_status_Aus, legal_status_UK, legal_status_US which are defined as alternatives to the plain legal_status. The system could then be expanded if other areas wish to be included (e.g. Canada, Ireland, NZ +...). Each parameter may take values as abbreviated above and will then show the term suitably linked and with (Aus), (UK) or (US) as a suffix.

Hence legal_status_UK = OTC would result in OTC (UK) - have a think about this and let me know (I'll be on a wikibreak for next 10 days) David Ruben ^Talk 02:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never been a great fan of wikilinking the data content directly in certain fields of the infobox, for example I don't understand the practice of wikilinking "g/mol" when the only people who would find this information useful would already be familiar units. In this instance, I think that the regulation of therapeutic goods page (wikilinked by the "legal status" title) is more useful for people than the individual over-the-counter substance or prescription only medicine pages. But I do like the idea of making scheduling parameters if they could be all placed in the same box (like the chemical formula parameters). In terms of the actual implementation, I think it'd be preferable to use <small> for the country code only, and that we should use wikilinked two-letter ISO country codes (ISO 3166-1) within the framework of WP:MOS (i.e. Au, Ca, Ie, NZ, UK, U.S., etc). -Techelf 08:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I've had a go at this at the template sandbox Template:Add code (ignore all but the legal status items). See coding that takes optional legal_AU, legal_UK & legal_US parameters using values as listed in the table above (the coding is almost twice the length required, as it identifies values in both upper & lower case). An example of the outcome is shown at Template talk:Add code. Note if an unspecified value is attempted for a given country then an ? is shown indicating an error.

Any additional information (i.e. for countries not specified) may still be included in the current legal_status parameter that is appended to the end.

If people like this idea then I shall transfer it to the live template - but first please indicate preference for parameters names (UK as example):

• legal_UK
• legalUK
• legalUK_GSL_P_POM_CD - this is veryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Drugbox&action=edit&section=17 awkward I know, but clearly shows permitted values. Similar would be legalAU_Unscheduled_S2_S4_S8 and legalUS_OTC_Rx. The obvious problems would be remembering the parameter names (would have to be copied & pasted) and what happens if a country alters its license category names.

My preference is legal_UK style. David Ruben ^Talk 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Davidruben, I prefer the "legal_UK" style too. Just a minor point to consider when you incorporate the parameters into the main template – the U.S. equivalent of S4/POM is "℞-only", and also using the unicode prescription character "℞" (using Template:Unicode if necessary) would probably be better than "R_x". Apart from that, it looks good. Cheers. -Techelf 10:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks - Having only MSIE I have had to copy & paste the [] character - for future editing purposes it would be better if I could use the actual Unicode number in the Template:Unicode - do you happen to know its value ? David Ruben ^Talk 12:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Template so upgraded - is the accompanying description clear enough ?

See this edit as example of how I modified Metronidazole. However note that the template ensures only a single permitted option for specified countries, so multiple opitions, as seen in Ibuprofen, still need to be manually coded using legal_status. David Ruben ^Talk 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was about to suggest dumbing down my own additions to specifcally allow for multiple classifications per country (basic legal_XX accepts anything as valid free text and just appends (XX) to the end). But then I thought, the classification schemes in any given country are a step-wise degree of restriction and so only the most relaxed category need be specified. Hence Ibuprofen lists for UK as GSL/P/POM, but any GSL (general sales product for non-pharamcy stores) can be stocked by a Pharmacy, and similar a P drug (Pharmacy only) can be prescribed (separately in UK is whether NHS blacklists a product, eg Paracetamol allowed but not expensive Calpol brand, but legally are licensed the same and on private prescription Calpol is allowed). Think I'll therefore leave the drugbox template checking for valid values (ie not accept "Presc" for POM or "S3" in Australia) and just simplify the entry in Ibuprofen (as here). Sure there may be restrictions on quantities allowed to be sold (eg in UK 16 Paracetamol on GSL, upto 100 if a pharmacist feels special considerations, unlimited on doctor prescription) but these are specific for each drug & country and not generally approproate to include in this a general encyclopaedia. David Ruben ^Talk 15:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that on the ibuprofen page. It's a bit problematic for the Australian situation, because the scheduling system works in a step-down manner such that ibuprofen is S4 (prescription only) unless a preparation meets certain requirements where it is permitted to be included in S2 (pharmacy medicine) or be unscheduled depending on pack size, tablet strength, labelling, etc. Because of this, technically it should be listed as S4 (rather than unscheduled), but this doesn't reflect the wide OTC availability of ibuprofen. Ditto for paracetamol and many other "over the counter" medications. Perhaps the original "unscheduled/S2/S4" was the best compromise, but does anyone have any suggestions? -Techelf 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The choice is whether each country-specific parameter gets tested for a single valid categorisation level, or accepts free text (and just adds in the <small>([[CountryX|XX]])</small> coding). I prefer the former. Also, at least in UK, being an OTC (P or GSL) does not mean unlimited availability - pack sizes are (?always) restricted and, in case of P items, the pharmacist is restricted as to which indications they may so supply the item (eg hydrocortisone cream may not be supplied by a pharmacist for use on face or in pack size above 30g, yet on prescription no such restriction). So Simvastatin recently in UK gaining a P status from past POM, does not imply that all strengths are available OTC (only 10mg is) nor that other strengths do not remain POM (10mg 20 & 40mg). Describing the specifics for a particular drug is clearly too lengthy for inclusion in the sumarising table, and I would welcome in the main prose. I would though, for Simvastatin in the UK, now classify it in the table as P.

