Talk:Niacin/Archive 2

Medical uses
Two meta-analyses published in 2010, cited in the article, concluded that niacin was beneficial for cardiovascular health when taken alone. (http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(09)01031-4/abstract, http://cpt.sagepub.com/content/15/2/158 ). But since 2010 there have been two very large studies that point to niacin not working: AIM-HIGH, reported here - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1107579, and analyzed here - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1311039 ; and HPS2-THRIVE (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1300955 [I added that to the Niacin article].

These two studies are cited in a July 2014 editorial in the NEJM - "Niacin and HDL Cholesterol — Time to Face Facts", by Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, M.D ( http://www.biochemiran.com/files/site1/pages/nejme1406410.pdf for full text). In that editorial, Lloyd-Jones says, bluntly, "On the basis of the weight of available evidence showing net clinical harm, niacin must be considered to have an unacceptable toxicity profile for the majority of patients, and it should not be used routinely."

I think such information belongs in the Wikipedia article, but I'll defer to those with more of a medical background. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also see below "Additional medical uses"

proposal that nicotinamide be merged into this article
I propose that Nicotinamide be merged into Niacin, where there is already a history section explaining the origin of the confusing term nicotinic, as well as a better discussion of the differing pharmacologic effects of the acid and amide forms of the vitamin in various doses. Having it all in one place would lessen the chance that people will think cigarettes contain a vitamin, or that one form of the vitamin is entirely harmless while the other should never be taken because it is "toxic".CharlesHBennett (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Comments regarding the above proposal are at Talk:Nicotinamide, not here. --IO Device (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Dietary Reference Intakes
I am creating the same format for DRIs for all B vitamins. That is a U.S.- based system that identifies Estimated Average Requirements (EARs), Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), Adequate Intakes (AIs) if there is not enough information to establish EARs and RDAs, and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs). Another major regulatory agency that has established ULs is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). ULs for both are provided, as they often differ. If there is a UL (for some vitamins none has been determined) then rationale is covered in a Toxicity section. In addition to DRIs, the U.S. also established Daily Value, using it on food and dietary supplement labels as % DV. DVs were based on older RDAs and as of 2016 have never been updated to reflect the newer DRIs. Thus, often a product that has 100% DV and greater than 100% RDA. Examples given for each vitamin. What I have written can be improved. It lacks EFSA or other major country RDAs. It lacks an estimate of what percentages of people are deficient - although that is often covered in a separate section on deficiency and consequences of deficiency. I am creating this Subject in all of the Talk pages of the vitamin entries I have edited. Comments and improvements are welcome.David notMD (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Text on Daily Value now captures FDA changes made May 2016.David notMD (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed section title to Dietary recommendations because Dietary Reference Intakes is used only in U.S. and Canada; added European information, with citations.David notMD (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Daily Reference Intake section
I noticed that there was a discrepancy between the various different recommended daily amounts and the EU's upper limit. According to this section, most of the recommended intake amounts are greater than 10 mg/day. Then it goes on to say that the EU's upper limit is set at 10 mg/day. I went to look at the reference cited on that. That 10/mg upper limit refers specifically to Nicotinic acid. The same exact document lists a 900 mg/day upper limit for Nicotinamide. I am not going to edit the article myself but I'd suggest reviewing all of the references to make sure all of the numbers are accurate. 73.222.239.155 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

=Yes, the EFSA UL is set at a dose of 10 mg, based on the lowest dose that saw flushing in a clinical trial was 30 mg and a decision to use 1/3 of that to avoid same in very sensitive people. (Nicotinic acid is same as niacin - two names, same compound.) As to explaining why UL is lower than RDA, the UL is directed to an acute dose, as from a dietary supplement. A daily total can be higher without risk of triggering symptoms, as spread out over the day. Same logic applies to magnesium - the UL is set to avoid an acute dose that might cause diarrhea even though that UL is lower than the RDA. Finally, nicotinamide does not have same UL, as it does not trigger the flush reaction.David notMD (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Meaning question
> NIACR1 and NIACR2 inhibit cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) production and thus fat breakdown in adipose tissue and free fatty acids available for liver to produce triglycerides and very-low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) and consequently low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or "bad" cholesterol.

"Inhibits... fat breakdown and free fatty acids available for liver..."

