Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

I'm surprised that this is a redlink

Drug class & drug classification – does anyone know of an appropriate redirect? I'm rather surprised we don't actually have either (at least) a stub covering the topic on either page or have the terms redirected to an appropriate page/section covering it, especially considering Template:Infobox drug class is used in articles about a drug class (e.g., see SSRI). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The closest I've seen is Drug nomenclature, but that's not quite what you're after. I suppose the problem is that there are so many different ways of classifying drugs, which is why we have so many entries in Category:Pharmacological classification systems. Despite (or perhaps 'because of') it being a rather nebulous topic, I think that it would be worth writing something on Drug class. Klbrain (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As Klbrain writes: many ways of classifying drugs. From this, {{Infobox drug class}} is incomplete and chaotic, I'd suggest it be merged into {{Drugbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the most widely used classification systems is the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System. Another less formal system that is widely used in the literature in to classify drugs based on their biological target (e.g., ACE inhibitor, Beta blocker, Fibrate, etc.). Perhaps a List of drug classes article would be most appropriate. Drug class ≠ drug, hence merging {{Infobox drug class}} into {{Drugbox}} makes no sense. Most of the drug specific fields in the later are not appropriate for the former. Also precisely what is chaotic and incomplete about the former? Boghog (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This PMID 18999016 citation seems quite relevant. Also from

• World Health Organization (2003). Introduction to drug utilization research (PDF). Geneva: World Health Organization. p. 33. ISBN 924156234X.

Drugs can be classified in different ways according to:

• their mode of action;
• their indications;
• their chemical structure; or
• their biological target. (the last one I added) Boghog (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Merging the drug class infobox into the drugbox template sounds like a good idea IMO. Boghog's citations should be sufficient to create/cite a stub on drug class - I'll go ahead and create it within the next day or 2 if it's still a redlink by then. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly would merging these two infoboxes be a good idea? If you look closely, there is actually very little overlap in the data fields. Furthermore the merger would just create a larger more complex template confusing editors by making it harder to locate the relevant fields for a drug class. Finally the merger would create a lot of unnecessary work. Better to keep them separate. Boghog (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

One distinct advantage of of keeping a separate {{Infobox drug class}} template is that it makes it easy to locate drug class articles. Boghog (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Why merging {{Infobox drug class}} into {{drugbox}}? Already drugbox has classification fields like ATC and legal status (by country). And today it looks 'chaotic' because the info is not structured. Especially it does not say to which classification system the class belongs. Boghog starts with listing two, next to ATC and legal status. One can also see the a flaw by checking whether the box is used on a classification system article, on a distinct class of a system, and or on a plain drug article. That is: is the article about: a classification system, a class, or about a drug?). -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

None of the drug or drug class articles are about classification systems. We have very few drug classification system articles and the ones we do have are listed here. These generally do not tranclude infoboxes of any kind. Maintaining a separate {{Infobox drug class}} template makes clear that articles that transcludes it are about drug classes and not individual drugs. Merging the two templates would make the situation more chaotic, not less. If |ATC_prefix= is used, then obviously the ATC classification system is used. |Biological_target= is used, then the target classification system is used. It is possible that both could be used in the same article, because sometimes the two classification systems closely overlap. In other cases, they don't. I know this is messy, but it is unavoidable and is a direct result of differences in the two classification schemes. Merging templates will not remove this ambiguity. Also the information in the {{Infobox drug class}} does not need to be structured because there are relatively few fields. Finally the legal status by country should probably be removed from is not included in the {{Infobox drug class}} together because the status of individual drugs within a class often vary. Boghog (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

After adding "Identifiers" and "Clinical data" section headers, the data in {{Infobox drug class}} is now structured. Boghog (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Drug class stub created. Boghog (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"None of the drug or drug class articles are about classification systems." - then delete {{Infobox drug class}} for incorrect name. Really, keep in mind the diff between "classification system" and "class of a classification system".

"the information in the {{Infobox drug class}} does not need to be structured ..."? Nonsense.

Maybe I could agree on keeping the infobox if it is structured about classification & and their classes. Now let's check infobox usage at: vitamin B, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E. Lot of work to do in those 39, and for example don't mistake a mixture/group of compounds for a class.

