Talk:Potassium permanganate (medical use)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was consensus to keep articles split. Overwhelming support for keeping these as two separate articles. Good points brought forth on both sides, but those who opposed the merge were both in a clear majority and had a multitude of reasons to support separate articles. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Proposal to merge Potassium permanganate (medical use) into Potassium permanganate

• Oppose We often split out major aspects of a substance into a subarticle. We do this for dopamine among many other substances. That google prioritizes medical content is interesting. Maybe we should do the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support The current article on potassium permanganate is certainly not so long that it needs to have this aspect of its use itemized as a separate article. Also, regarding dopamine, we do have an article on dopamine and another in dopamine (medication), but this is not a separate "use": one [article] is a chemical in the brain and the other [article] is a prescribed medication, which makes separation pretty justifiable. As it is, this separate article on medical uses of p.p. is largely redundant with what is already in the article on the substance, and that article also contains a large amount of discussion of medical uses. I do not think it benefits our readers to have these topics separated from each other, and is likely to cause more confusion than anything. I do not understand what is meant by Google prioritizing medical content-- that has no bearing here as far as I can tell. KDS4444 ^(talk) 05:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Belated Support as nominator. (Can I do this? Anyway...) My edit summary was: Why break off three measly paragraphs from the main article? (infobox is same) Bigger issue is that Google prioritizes this stub over the main article. What!? This blurb is returned as the #1 result when searching Potassium permanganate. Hello? We have a... (:END_SUMMARY) I'm glad to see you've found it :) Google is a strange beast/entity indeed. •ː• 3ICE •ː• 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, for me only the main article shows when I search for "potassium permanganate"...in fact this article does not even show up in the first 10 results. I checked in another browser to remove any personalization of results too. Galobtter (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• oppose agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support I don't think we should be creating stubs just to discuss the medical aspects of chemicals. Per WP:SPINOFF There are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible: 1) Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem. 2) Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections. I am not seeing that either of these criteria are met here. Sizeofint (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to regretfully point out that this merge proposal has not been initiated correctly as it is a requirement that the merge proposal tag be placed on both the article to be merged and the destination article at the time of the merge proposal. This alerts readers at the destination article to have a say in whether they want to see the source article merged with it and in this case that hasn't been done. CV9933 (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added a notice on Potassium permanganate Sizeofint (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose These are two different topics. Merging them together will cause confusion. Because one article is a stub or short is not a reason to merge. For medical use it deserves its own article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I would call it more a subtopic than a different topic. And we have used article length as a reason to merge on many occasions. We don't separate off 'industrial uses', 'commercial uses', etc. Why should we treat medical uses differently? Sizeofint (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

For one this is on the WHO List of Essential Medicines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

We treat medical use differently because readers are especially interested in medical content. I don't want the content to be buried in another article. I want the information to be more accessible to our readers. QuackGuru (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The main article in question is not very long and the medical uses are featured prominently in the lead. I really don't see that this information is hard to find. We're only making it harder for us to maintain the content. I plain disagree with the premise that WHO listing justifies forking. Sizeofint (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that being on the WHO List does not justify forking. -DePiep (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The article was expanded. Therefore, the discussion to merge is mute. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)(I think he means moot.)

• Oppose The medical article should stand alone, but it does need expansion. No reason this should be a permastub.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. That medical use is an important feature somehow does not make that a separate topic. (Bio-)chemistry of a drug already is or should be part of the article. There are no size-issues at all pushing for separation. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. In a perfect world, I would support the merger because the information of both the chem and medical perspectives are interconnected. In the real world, I have seen too many chem articles hijacked by medical editors. Separating the articles would solve that problem. Also I would like to led the medically-oriented articles cope with the flood of safety/home-remedy/fringe tox/carcinogen/etc information that non-technical editors can insert into articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand medical editors "hijack", and on the other you want to dump the hard stuff onto us. Where is the love? :) Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

lol. I don't see the love either, but I do see the point in there. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• re Smokefoot: that would be giving in to non-encyclopedic approach. Creating a separate subsite for med; drug labels only articles. So finally amateur and professional medics don't have to see chemistry and backgrounds any more. "It's on the WHO List [so keep split]" is an argument, above. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The argument is more that medical articles and chemical articles have a different manual of style, different presentation, and different emphasis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is a better splitting rationale, but I'm not certain this is a substantial problem for relatively small articles like this one. The MOSes aren't entirely incompatible and perhaps some discussion between WP:CHEMS and WP:MED/WP:PHARM could resolve some difficulties. Sizeofint (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I plead guilty to snark and a little territoriality (hard core chem vs medical/health), but there are a serious issues raised/implied by others (see Tryptofish below).