Inhibits free fatty acids? Probably means, "Inhibits... fat breakdown, which decreases the amount of free fatty acids available for liver..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.j.beck (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is Pork not Mentioned?
Pork is extremely high in Niacin, but there's absolutely no mention of it in the article. It makes me think the article is crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.69.11 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

convertible or not convertible?
From the summary: "Nicotinic acid and niacinamide are convertible to each other". "Niacin cannot be directly converted to nicotinamide". These statements are contradictory, since we are also told that "nicotinic acid" is another name for niacin, and that "niacinamide" is another name for nicotinamide. Are niacin=nicotinicacid and niacinamide=nicotinamide mutually convertible or not? 86.128.73.30 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations tables and text
I am of the opinion that the recently added information is too much for the purpose of the article. A while back I raised vitamin C to GA, and am currently working on vitamin E. (Also working on standardizing order of sections for all vitamins.) I suggest that these two be models for how to present dietary recommendations when US, EU and countries do not always agree. I would like to see some discussion here from interested parties. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize I'm replying 7 months late, but I also thought it was excessive when I scrolled through the article. The 4 tables in Niacin went halfway through the following section, so I did some reformatting and condensed how they appear when this article is viewed in a "desktop" browser.  On mobile browsers, those tables are uncollapsed; there's not much I can do about.
 * FWIW, I like the way you covered this material in the articles on vitamins C and E; I find it really off-putting when an article includes multiple juxtaposed data tables like this.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 13:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering GA nomination
While waiting on a reviewer for the vitamin B12 nomination, working on this article to prepare it for a GA nomination. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on what is missing? David notMD (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-answering that a lot is missing. Got B12 to GA, so now working to improve this before nominating. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Working on lipids subsection. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing this article again, and checking for reviews (most recent are 2017-18) to update content, I think this is a good article now. Zefr (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Will nominate soon. I just created a table of niacin content in a range of food sources. David notMD (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nominating for GA. Will continue to work on while awaiting a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Pharmacodyanmics section is repetitive and poorly organized. Some of the content will be moved to the lipids section. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Chemical formula
Moved from the 1st to third paragraph along with the mechanism of action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Two infoboxes
Wondering if these could be merged? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like each infobox contains data not in the other. What is the best way to handle that? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of duplication of information (KEGG, UNI II...). Could the duplicated line items be deleted from one set? David notMD (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable approach. Done. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We can also add items from one that are missing to the others by working to improve the underlying template. The first question is what one should be used here? Many medications and supplements are also chemicals.
 * There has also been extensive discussion regarding if we should move some stuff to the bottom in a template like we did with medical resources Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

LONZA
Lonza Group reference retained in the Industrial synthesis section, but mention not added to History, as appears that LONZA was not the first company with an industrial synthesis product. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Prescription drug?
In several places, niacin is described as a "prescription drug", where what is meant is medical use (for other than vitamin deficiency). I am putting in a "where?" for now, although I suspect from context it is in the US. In Canada at least at present [2021] it is available in large dose form OTC and in health food shops, so "prescription" is actually incorrect. However, my main issue with the wording is that it's a bad description. "Prescription" is a legal designation, local to particular jurisdictions, and tells us nothing about the medical use; absolute alcohol used to be a prescription drug where I live until fairly recently! What is evidently meant is that niacin has medical uses as opposed to its role in nutrition. Since emergency B3 replacement is also a "medical" use, this needs careful wording, although perhaps just dropping the word "prescription" altogether will do; legal status belongs in the usual place in the infobox anyway. I am just putting this on my watchlist for now; as usual, feel free to jump in. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Niacin is also a prescription medication." The "also" in this sentence in the lead is intended to signify that in addition to being a vitamin, i.e., an essential nutrient, with a UL of 30 mg, niacin as a prescription drug is used at daily dosing of 500-2000 mg/day (Niaspan) or 1500-3000 mg/day (Niacor). U.S. FDA allows sale as a non-prescription dietary supplement. Many product on market at 100 to 500 mg/serving. Some of those are inositol hexanicotinate, with claims to be flush-free, but no valid evidence of lipid benefits. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite take my point. It's OK to state that niacin is a prescription drug in the US; in other places, it is not Rx, and calling it a prescription drug/use is confusing. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that it is not a prescription drug outside the US. Is that everywhere other than US? If true, then the section "As lipid-modifying medication" should lead with a sentence "Niacin is a prescription drug in the United States." Also, I discovered that in late 2017, Avondale, a small, private, pharmaceutical company, bought the rights to Niacor and raised the price by 800%. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To lipid lowering section, added niacin is a US prescription drug. David notMD (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional medical uses
High-dose niacin also has other medical/alternative uses. In addition to the established use for lowering cholesterol, it has been proposed, and is still in use by some, for stabilizing blood sugar (particularly in reactive hypoglycemia), poor circulation, schizophrenia and alcoholism. Although these uses are largely historical, they were attested in peer-reviewed journals in the 1970s iirc; see Humphrey & Osmund.