Quite simple: if classification system X is OK for wikipedia (notable etc), then {{Drugbox}} should have datarow with fact |class X=, with a substantial label (=lefthand side) link to that class. Otherwise: not. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Why and by what are these a "class"? 5-HT3 antagonist, Statin, Nitrovasodilator, [1], but none of [2]? -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Classification system ≠ individual class. We have a hierarchy of drug classification and individual drug articles:

1. Drug class – types of classification systems – no infobox
2. ATC, SNOMED, and more informally Biological target – specific classification systems – no infobox
3. individual drug classes – {{Infobox drug class}}
4. individual drugs – {{Infobox drug}}

{{Infobox drug class}} is meant to contain information about individual classes, not classification systems and hence is properly named. The only systematic drug classification system that is widely used is the ATC system. Less structured but still widely used classification systems are based on the Biological target (& Mechanism of action) and/or Chemical class. The ATC system sometimes but not always contains information about the biological target or chemical class. Hence we should have identifiers for all three:

1. ATC – |ATC_prefix=
2. Biological target – |Biological_target= & Mechanism of action – |Mechanism_of_action=
3. Chemical class – |Chemical_class=

In answer to your questions about how specific drug classes are defined:

• 5-HT3 antagonist – |Biological_target=5-HT3 receptor & |Mechanism_of_action=Receptor antagonist or |ATC_prefix= A03
• Statin – |Biological_target=HMG-CoA reductase & |Mechanism_of_action=Enzyme inhibitor or |ATC_prefix=C10AA
• Nitrovasodilator – |Biological_target=Guanylyl cyclase & |Mechanism_of_action=Enzyme activator & |Chemical_class=Nitric oxide precursor or |ATC_prefix=C04

The {{Infobox drug class}} is already structured since it has an external links section. We could further improve the structure by replacing "External links" with "Class identifiers" and adding "Clinical data" headings. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• While we are at it, we might also consider adding |Mechanism_of_action= which could be used to specify receptor agonist, antagonist, inverse agonist, or modulator; enzyme activator or inhibitor; or ion channel opener or blocker. Boghog (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• OK, I have modified the sandbox to include new |Mode_of_action=, |Mechanism_of_action=, and |Chemical_class= parameters. I have also added new "Class identifiers" and "Clinical data" section headings. An example of how the modified template looks like may be found in the test cases page. How does this look? Boghog (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note that the order of the class identifiers follows a logical progression from organismal (disease) to cellular (mode of action) to molecular (mechanism of action, biological target, and chemical class). I would prefer the reverse direction, but most people at WP:MED would disagree. Boghog (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine to merge the two simply to have a centralized drug-related infobox; the drugbox template is much more visible than the drug class template, so its visibility could promote the use of the drug class infobox if merged. I don't necessarily think it should be merged unless someone is willing to put in the work to implement it so that it looks (roughly) identical and includes the same data fields as before. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Merging would cause confusion as to which fields are appropriate to use. For that reason alone, merging is a clearly bad idea. In addition, merging would eliminate a good way to track drug class articles. Finally merging would create unnecessary work that would be better spent on deploying the {{Infobox drug class}} more widely. This would do far more to raise the visibility of the template than burying it in a subsection of the drugbox where no one will notice it. Merging the template will decrease, not increase its visibility. I will happily work on deploying the existing template more widely but I will not spend a millisecond on merging it.
• Also, I would appreciate some feedback on how the sandbox version looks (see test cases). Boghog (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• I think that the templates look good, noting that of course not all subheadings will be appropriate for all ways of categorizing drugs; that is true for all infoboxes. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think it looks good too. But it is a little confusing that the links in "clinical section" are external links when there is a section named external links. I suggest to add the external link symbol. Christian75 (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your revised version of the drug class template is definitely an improvement over the original. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the very first testcase is Propranolol: a single chemical compound. In other words, it is an individual drug. But here it is transformned into being a class by a property. This way, individual drug could be called a "class" by some property. This is the error made: propranolol is member of a class. It does not define the class. (correctly, the article has {{drugbox}}). -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, propranolol is a member of a class and is used as an example of that class as the caption makes clear. It is not meant to define the class, only to represent it. We have zillions of articles about more general subjects that contain graphics of specific examples to represent the more general topic. And this is not an otherstuff argument. If otherstuff is common, it by definition means its application has community consensus. Boghog (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right. -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• 1. re "{{Infobox drug class}} is meant to contain information about individual classes" Well, that should be in the top of the /doc of course. And, quite essential, the ~first parameter should be |part of classifiation system=.

