This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Vitamin B3 is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to
dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
This article was nominated for
deletion on April 26, 2018. The result of
the discussion was keep.
This article was nominated for
merging with
Niacin on April 30, 2018. The result of
the discussion was Nearly unanimous decision not to merge. Merge proposal withdrawn.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sylvia1995,
Rocka1961.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Deepksaha.
The wording of this text is spammy and the refs are insufficient per
WP:MEDRS thus removed.
"In August 2017, breakthrough research from the
Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute in Australia associated vitamin B3 with positive outcomes for pregnancy in humans. Specifically it stated that a deficiency of available
nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), which is synthesised in the body using vitamin B3, prevents an embyro from developing organs correctly.[1][2]"
Greetings. This article is unneeded and confusing. It has only one source that doesn't say that B complex is three compounds.
The source says it's two. Better sources do not list "B3 Complex" as a topic. If a disagreement arises, I will move this discussion to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 21:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Ref says "Three forms of vitamin B3" and lists nicotinamide, nicotinic acid, and nicotinamide riboside.
[2]Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 08:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Doc James:, my patience with you is not run out.
Vitamin B3 is three
vitamers. That is the term used to describe closely similar compounds that all together comprise a vitamin. You apparently have learned today that it is false to say that vitamin B3 is three vitamins (which the article said yesterday). That's good.
Your edit summary asks "why add a "cn" tag to three citations?" Because what you've written is
WP:SYNTH. My edit summary said, "not in any of three citations". Not one of the three supports the topic sentence that vitamin B3 is "also known as vitamin B3 complex" and that vitamin B3 is made of three forms. It does no good to pile on citations. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 15:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Per "all together comprise a vitamin"? All three are forms of a vitamin and all three are a vitamin. All three are not needed together to be a vitamin.
You can try a RfC if you do not think these references support the content in question.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 01:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
RfC Do the refs support this content?
No to the phrase "vitamin B3 complex" in the first sentence:
a noticeable majority of editors are against;
they have shown that most reliable sources do not use this term;
and that the use of the word "complex" is confusing in relationship to the more common term "vitamin B complex", where it means something different;
and this confusion might even be intentional as a cynical marketing ploy.
Yes to listing all three vitamers, no opposition to this.
The merge/delete discussion has gone beyond the original scope of the RfC, someone can feel free to restart it, or move the comments about it to a separate section. --
GRuban (
talk) 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The following discussion 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.
Do the refs support this content? Rfc extended on behalf of
SusanLesch 16:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC) originally raised by
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 02:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Do the refs support this content: vitamin B3 complex and three vitamers (
1,
2,
3)? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 13:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Support the refs being sufficient for the text in question
Support. I don't understand, and the RfC does not explain, what aspect of the statement is thought to be in doubt. However the wording and punctuation could be improved: "Vitamin B3, also known as the vitamin B3 complex, is a
vitamin that includes three
vitamers:
nicotinamide (niacinamide),
niacin (nicotinic acid), and
nicotinamide riboside."
Maproom (
talk) 06:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Maybe. I now suspect the problem is that it may not be thought obvious, indeed may be regarded as
original research, that if nicotinic acid is a vitamer, then so is any of its soluble salts, such as nicotinamide and "nicotinamide roboside" (I suspect the source really says "nicotinamide riboside"). If that really is what the RfC is about, I stand by my support !vote.
Maproom (
talk) 17:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose refs being sufficient for the text in question
Oppose. The definition of
WP:SYNTH. The only reference for all three vitamers, Stipanuk does not mention the concept "vitamin B3 complex". -
SusanLesch (
talk) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not even supported in the quoted sentences? Would propose to remove mention of "B3 complex" in article. --
Treetear (
talk) 18:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Aside from the
wp:synth issue, the also known as vitamin B3 complex statement is not supported by any of the sources. In the
discussion section, someone mentioned that a Google scholar search for "vitamin B3 complex" yields 21 results; which may sound impressive at first, until you realize that adding the term complex to any vitamin would give you similar results (37 for "Vitamin B1 complex" and 530 results for "Vitamin B2 complex"). Clearly, the term complex is taken out of context and the second ref illustrates this perfectly. On page 364, it says Niacin or nicotinamate, together with its amide form nicotinamide, defines the group of vitamin B3 complex, but there is no mention of the term complex on pages 38-39 where Vitamin B3 (niacin) is described in detail. I suggest merging this article into
Niacin.
M.Bitton (
talk) 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose using the text in the lead sentence. There's a good bit of synthesis involved in putting those three sources together to support the use of the term "B3 Complex", and furthermore, it's very much a marketing term, relying on confusion with "Vitamin B complex". Vitamin B complex refers to a mixture of B vitamins, all of which are independently metabolically relevant, so it makes sense to supplement them in a mixture, while supplementing with a mixture of the
vitamers of B3 has no benefit over using a single one. I'd be happy with explaining the term in the body text of the article if it ever grows beyond a stub, but it's in no way a notable or relevant name for the vitamin to the extent that it should be given as a synonym in the lead sentence. As the article stands at the moment, I'm in favour of merging it to
niacin. --
Slashme (
talk) 13:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Since 2004, Stipanuk and Caudill have had 14 years and at least two editions to add "vitamin B3 complex" to their textbook. They did not, nor did the authors of Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease and Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. "B complex" is a real pill containing all 8 B vitamins. B3 complex seems to be a commercial skin product, is borderline
WP:FRINGE, and is just someone's idea of a
fancy, marketable name. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 16:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Vitamin B3 complex is an older and less commonly used name sure.