All in all I am surprised to see so short an article on such an important biochemical. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As vitamin articles, go, it is in the middle - shorter than the articles for vitamins C, D, E, Folate and Vitamin B12, but longer than the other seven. Perhaps those historical applications can be mention in the History section. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Vis-a-vis schizophrenia, I did find Hoffer & Osmond (1964), PMID 14235254, but also some more recent takes on niacin treatment for schizophrenia, the most recent being Xu XJ, Jiang GS. Niacin-respondent subset of schizophrenia – a therapeutic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(6):988-97. PMID 25855923. And a historical review: Hoffer LJ. Vitamin therapy in schizophrenia. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2008;45(1):3-10. PMID 18587164. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Can niacin be also useful against the small spike protein blood clots in small blood vessels resulting from the mRNA type anti-covid injections?
 * I did not see any literature in published clinical trials or ongoing clinical trials looking at niacin and mRNA vaccine. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Split B3
We should split the medication and nutrition aspects of this page away from each other by making use of the Vitamin B3 page we have, so that we get an arrangement similar to the vitamers of Vitamin B6. Doing so will fix the issue of many statements wrongly implying which form of B3 is found in food. (CC .) Artoria2e5 🌉 11:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

See also the above, which IMO was the wrong way to deal with the current confusion. One important point though is that USDA is not being cooperative in this regard. --Artoria2e5 🌉 11:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Vitamin B3 exists, but as a weak article. In my opinion it could cover more. The Niacin article has content on the nutrition and medicinal applications of the vitamin. I believe Wikipedia visitors come the the article looing for information on one or the other, but benefit be finding both together. Similarly, many of the vitamins have an essential nutrient role, but also have claimed health benefits for amounts in excess of RDA, with all that information in the same article.  David notMD (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the SPLIT query because too few people participated and no consensus reached. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dead Link
I'm too new here to understand how footnote 74 contains a link but it is a dead link. Here is the actual address http://www.orgsyn.org/demo.aspx?prep=CV1P0385 and here for the pdf http://www.orgsyn.org/Content/pdfs/procedures/CV1P0385.pdf I'm hoping someone will correct it or explain to me what part of the footnote makes it a clickable link. ThanksAquarianEssence (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that fixed it User:AquarianEssence Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It works now. @Aquarian: the value immediately after "url=" specifies the outgoing link in citation templates.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 14:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ThanksAquarianEssence (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted split
The split was proposed in October 2021. As the person who raised Niacin to Good article, I opposed the split proposal, and removed the Split query in January 2022 because there was no other participation in the discussion. Artoria2e5 did the split on 24 August 2022. I reverted it. Any consideration of the split proposal should be discussed here, with request for a third opinion if no one other than Artoria2e5 and I do not agree. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