2. A class added from another system (like ATC in a Biological target class), that should be under subheader like: "class name in other classification systems". It should not suggest that a class is identified by that other class. -DePiep (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Re #1: asked and answered above. To reiterate, If |ATC_prefix= is used, then obviously the ATC classification system is used. |Biological_target= is used, then the target classification system is used.
• Re #2: Most of the articles that we have about individual drug classes do not correspond exactly to an entry in a formal system like ATC. Rather they are used informally in the biomedical literature and their use is backed up by multiple reliable secondary sources, hence notable, but not necessarily defined in ATC. This is particularly true of new classes of research drugs that have not yet been been approved for human use. Boghog (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I can articulate this well enough, but it think the best article title would be drug classification.

Wouldn't it be better to have the subheader read, like: Drug classification system: Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (into a regular label-value pair). As it is now, it is a bit wierd. For example, in {{Building}} we do not have Building in top: this should be in the lede ('X is a drug class'). -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether we call the article "drug class" or "drug classification" although I do prefer the former as being simpler. The lead in drug class first states that a drug class is a related set of drugs and then lists several ways in which they can be classified. The definition of the various classification systems follows logically from the definition of a class. In short, class is the more fundamental concept. A regular label-value label pair would make sense if there was a one-to-one correspondence between specific drug class articles and drug classification systems. This is usually not the case. There are several partially overlapping classification systems, and most drug class articles can be mapped to more than one classification system. Because of this one-to-several relationship, the infobox contains several label-value pairs under the heading of "classification identifiers". Boghog (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I gently disagree. The article describes classifiction, of which classes are an outcome. So that points to the order of concepts: the classification defines the classes, not the other way around. (and so "class is the more fundamental concept" is wrong wrt "classification"). Renaming would nicely leave a redirect, of course.

Later more about the second thing. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Iodine (¹²⁵I) CC49 deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iodine (125I) CC49. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Patiromer for DYK

Just so you know. Template:Did you know nominations/Patiromer. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Drugbox types are categorised now

I have created these categories, populated by {{Infobox drug}}:

Category:Drugs by type

• Category:Drugs that are a combination of chemicals
• Category:Drugs that are a monoclonal antibody
• Category:Drugs that are a vaccine

The default (drug=single chemical) is not categorised. These listings might be useful for those who follow vaccines, m.antibodies etc. Also, there are some "?" markers (unknown value) to be checked. Comments at Template talk:Infobox drug please. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

How should we manage history articles?

I classified Project 523 as a mid importance article, since it led to the creation of a new class of drugs that includes another mid class article, but am unsure of this. The current importance assessment framework makes no mention of pharmacologists or events in pharmacology, only of drugs themselves and major scientific concepts in the field. Right now, History of pharmacy is rated mid importance, despite being such a broad, overarching topic. History of Aspirin is rated high importance. We need a better, more structured way in which to classify these articles, and update the template to reflect that.

My idea is as follows (please provide feedback!):

• Top: History of pharmacy and very few others pertaining to Pharmacology as a science.
• High: Articles on histories of major drug classes. Ex. History of opiates <--article does not currently exist; example purely illustrative.
• Medium: Articles on histories of lead drugs in classes, or less clinically significant drug classes. Ex. History of aspirin
• Low: Articles on histories of drugs classified as Medium or Low importance. Ex. History of benzonatate <--also does not exist

-- Thereppy (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"History of x" sounds good. Typically I would say most of this would be low in importance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Tetulomab

I'm not qualified to do more than fix the citation format on this in-development cancer drug article, and some red flags (ELs to company website; one source from 1985 and another declaring major COI) made me want to let y'all look it over. Thanks, FourViolas (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting an Assessment of Nintedanib Article

Dear WP:Pharmacology Community,
I am posting here to highlight a number of inconsistencies within a page on your site regarding the medical treatment nintedanib, which is indicated for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)*. My reason for contacting you is to share my concerns that the information on this page might cause confusion for patients and physicians, and I urge the WP: Pharmacology community to edit this article; making it therefore a factual and balanced source of information.
The current layout of information on the page could be unclear for patients as it is hard to easily differentiate which information is relevant to the use of nintedanib within NSCLC and which information relates to IPF. One example of this is the current dosing information written in the nintedanib article. The article states that the maximum tolerated dose of nintedanib when taken once a day is 200mg. However for the treatment of IPF, nintedanib (brand name OFEV®) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission with the recommended dose of 150 mg twice daily, administered approximately 12 hours apart. This dosing is different for treatment of locally advanced, metastatic or locally recurrent NSCLC of adenocarcinoma tumour history after first-line chemotherapy when used in combination with docetaxel, the recommended dose of nintedanib (brand name VARGATEF®), which is 200mg twice daily administered approximately 12 hours apart. As you can see this could potentially bring misinformation or confusion to any reader of the page – including patients.
I fully appreciate that as an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim - manufacturers of nintedanib - I have a conflict of interest and will therefore not take any direct action to edit this information myself. In the past (Jan 2015 and Mar 2015), I suggested previous edits to the Pharmacology community via the Talk page, but have seen little change in the article itself. I would be happy to work with you to provide any further information, data or additional resources about nintedanib that would be helpful if you were to consider updating this information. In particular we can provide further information to support updates to the following outdated sections:

• • Medical Uses and Current Clinical trials: ‘Results from randomized controlled trials look promising as of 2014’ and ‘a phase III clinical trial was underway examining the safety and efficacy of nintedanib on patients with the non-cancerous lung condition idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.’

• • o Current status of trials: For the treatment of IPF nintedanib has been studied in a comprehensive clinical trial programme including the Phase II TOMORROW dose finding trial, the Phase III INPULSIS®-1 and 2 trials as well as the open-label INPULSIS®-ON extension trial. Results from INPULSIS®-1 and -2 were presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) International Conference and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2014. In addition results from INPULSIS®-ON and sub-analyses of the INPULSIS® trials were presented at the European Respiratory Society Congress in September 2015.
• Mechanism of Action: Currently no information is included in relation to IPF.
  • Nintedanib mode of action: Nintedanib targets growth factor receptors, which have been shown to be involved in the mechanisms by which pulmonary fibrosis occurs. Most importantly nintedanib inhibits platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). It is believed that nintedanib reduces disease progression in IPF and slows the decline in lung function by blocking the signalling pathways that are involved in fibrotic processes.
• History: ‘Nintedanib was approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis on Oct 15, 2014 by the FDA. This was under the brand name Ofev; in 2014 by the United States Food and Drug Administration and in 2015 by the European Commission.’
  • Current status of approvals: Approvals for the treatment of IPF have now been granted by Health Canada, The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan, Swissmedic among others and is under regulatory review by health authorities in other countries (as of 21st October 2015).

We look forward to hearing your insights and hopefully working to make nintedanib a more complete Wikipedia article.

Yours sincerely, Lismmq (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Posted a link at WT:MED Sizeofint (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if you could give independent sources, especially for the mechanism. Thanks for your input! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• any and all medical content should follow Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lismmq. Thanks for the note. If you haven't seen it before, then you might enjoy reading Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia.

It would be really helpful if you could point us at a few sources that support the claims. I'm sure you're already aware that anyone can show up and claim to be from a company, so we tend to be cautious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear ἀνυπόδητος, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing and the WP:Pharmacology community, I've included some sources below. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you! Lismmq (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Approvals, Dosing and MOA

Claim: The article states that the maximum tolerated dose of nintedanib when taken once a day is 200mg. However for the treatment of IPF, nintedanib (brand name OFEV®) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission with the recommended dose of 150 mg twice daily, administered approximately 12 hours apart.
Claim: Nintedanib mode of action: Nintedanib targets growth factor receptors, which have been shown to be involved in the mechanisms by which pulmonary fibrosis occurs. Most importantly nintedanib inhibits platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). It is believed that nintedanib reduces disease progression in IPF and slows the decline in lung function by blocking the signalling pathways that are involved in fibrotic processes.
Claim: History: ‘Nintedanib was approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis on Oct 15, 2014 by the FDA. This was under the brand name Ofev; in 2014 by the United States Food and Drug Administration and in 2015 by the European Commission.’

• Current status of approvals: Approvals for the treatment of IPF have now been granted by Health Canada, The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan, Swissmedic among others and is under regulatory review by health authorities in other countries (as of 21st October 2015).

Supporting Links:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/205832s000lbl.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm418994.htm
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003821/WC500182474.pdf
http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/003821/human_med_001834.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/rds-sdr/drug-med/rds_sdr_ofev_176043-eng.php
https://www.swissmedic.ch/zulassungen/00153/00189/00200/02936/index.html?lang=en

Current Status of Trials:

Claim: For the treatment of IPF nintedanib has been studied in a comprehensive clinical trial programme including the Phase II TOMORROW dose finding trial, the Phase III INPULSIS®-1 and 2 trials as well as the open-label INPULSIS®-ON extension trial. Results from INPULSIS®-1 and -2 were presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) International Conference and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2014.