[4] But it is still used and has been for many many decades.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 07:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Textbooks diligently give archaic names so we can still read old manuscripts. Sorry, this name is made up. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment At first I was inclined to support, especially as it is a storm in teacup topic. However, I did some hasty checking and the use of the term "complex" is doubtfully helpful at best, differing as it does from "B-complex", which is a set of distinct vitamins of distinct functions. The "Vitamin B3 complex" is term of limited functional or clinical significance, mainly historical rather than physiological, and does not seem to be in current medical usage. Given that the article is so short, it would be better to omit the term from the definition, and re-word the statement to mention that "Vitamin B3 complex" has been used loosely in the past, but is not in current in medical or biochemical practice. I even would be inclined to omit that, but some users with deficient biochemical knowledge might want to know what this "Vitamin B3 complex" thing was all about if they read it somewhere else.
JonRichfield (
talk) 07:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)reply
User:JonRichfield would be happy with a sentence saying that "The term "vitamin B3 complex" has also been used for this group of compounds." And removing vitamin B3 complex from the first sentence.
Google scholar picks up 21 results for the term.
[5] Some of them recent.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 10:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)reply
This one from 2018 "Niacin and nicotinamide are two of the various forms of the vitamin B3 complex."Nattagh-Eshtivani, Elyas; Sani, Mahmood Alizadeh; Dahri, Monireh; Ghalichi, Faezeh; Ghavami, Abed; Arjang, Pishva; Tarighat-Esfanjani, Ali (June 2018). "The role of nutrients in the pathogenesis and treatment of migraine headaches: Review". Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 102: 317–325.
doi:
10.1016/j.biopha.2018.03.059.
Same as the article refs, your 2018 ref only claims two vitamers. Have you tried your
Google Ngram output? I propose we close this RfC with JonRichfield's solution. @
Doc James: can you please write out a draft of your adjustments to the following?
Perhaps you forgot, in my opinion this article ought to be merged into
niacin. Any source is fine if it supports whatever it is you want to say. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 06:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)reply
(invited b y RFC bot) , is vitamin that includes three forms -- Please clarify the meaning of the word "includes". Is Vitamin B3 is a mixture of these three forms? If not, then IMO a less ambiguous statement would be "...that exists in 3 forms" or something like that.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 16:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge - So I don't know much about vitamins, but I do take a supplement each day, and I enjoyed being asked by the bot to do an rfc for this article because it gave me an excuse to find out more about vitamins. After looking at several articles, including those on wikipedia, I have to say that this stub has no business being on its own and should be moved as a new section under Niacin with searches for "vitamin B3" redirecting to that section. I base this on many factors, including the articles on
Niacin,
vitamins, and
B vitamins (the B3 in the list isn't even wiki-linked to this page!). (No, normally I wouldn't use wiki articles as source materials, but that's not what we're doing here). The B Vitamin article, in the first paragraph, specifically refers to B3 = Niacin. The World Heath Organization paper used as a reference in this article[1] states that the vitamin is NAD or NADP, which Niacin is the
precursor of. Lastly, my Centrum Silver bottle lists Vitamins A, C, D, and E, and B6 and B12, but does not list B3, it says, instead, Niacin (in fact, 3 out of the 5 supplements listed here[2] Say Niacin instead of B3, one says B3 (Niacin) and one pretty much lists flowers (remind me never to take Alive! multi-vitamins. In summation, I recommend the deletion of
vitamin B3 and
vitamin B3 complex and a new section under Niacin that reads:
Vitamin B3
Niacin has sometimes appeared historically as vitamin B3 and is considered the 3rd of eight B vitamins in
vitamin B complex.
Vitamin B3 refers to a number of chemicals of which niacin is one. Yes the terminology is somewhat confusing.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 14:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, and admitting I'm no chemist or how to really say this, but it does seem that all three chemicals are compounds of, or spring from, Niacin. I looked at those three chemicals in formulating what I thought would be a good explanation of B3, but it didn't seem to add anything that isn't covered under the Niacin article itself, which this should be becoming a part of. Therefore the further explanation of B3 and its composition is redundant. IMO.
StarHOG (
talk) 14:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Vitamin B3 is a group of vitamers of which niacin is one. Why would we merge to niacin instead of
nicotinamide? Unless we merge all three to "vitamin B3"
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 08:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, maybe they should. What I do know is that this article had a request for
RFC and I, as a neutral editor, have weighed-in. I'd like to see other editors do the same. I don't want to get into a deep discussion with
User:Doc James because they are heavily immersed in the editing of all the articles named here.
StarHOG (
talk) 12:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Well RfC are not votes, they are discussions. Yes this is one of the around 20,000 articles I am "heavily immersed in editing" :-)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 15:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Vitamin B3 is a group of vitamers of which niacin is one. Why would we merge to niacin instead of
nicotinamide?. Because that's what most RS do. It's as simple as that. That said, there's nothing stopping us from explaining why (by creating an etymology section, for instance).
M.Bitton (
talk) 23:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
Made these changes
Added short description; added an About; added or moved some Wikilinks; standardized the isbn in the cite book templates; used appropriate author and editor params in cite book templates which got rid of an invisible maintenance message; in Vitamin deficiency section, removed duplicate director for main article as both go to the same place; and cleaned up a wee bit of prose. There are several refs that were commented out. I did not delete them since I'm not in here regularly. –
Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (
talk) 06:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Requested move 3 October 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. per discussion consensus and NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Precision is also important here, which supports this move as for the natural usage of these terms. (
closed by non-admin page mover) —
Shibbolethink(
♔♕) 22:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Like that other RM, this may also be a request to revert an undiscussed move, which means a no consensus close should result in the move back to the long-standing stable title.
Rotideypoc41352 (
talk·contribs) 00:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Right, but it appears so far (and I hope) that we will have consensus here.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 01:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
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.