• most lay readers dont want to know about the crystal structure (etc) of KMNO4, they want to cure their woes or understand their prescription. So hard core chem content is tangential for these readers.
• the chem articles are often threatened with volumes of health information that would be good to shunt other articles (here I am being selfish). A recent example is nickel(II) sulfate#Safety.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Smokefoot I do not exactly blame you, I enjoyed the to-the-point/tongue-in-cheek wording "hijacked". In maintaining {{Infobox drug}} I met the same approach: like, "only the Clinical info is important". And this is based on a 'what do readers want to read' argument: in drugs/med, that appears to be a self-medication guideline (drug label texts). Both amateurs ('readers'), and pros (editors!). I myself am not convinced that that is the correct description of our Readers (IOW, who are we to say so). What I miss in this approach is the encyclopedic argument, the information design overview, and academic self-testing. -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

the chem articles are often threatened with volumes of health information The guidelines recommend a split when this happens. In the case of the article here this isn't really a threat at present. Sizeofint (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see this as having the same logic as having Oxygen therapy separately from Oxygen (albeit with a shorter page). It wouldn't be awful to make the therapeutic uses a section of the molecule page, but the fact that readers often come here to look for health-related information as opposed to information about chemistry, I see the existence of separate pages as helpful to our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• As you note, both Oxygen and Oxygen therapy are large and therefore the guidelines strongly recommend a split for that reason alone. I don't see that as a wholly analogous case. Sizeofint (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Understood, but for me, the usefulness to readers is what matters the most, as opposed to page length. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There are actually quite a few very similar cases, such as Sodium nitrite (medical use) (especially this one), Sodium thiosulfate (medical use), and Magnesium sulfate (medical use), where there is short medical use article for a compound on the WHO list that could be merged into the main article. Galobtter^{Talk to me!} 05:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• The drugbox could go into the merge too, in the Med section, and redundant chemical info (like InChI number) removed. In some cases (drugs), maybe the order could be reverse ({{Infobox drug}} in top). I guess 50% or more of this current article is redundant information, which says much about size reasons. -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• All Essential Medicines are notable and deserving of an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• That is a fine assertion, but not necessarily what we are debating.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Sizeofint Tryptofish, and because its confusing to have an article which covers both the medical use and the chemical use. E.g. the infobox of the "chemical" says "harmful if swallowed" ... Christian75 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I read Sizeofint supports the merge. As for contradicting or not-aligned information: even better when they are in one page! -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I copy-pasted the wrong person as you may know. It should have been user:Tryptofish. The infomation is not contradicting - it describe two different situations. If merged the chembox should be replaced with the drugbox, IMO Christian75 (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the confusion in this case, because it isn't a oral medication—this article also says ingestion causes problems.Galobtter (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I know. I copied another wrong R sentence. It should have been "Contact with combustible material may cause fire". Christian75 (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the confusion is; is having that on a medicine confusing somehow? As in having a medicine shown as being dangerous/oxidizer is confusing? Galobtter (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Same question over here. Christian75, what issue follows from that R-sentence you copied? Or is it 'solved' by removing the {{Chembox}} altogether when merged (I could disagree on)? -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose My thinking is that if it is on the WHO list then there should be enough material for a separate article (with a short summary in the main article). If that isn't so then it should be merged. Galobtter (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. We do this kind splitting already for many minerals. Halite vs sodium chloride. Fluorite vs calcium fluoride. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: numbers. Several pairs of pages are mentioned. Here are their their sizes (in simple kB):

Page size comparision [10 Oct 2017 21:00 (UTC); size read from history]

chem	size (kB)	med	size (kB)	med⁄chem %	note
Potassium permanganate	29.6	Potassium permanganate (medical use)	11.3	38%
Oxygen	97.1	Oxygen therapy	50.6	52%	O = element, ~not a chem compound
Sodium nitrite	28.9	Sodium nitrite (medical use)	6.4	22%
Sodium thiosulfate	16.9	Sodium thiosulfate (medical use)	8.0	47%
Magnesium sulfate	19.2	Magnesium sulfate (medical use)	12.4	85%
Halite	8.6	Sodium chloride	27.4	31%
Fluorite	25.5	Calcium fluoride	8.0	31%

Notes:

More articles may be up for comparision (search for other DAB term? Testosterone (medication)).