If other editors feel that non-medics will not interpret such simplification in the manner I do, then should we get the template to automatically mark up all additional levels, eg. legal_UK=P is converted into P/POM and legal_UK=GSL is converted into GSL/P/POM. the problem with this is that we will lose the compactness (currently Australia, UK & US categorisations can be fitted onto a single line, expanding will require 3 lines to look neat). David Ruben ^Talk 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I see what you mean. I might adjust some of the Australian ones as necessary (particularly the special cases) as I come across them. Cheers. -Techelf 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thought I had concerns a few pages where you've put it as a blanket "prescription only". I prefer the full "S4 (AU), POM (UK), ℞-only (US)" to avoid ambiguity, but I suppose it's okay because it simplifies things for the lay audience. On the other hand, drugs that are "over the counter" shouldn't be simplified as such since the term could mean unscheduled, S2 or S3 in Australia and GSL or P in the UK. -Techelf 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was bold in allowing the blanket legal_status=Rx-only to be specially recognised and shown as ℞-Prescription only. It would remain true only until one country starts licensing as OTC (then the other countries would need be specifically declared as still remaining prescription-only items). I thought it might simplify things and would "give it a try", but I'll not object if other editors are unhappy at this option and wish it removed.David Ruben ^Talk 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, no problem with having "prescription only" as an option. But perhaps it doesn't need the ℞ character if "prescription" is already written out in full =). -Techelf 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you re not trying to create a generalised simplified form of OTC as has various differing subdivisions between countires.David Ruben ^Talk 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Same for Pregnancy status ?

Australia and US seem to have specific categorisations for drug safety in pregnancy - so would it be helpful to add pregnancy_AU and pregnancy_US. e.g. pregnancy_AU = B would show as B(AU). As for legal status, the template could ensure no rogue values are assigned (eg category = K) and automatically adds the 2-letter country code without editors manually using a variety of formats (eg US, U.S., United States, United States, (US), (US), (U.S.) etc).

There is no specific coding for UK - our British National Formulary in an appendix gives details on problem drugs, in which trimester and why (the wording tends to be a of number of set phrases with qualify explanation but there are a lot of individual specific comments. So any UK info that is not obvious from AU & US categories (eg Promethazine is generally advised to avoid unless benefit outweighs possible harm, yet it is our recommended drug of choice for excessive vomiting of pregnancy !) is all stuff better left as free text under current parameter pregnancy_category - which of course must be kept for backwards compatability for all those articles already using this parameter.

Let me have any thoughts and I can quickly implement this.David Ruben ^Talk 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea to me. I have personally never added UK-related pregnancy information to drugboxes anyway, mostly for the reasons you outlined above. Fvasconcellos 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a good idea to me too. -Techelf 10:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

pregnancy_AU and pregnancy_US implemented - see template for discussion on how to use. I will ask User:Diberri to implement in his tool the additional country specific parameters. David Ruben ^Talk 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added these to the template builder. Here's an example. --David Iberri (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff - but its lost the | excretion = parameter line in standard & extended format. David Ruben ^Talk 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --David Iberri (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)