This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

{{Drugbox|molecular_weight|xxx}} displays the value as "xxx g·mol⁻¹", that is, with the units automatically added. We currently have a lot (almost 5000 by a quick heuristic--please don't run this query a lot, it's expensive) articles that include units in their |molecular_weight= value, meaning the display includes the units twice. See for example Morphine, where |molecular_weight=285.34 g/mol is rendered as "285.34 g/mol g·mol⁻¹". So that needs to be cleaned up. Many of these have the molecular formula given in a way that the drugbox can calcluate and display the weight automatically. Does anyone have a preference for retaining the hardcoded masses (clean up by removing the units from the value) vs allowing the automatic calculation (clean up by removing the |molecular_weight= field altogether)? DMacks (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting and working on this. Is the latter proposal to remove |molecular_weight= from the template itself, or to delete the parameter entry in boxes where it can be automatically calculated? I suppose the problem with the former case is your comment that many of these have the molecular formula given in a way that the drugbox can calcluate; the concern being many rather than all. If the vast majority of boxes can calculate the mass/weight automatically, then the hardcoded weight is redundant and it would be better to remove it. Klbrain (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would edit per-page to remove the redundant field. I would not want to remove support for the field from the template itself, because there are cases where autocalculation (as we currently implement it) does not work. Once we solve the redundant cases, the cases where we still hardcode could be a second edit-pass to convert to autocalculated where possible. DMacks (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for bringing this up! I'd support removing the |molecular_weight= values wherever possible. One thing less to take care of. BTW, the drugbox apparently gives the exact same molecular weights as DrugBank when it calculates them automatically; but ChemSpider has slightly different values. I assume this is a rounding error or the like on part of ChemSpider. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand why this information has been removed from the infoboxes. Taking cisplatin as an example, the infobox prior to 19 June 2020 said simply "Molar mass 300.01 g/mol" and I see no duplication. It certainly did not say 300.01 g/mol g·mol⁻¹, at least on my computer. Now the molar mass is not given at all in this article, for no apparent reason. Please explain what the duplication was. Dirac66 (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the cases where the drugbox can't autocalculate the molecular weight. I have restored the information. Thanks for catching this! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Also thanks. I ran this with JWB and manually watched every edit, catching most that matched a regex but still should not have been removed. A few slipped through that should not have been remove and I manually corrected them. This looks like a place (only one I've heard) that those three filters all failed. I'll be doing one or more runs in the future, and will try to be more careful. Question: why is that one not written in the usual way for a molecular formula--should there be a shadow version of the usual way that allows calculation in addition to this form that includes structural detail? DMacks (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered that the drugbox already supports "shadow formulæ"! Also, I'm not sure why the formula isn't given in empirical form as usual; but the drugbox documentation says "When a molecular formula or structural formula is known, that one should be entered in |chemical_formula=", so I don't want to change it without discussion, and that's frankly not worth it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Howdy,

Currently, templates for ATC codes are under the names of the categories, not under a format such as Template:ATC code A10 (instead it's Template:Oral hypoglycemics and insulin analogs. Was there a previous discussion as to these templates being named for their names instead of their ATC codes? If so/not, would it be better to name them under Template:ATC code A10 for example, and what would be the proper way to get a consensus to do this? If not, should redirects from formats such as Template:ATC code A10 be created to the named templates so as to assist people creating articles on members of those classes? Thanks bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Basically I think it is a good idea to move these navigation templates, with one caveat: Template:ATC code A etc. have very similar names but serve a quite different purpose. Would this confuse people? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure. Maybe those should be moved to Template:ATC category A, as that’s more descriptive? Technically, “A” isn’t an ATC code in and of itself. But that’s getting into a whole other can of worm-changes. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anypodetos: figured I'd ping just in case, also noting that I have invited WP:MED to input on this topic by linking to this section from their talk page. If anyone knows other interested parties/projects that may have information/opinions I ask you to please invite them here as this has been bugging me for a few weeks :) bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: there's certainly no problem in creating redirects (we say "redirects are cheap") and you would be more than welcome to do that job if you wanted to. I see there are 119 templates in Category:Drug templates by ATC, so it should be a manageable task. --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

yes would agree w/ RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS and Ozzie10aaaa: - would creating the redirects cause any problems/make it more difficult to switch the primary template later? If there is a redirect, does it really matter which name is the "actual" one? As far as I have read up a redirect would work the same way as the regular template, but if it would cause any issues I'd rather just work on compiling a list and then once it's decided whether Template:ATC code X0 or Template:Class of drugs should be the name, then move them all and redirect the other names. If there's literally no reason not to create the redirects, I can compile a list and start on creating them (manually, probably, given there's only 120ish) later tonight. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: redirects will not cause any problems or make things more difficult. The difference between the redirect and the 'actual' template is that the Category:Drug templates by ATC goes on the 'actual' page, so that is the name which appears on the category page. Articles where the template is placed will display exactly the same whether they contain the redirect or the 'actual' ATC template. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Would it be a good idea to categorize these redirects in something such as Category:Redirects to named ATC code templates or something? I'll go ahead and work on creating the redirects later on tonight when I'm back home since there's no problem. Thanks for all the help - trying not to break things :P bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: here's some light reading for you: Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Berchanhimez, just to provide you some perspective how this was managed in other areas. We encountered a similar issue in the medicine and anatomy spaces over the last few years. Both were managed by putting all the templates or links on respective pages (anatomy - Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Templates, medicine - {{Medicine_navs}}). In both cases we removed most of the identifiers (which in your case is ATC) because the are not useful to readers, crowd the template name and make it harder to read, and force some content to be or not to be in templates, which occasionally doesn't match the way our articles are structured. Additionally once one identifier is used it is very tempting for some editors to want to add their own identifiers and then it just becomes a mess. Medicine still retains a lot of the identifiers such as ICD codes, whereas in the anatomy space where we had quite a few terms we used a bot (requested here WP:BOTREQ) to move them all to Wikidata and remove them from the templates, as we felt they were not really useful at all. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): Hmm, this is definitely some food for thought. It may be a good idea to list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/List of ATC navboxes or similar, and then not even need the redirects - that also keeps it clearer what the templates are when the page is edited. I got quite busy the end of this week so haven't had time to look into this more yet but I'll start with that I think instead of the redirects (then just bookmark that page). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

List created