 | Niacin has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 8, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Niacin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Niacin.
|
 | A fact from Niacin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 August 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | On 3 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Niacin (substance) to Niacin. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Post-RM discussion
editLate comment I am the person who started this mess (though in my very stubborn opinion, I still believe that I cleared it). I can see that Mdewman6 correctly sees that "vitamin B3" and "nicotinic acid" are distinct, so I would like to once again outline the mess and explain my view on the "ideal situation". I hope this is not seen as an attempt at a Last Word -- I welcome everyone to throw question at me so we can, maybe, get it fixed once and for all. And I hope I'm not counting as adding further edits, because this is outside of the green box!
- The vitamin sense (vitamin B3 (Q30715691)) is unambiguously specified with "vitamin B3", but a quick look at how food is labeled in regulations and, well, cereal boxes will show that "niacin" would be the more proper, WP:COMMONNAME choice. Indeed, the word "niacin" was specifically coined from "nicotinic acid vitamin".
- The one specific compound sense (nicotinic acid (Q134658)) would be unambiguously specified by, as A455bcd9 notes, "nicotinic acid". Among the possible forms of the vitamin, this substance is the only one that acts as a lipid-modifying medication. The trouble is that American medicine have decided to also use the name niacin for this substance, even in the context of the lipid-modifying medicine. And we all know how influential American terminological decisions are.
My ideal state for the pages is therefore:
- Vitamin B3 → Niacin, with a
{{for}}on top. - Niacin → Nicotinic acid, with sections "Vitamin deficiency", "Dietary recommendations", and "Sources" moved to B3.
I executed the split partly because I judged, from the many discussions around Archive 2, that people do realize these two are distinct things and find the intermingling confusing. Nicotinic acid was unavailable for move, hence the pretty screwed-up parentheticals.--Artoria2e5 🌉 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- If anything, I would be okay with moving niacin to nicotinic acid and moving niacin (disambiguation) to niacin. But regardless, if the status quo is unsatisfactory, go ahead and start another RM, but make sure to include all necessary moves in a single request (see WP:EXPLICIT), so we have one discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Lost subpages
edit@Shibbolethink: thanks for the close. Some of the subpages belonging to this talkpage including the GA-review are currently subpages at talk:niacin (disambiguation)/ Draken Bowser (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, will fix it. Looks like I moved them correctly but the previous mover did not. Will fix it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink: you only partially cleaned this up, and I finished. See Niacin split reverted. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you! I did not know about this discussion. I appreciate the help! I only moved the subpages I was alerted to to the overall Niacin page, I didn't know about this more complex history. Looks like the main thing I failed to do was remove the incoming links template from the DAB and fix the simvastatin subpage which I must have missed on my initial subpage search. My apologies for creating the extra work for you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink: you only partially cleaned this up, and I finished. See Niacin split reverted. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Sustained-release vs. extended-release
editThe article seems to describe sustained-release (SR) niacin and extended-release (ER) niacin as the same thing, but reference 15 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK548176/ ) seems to indicate that SR niacin and ER niacin are actually two different products, with SR niacin being available over the counter while ER niacin is prescription-only and is what is sold under the name Niaspan, and SR having a much higher risk of liver toxicity. I can't seem to disentangle which is which and what they're each made of enough to edit this into the article myself. (This might be useful, though I'm not sure https://www.ajmc.com/view/sep02-145ps308-s314 . ) Wombat140 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Corn
editNo article referring to maize should use the word 'corn'. It's confusing outside of North America and surely all North Americans know what maize is, which is unambiguous. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Names 84.203.21.239 (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Second paragraph of Vitamin deficiency section has "maize (corn)" I changed the one sentence's use of "corn" after that to "maize". Also fixed in the Sources table. David notMD (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)