One needs zinc to absorb it.
One needs zinc to absorb it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantinehuk (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Vitamin B3 be merged into Niacin. The vitamin B3 article adds unnecessary complexity for the reader. Evidently others have wondered about this, see archive. The Vitamin B3 article was renamed from "Vitamin B3 complex" yesterday so I closed an AfD. "Vitamin B3 complex" doesn't exist in the most reliable nutrition sources. (I checked Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease and Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism.) If we use the definition in the new source given, Biochemical, Physiological, and Molecular Aspects of Human Nutrition, vitamin B3 is any one of three known precursors to NAD. It would follow the lead of three textbooks, and be simplest and most elegant to just write a sentence saying so in the article niacin. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the three sources plus many others vitamin B3 refers to three substances. This provides a nice diagram. Merging to niacin does not make sense. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So what you say goes and (to pick a few) French Wikipedia, German, Spanish, and Italian are all wrong? And all three textbooks cited here are wrong? This was unanswered from the AfD. -SusanLesch (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Sorry to not be more definitive. When you have three related chemicals that function in a similar way but have subtle differences, what is correct.  SusanLesch seems to be proposing to have the most commonly used one (i think?) as the main B3 article.   Doc James wants to have a truly "main" article and three subs.  There are problems with each way, with respect to dealing with the stuff that is truly general (about B3) in one place and ensuring it is just summarized in the others, so we don't have thickety growth in different articles that ends up uneven and often contradictory.  The meta-editing issue is important.  How do each of you propose to handle the meta-editing stuff?   Could all three be merged into one? Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They have different side effects. One could merge all of them to "vitamin B3" but I think it is fine the way they are. Yes there will be some overlap. I was more thinking a brief overview of the three with most of the details on the subpages. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is this project about what you are thinking? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, nicotinamide is a treatment for pellagra and a WHO essential medicine. Apparently it doesn't cause skin flushing as Doc James said. I support its separate, but shorter article. We can deal with meta-editing by merging vitamin B3 away from stub class into niacin which is potentially a GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying SusanLesch but your response doesn't address meta-editing. at all. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm of the opinion that Vitamin B3 should remain as an article. (I would like to see "also known as vitamin B3 complex" deleted from the first sentence.) From page view statistics, Vitamin B3 gets 600 views per month, whereas Niacin gets 53,400 and Nicotinamide gets 29,800. Given this, my thinking is that Vitamin B3 can remain - but as a stub - with hyperlinks to the compounds that most people search for. Leaving it as a stub is better than just a redirect to Niacin. Jytdog's query about meta-editing is important, and applies to other vitamins when the common "vitamin" name actually includes several vitaminers: Vitamin A/Retinol/Retinal/Retinoic acid; Vitamin E/Tocopherol/Tocotrienol. In those examples, the common name (Vitamin A, Vitamin E) is the commonly used name, so gets a long article. For Vitamin B3 the commonly used name is Niacin. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Page views for all languages would tell you that Niacin is in 42 languages and Vitamin B3 is in one. Sorry I can't support the idea of a perpetual stub for an essential nutrient. Confused users will add their bits willy nilly. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a case for a set index or disambiguation page. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support set index. Thank you, new idea to me. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nicotinamide and niacin (nicotinic acid) are two different chemical compounds, however they both are referred in the literature as different forms of vitamin B3. Vitamin B3 also frequently appears as a dietary supplement (in different forms), rather than simply a chemical compound. Therefore, we should have a separate page for vitamine B3. This should NOT be just a disambiguation page because one can say a lot of substance about this vitamin "complex" as a dietary supplement. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * merge all four into one I oppose any partial merging and I think this discussion should be reframed.
 * Look, in terms of B3 as a nutrient in food all three function the same; they are precursors of NAD. Perhaps more importantly, the list of amounts in food that appears in high up in this article is not just about this chemical, nicotinic acid, but includes nicotinamide.  That is important.
 * We probably need to review this page very carefully and make sure that when "niacin" is being referred to in a source, it is actually referring to this chemical and not to the family broadly. This is something we will be able to be more sensitive to, if all four things (the three chemicals and the class) are covered in one page.
 * Also the biochemistry section should describe how each of these feed into NAD.  The history section should lay out the whole story.  The nicotinamide article has an industrial production section; neither of the other two do. That is goofy.
 * We can handle the different side effects and different specific uses very easily; they are not that different.
 * These all should be handled in one page in WP to help us present readers with a clear, coherent picture of all three chemicals and the family, with appropriate weight and coverage for all three.

--Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merging chemically different compounds (i.e. Nicotinamide and nicotinic acid) is definitely not a good idea. Making "vitamin B3" a disambig. page might be possible, but I think not an optimal solution. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Keep separate articles linking to each other. Several similar situations exist (e.g. vitamin D, cholecalciferol, ergocalciferol, or retinoid/vitamin A.). Niacin and nicotinamide need separate entries.Jrfw51 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with Jrfw51, this would set a precedent we would likely need to follow to the other vitamin articles. But, if I were to look up Vitamin B3 as a layperson I would think the more relevant information would actually be found on the Niacin page. As for the disambig idea, I'd rather have this stub page than turn it into a disambig. We could create Vitamin B3 (disambiguation) though. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger as written. I agree with the points made by Doc James, My very best wishes, and Jrfw51. As I review what we have to deal with, there are: B vitamins (which of course is not limited to B3), Vitamin B3, Niacin, Nicotinamide and some derivative compounds, and Vitamin B-3 which is a redirect to Niacin. I agree with the arguments that niacin, nicotinamide, and so forth should each have an individual page for each compound. I do not think that we need a disambiguation page, but I do believe that Vitamin B3 should remain, as a WP:Summary style page. And I think that Vitamin B-3 should redirect there, not here to Niacin. I think that readers who come here with no preconceived notion, looking for Vitamin B3 information, should first be led to Vitamin B3, where they will get an overview, and where it should make it clear that Niacin is the primary subtopic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * i just fixed that redirect. as long as Vitamin B3 exists it should redirect there.  If a merger happens that can change. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is one of the cases when something called "vitamin X" is not a single chemical compound, but a mixture or a set of different compounds. What should we do in such cases? Keep a separate page for every chemical compound (assuming they pass our notability guidelines), and also have an additional page about the vitamin. Possibly the best solution would be to move a significant part of content from Niacin to page Vitamin B3, meaning that Niacin would be primarily a page about a chemical compound, but Vitamin B3 would be about the vitamin. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for another reason: Niacin is a vitamin, dietary supplement and prescription drug, depending on amount and purpose. More to the point, niacin in pharmaceutical amounts lowers cholesterol, LDL-C and triglycerides, and raises HDL-C. Nicotinomide does none of those things. Again, IMO, Niacin as main article, Vitamin B3 as Stub with hyperlinks. David notMD (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose per all the reasons given above by other 5 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ozzie10aaaa, your ability to find consensus is enviable! 😃 -SusanLesch (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all above. The way I was treated trying to make a difference with these articles still makes me so cross. Donama (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Et tu?! 😃 Condolences, Donama. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Expanded About and corrected intended internal link
I expanded the About to include Niacin (nutrient). If it's too wordy, I can trim it, but (IMO), it reads well. Also corrected the internal link to Liver damage which was pointing to the DAB page, likely leftover from a move of this page. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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 vs no disambig when natural. Precision is also important here, which supports this move as for the natural usage of these terms. Substance is a useless DAB term, and this in and of itself is the base phrase as nicotinic acid. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Niacin (substance) → Niacin – Conform Articles for deletion/Niacin The Banner  talk 12:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and move Niacin to Niacin (disambiguation). Rreagan007 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: though a split was discussed above, article retitling was not. Perhaps this RM should be considered a request to revert an undiscussed move, which means a no consensus close should result in the move (back to the original title) proposed above (with the move of associated dab to make room for reverting the move). Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but this move request is incomplete, as the directly related discussion at Talk:Niacin_(nutrient) is happening separately, and these really should have been proposed as a single multi-move discussion, otherwise it is not immediately obvious why the disambiguation page should be WP:USURPTITLEed (or whether it should be moved to Niacin (disambiguation)). That said, niacin specifically refers to nicotinic acid, the subject of this article, and not vitamin B3 generally. The other article should also be moved as proposed back to Vitamin B3, and the disambiguation page deleted or moved out of the way and redirected to make way for this move (and not moved to Niacin (disambiguation) per WP:ONEOTHER), but this is predicated on the other move request also being successful, and closed at the same time, so Note to closer, please consider closing the directly related RM mentioned above concurrently with this one. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An alternative to consider would be to move this page to Nicotinic acid and leave the dab page alone for the moment, where a second discussion (perhaps a new Afd) could consider whether to keep the dab page (no primary topic) or whether Niacin should target the vitamin article or this article as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, or consider returning to the pre-2018 status quo by merging the articles to have a single article on the subject and make all of these other issues moot. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not know about how to perform multi-move discussion. I am just honestly trying to clean up the mess. The Banner  talk 08:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving to "nicotinic acid" and leaving the dab page make sense to me. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2022 (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.
 * "Substance" is definitely not an ideal disambiguator. Dekimasu よ! 16:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)