When merged, redundant info may be removed. (content overlap). Not used in this table.

• Opinion added: this table only says size in kB. But don't forget, in any reasonable good article content quality and page size are about the same—about the same issue.

So. Per WP:SPLIT, size or article overview (information quantity & relevance) is the one and only reason to split. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And speculating that this medicine article has "potential" to be a full-fledged one - no, not by promises please. If it were, it can grow up out of, from, the parent article. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• (ec with Tryptofish below ?!) Adding: this stresses the point Sizeofint is making again and again: sure there are example & situations to WP:split, but these two articles do not qualify.

For me, all of that misses the point. One would need to add another column to the table, for "usefulness to readers". Some things just do not reduce to numbers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead. Also: one column for "encyclopedic relevance" then, and "information presentation design". But actually: why do you say that [size] misses the point, while the only MOS we we have is WP:SPLIT? Why is WP:SPLIT beside the point? Why is there, in this thread, only people saying "it's important in med!" and "readers ask for it!", but no one (really no one, not an exaggeration), no one is arguing to keep them split against sound guidelines? -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was a rhetorical question or if you were really asking, but WP:SPLIT is an information page, not a guideline, and certainly not policy, so it is very much subject to discussion rather than to reduction to math. And such considerations as "readers ask for it" are more important than numerical tables. We are here to provide useful information to our readers, not to split numerical hairs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So even WP:SPLIT is not a guideline. Nicely leaves us too think for ourselves then! But why ignore its reasoning? It's information presentation design aim? It's content weight & volume reasoning? What have the opponents here brought against that? -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I add: you say readers ask for it are more important than numerical tables. Why? How? Again: How is that encyclopedic? It's just your opinion. And, please note, I already clearly said that in any serious article kB size and content size (think: relevant information) are related. So it's not just numbers. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF is a guideline. Sizeofint (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing to Support Yeah I guess when/if the medical section is expanded and becomes too large within the main article it can be split per WP:SPINOFF. Right now it is small enough to not affect the main article. From the table Sodium Nitrite should be merged too. The others don't really fit or are too big; many are not about medicines. I found my examples by searching for salts/chemically important chemicals in the WHO list of important medicines. Galobtter (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm it's now been expanded; but a lot is essentially copied between the lead and the rest of article. It might be useful and long enough to keep seperate. I wonder if readable prose size should be used in the table; I'll see if I can add that. Galobtter (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

...sort of. It looks like it is mostly the added section headers taking up more space to me. Sizeofint (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I think the only way to tell if it is actually merged. Because some stuff is also duplicated accross the articles, like it being called Condy's crystals. It also depends on how much is considered too much medical content in the other article. Galobtter (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically the lead should not contain info not in the body. Thus duplication is usual. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I do know that; I'm just saying that the article isn't as big as it looks. Galobtter (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion, there is no consensus for a merge. QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2017 (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.

Recommendations

All that talk you guys are doing, you missed how you have the same exact sentence word for word in paragraphs 1 and 2, describing the medical uses for PP. I don't know the rules here, but when I read an article when the same exact sentence is used two times for no reason, I think to myself, Wow, this is a stupidly written article. Why would they say that same exact thing two times? Do they not know that I can read? I don't know, do they think like, maybe I wasn't paying attention or something the first time around?" All that talk and you miss the most basic fundamentals of readability by the users, smh.

