This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemicals: Core Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Late 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: you only partially cleaned this up, and I finished. See Niacin split reverted. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The 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)[reply]

No 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)[reply]

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)[reply]