Supporting Links:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1103690
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1402584
https://cms.psav.com/cPaper2012/myitinerary/publication-63779.html?congress=ats2015
https://cms.psav.com/cPaper2012/myitinerary/publication-63819.html?congress=ats2015
https://cms.psav.com/cPaper2012/myitinerary/publication-64594.html?congress=ats2015
https://cms.psav.com/cPaper2012/myitinerary/publication-64545.html?congress=ats2015

Claim: In addition results from INPULSIS®-ON and sub-analyses of the INPULSIS® trials were presented at the European Respiratory Society Congress in September 2015.

Supporting Links:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(15)00421-X/abstract

Status

I keep hoping to get back to this. Has anyone else had a chance to use some of these sources to correct these articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the errors pointed out by Lismmq have been fixed, but the sources they gave probably contain a lot of material that could be added to the article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Drugbox update

I've just added TemplateData for the parameters in {{drugbox}}. I don't think I missed any, but I can't be certain, because there are a lot of them.

I'd really appreciate it if someone else would take a turn, especially for the purpose of providing descriptions and examples for the parameters (anything you'd like to be reminded of, like it's "Aspirin.png", not "File:Aspirin.png"). Also, which ones would you like to pop up when you insert a new drugbox on a page? Those should all be marked as "suggested". ("Required" is reserved for situations when skipping the parameter causes the template to break/emit error messages.) At this time, there's no way to express dependencies between parameters ("if type=vacc, then give me this list"), but I think we can do everything else that we would want here.

If you want to have a go, then edit the /doc page, wait for a few seconds, and then click the "Manage TemplateData" button that appears at the top. That will open a large dialog box that allows you to change all the information for every parameter (and add new ones, too), without having to get the JSON formatting exactly right. "Label" is what the editor will see (usually a spelled-out version of the parameter name). "Description" is a plain-text description (no links!), and "Example" is an exact example of what should be typed into the field (e.g., Aspirin.png). Don't forget that when you're done, you will still need to save the page, exactly as if you had typed it directly into the wikitext editing window!

If you have questions or need help, then please {{ping}} me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing is this for VE? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Although technically TemplateData can be read and processed by other software, the only use I expect for this one is people using the visual editor to add or edit drugboxes here. IMO it would be nice to get this "perfect" and then translate/export it to the other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• There are 118 element symbols in there (construct chemical formula). That may be too much to keep overview. Can they be suppressed (made invisible), deleted for overview, separated visually otherwise? -DePiep (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • TemplateData doesn't have any way to make some parameters seem visually more or less important than others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Tempting then to remove them all (maybe even cheat by mentioning them in the alternative single parameter |chemical_formula= helptext). -DePiep (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• FYI, over at talk:drugbox I am proposing to add/remove parameters. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I am just learning about Wikipedia:TemplateData from this post and I already see it in wide use. Has this been described in that VisualEditor newsletter? Is there a narrative or journalism which makes this easy to understand? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been mentioned off and on for almost two years in WP:VisualEditor/Updates, but I don't think that we have achieved "easy to understand" yet.

"Why anyone should care" may be easier to show than to tell, so click here and try to insert an infobox in each of the three available methods, using nothing more than what you see in the editing system itself:

1. Go to the Insert menu, and choose Template.
2. Type Infobox drug in the blank, and click "Add template". Try to fill it in and insert it.
3. Go back to the Insert menu, and choose Template again.
4. Type Infobox school in the blank, and click "Add template". Try to fill it in and insert it.
5. Click the "[[ ]]" button in the toolbar (next to the save button) and switch to wikitext. Add Infobox organization – without looking it up or copying it.

So that's "why": Even though the TemplateData I've added to {{drugbox}} is mediocre (e.g., insufficient examples), and even though it is one of the most complex infoboxes on the English Wikipedia, someone who knows nothing about this template except its name can realistically fill in the blanks and (usually) get a passable result because of the help that TemplateData provides. It's much harder the other ways, even though I suggested particularly easy infoboxes for those. You either have to stop editing and go look up the documentation every single time, or you have to guess repeatedly (was that |start= or |founding=? |address= or |location= or |headquarters=?).

In terms of "how to do it", it's not difficult to get started, especially for simpler templates, but the documentation has never been great, and is currently poor. There's a small project in hand to update the documentation, but I'm not very hopeful about the probability of a grand success right now.

Feel free to ask more questions. I'm happy to talk about this, if anyone's interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

New user needs help with Calcipotriol/betamethasone

See User talk:DrDCook (and the latest edits to Calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate). I'll be away for (probably) two weeks from Saturday morning. Help for DrDCook would be much appreciated. Thanks, guys! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)