Recommendations are a statement of the position of an organization and are not a WP:HOWTO format issue thus restored "It is recommended that each 100 mg be dissolved in a liter of water before use.[2]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It clearly says "wiktionary:Recommended", as in how-to-be-used/advice. That is it said by an institute (itself probably a RS), does not change that. It's not the (encyclopedic) description of a chemical process, treatment, or so. (Better link: WP:NOTHOWTO, #1 says "[should not read like] Instruction manuals"). -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

WP contains thousands of statements on recommendations from organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure WP:otherstuffexists. How is this recommendation encyclopedic? -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, quote from your link "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. F" Christian75 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree but the recommendations I usually see on medical articles are like "WHO recommends this drug for use in treating back pain" so atleast the organization needs to be named. And this recommendation is not similar to the ones I see on other articles. Galobtter (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The statement should also atleast mention what organization recommends per WP:WEASEL. Galobtter (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Potassium permanganate (medical use): By now, three editors have objected but Doc James just keeps adding it a fourth time. Meanwhile, their only replies here are dismissive. There is a word for this behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That kind of "10 g per liter" advice would be problematic for other projects because Wikipedia would get flooded with procedural information coming from all manner of good, bad, and indifferent sources. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We can attribute it to the British National Formulary if people wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm it's now slightly better. A somewhat relevant section of WP:MEDMOS says:

Do not include dose or titration information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals.

Not sure if 100% relevant but it does relate to regurgigating information from BNF. Galobtter (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"The statement should also at least mention what organization recommends per WP:WEASEL." What does WP:WEASEL have to do with the wording when there is no serious dispute per WP:ASSERT? WP:WEASEL is about using weasel words. The content is regarding safe use. We also include what is not recommended. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah I guess it doesn't really apply. But from what I see medical articles seem to always attribute their recommendations; and anyways I don't think it belongs in the article per depiep and smokefoot. Galobtter (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

And yep, added a fifth time (rv). Suggesting that sourcing a non-MOS line makes if MOSsy, or so. That's the way Doc James works: pushing, ididnothearthat, drip-editing, edit warring. The arrogance. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You could try a RfC. If you chose not to that is not my problem. We now have it attributed per the suggestion above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

re Doc James: You could try a RfC: see, arrogance proven once again. Actually, Doc James did not engage in this discussion. Doc James did not reply to any question. Doc James just kept pushing their non-consensus point into the article. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: Please stop with these personal attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am describing the editing behaviour and talk attitude by Doc James. Repeated editing without consensus, and without creating dialogue. -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter, you believe "But from what I see medical articles seem to always attribute their recommendations..." The answer to that is medical articles do not always attribute their recommendations. Safety recommendations don't need to be attributed and no reason per policy has been given for the attribution. The source is the attribution. Adding extra attribution may suggest a dispute where there is none. At least for the lede it does not need the extra verbage attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong. We can include even more safety recommendations. It is encyclopedic because it is regarding safety content. Can readers benefit from safety recommendations? Yes! QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Potassium permanganate can cause burns if applied with a concentration greater than xyz" is safety information. Recommendations on what concentrations can be used in treatment (which is what the BNF is giving) is not safety information, it is advice—and see WP:NOTMANUAL. Describing "Potassium permanganate is generally diluted to 1:10000 before being used on the skin" is encyclopaedic (though according to WP:MEDMOS it has to be "extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals." like I said above, which may be true.) But the current statement isn't encyclopaedic. Galobtter (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

An addendum: There is already a sentence that warns that higher concentrations can cause burns. If the reader wants to know what concentration should be and can be safely used in treatment—well wikipedia is not the place. Galobtter (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You said, "There is already a sentence that warns that higher concentrations can cause burns." But it does not give the precise higher amount. With the safety recommendations we are explaining the exact amount that is still safe. Recommendations on what concentrations may be used in treatment is related to safety information because it is explaining what concentrations are safety to use. Diluting potassium permanganate before use is also encyclopaedic. All of it is encyclopaedic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I said above ""Potassium permanganate can cause burns if applied with a concentration greater than xyz" is safety information." Giving the concentration required for burns is safety information. Giving the concentration for treatment on the skin is not safety information.Galobtter (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recommending a specific dilute solution to prevent burns is safety information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Historic uses

There's some interesting history to its uses. An overview from 1884 covers several.[1] It was used in the localized treatment of intramuscular cobra bites, to neutralize the venom before it spread systemically.[2] [3] It was used both for the treatment of contaminated water and for the quality testing of water samples.[4] Some discussion of this history might be of interest in the article.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:LeadSongDog add some further historical uses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oral use: very very low concentrations

Warnings are good, but it's also used in some country to make the water drinkable (low concentration), and in vetarinary uses. Chickens salmonella for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lithium (medication) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)