Talk:Methylene blue

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Methylene blue article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1: 182 days

Chemicals 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.

Pharmacology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Perhaps re-add research section?

Perhaps the research section removed in 1248648816 should be re-added in some form? H44dyss9900 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MEDMOS recommended heading is "Research directions". Are there such directions, that are gaining notice in good sources? Bon courage (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid reverted of footnote addition

MOVED

New thread in the talkpage due to the old post being intended for a user talkpage and due to its combative language.

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.

Reposted from User_talk:Bon courage#Invalid_reverting_of_footnote_addition

Hi, it seems ~~you~~ that the user User:Bon courage ~~have~~ has invalidly reverted my WP:Footnote addition. Help:Explanatory notes are not subject to the same WP:weight requirements as body text is. And the information in the footnote is from an accepted reliable source that is already used in the article and the information in the note is fully and accurately descriptive of the source information. No bit of information in the note is invalid. ~~You have not provided a~~ No valid edit summary has been provided for reverting my footnote addition hence it is likely either accidental or disruptive reverting and thus if ~~you do not~~ no one contests this then I will be re-adding the footnote. ~~If you however continue to disruptively revert without valid reason you may be warned.~~ H44dyss9900 (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're just making WP:PAGs up. Footnotes need to be at least sourced and the responsibility for achieving consensus to include such content lies with the editor wanting to include it. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're just making WP:PAGs up

I'm literally not though. H:NOTES states that: "Explanatory or content notes are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read." No guidelines were invented. All I did was state the fact that explanatory notes don't have the exact same inclusion guidelines as body text. There is nothing revolutionary about that besides stating obvious Wikipedia guidelines. If you disagree with the rules then criticise them not me, I don't write the rules.

Anyways, that's beside the point, the information in the explanatory note is well worth including in the article. The history section is quite short and the weight of the information included in the note is on par with other historical information relating to the medical usage of methylene blue. There's no valid not to include the information in the history section.

Footnotes need to be at least sourced

They literally are though. H44dyss9900 (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says any PAGs are suspended for footnotes. If there's something worth saying it can go in the body but if you want to say there's "present day" interest in Methylene blue as antidepressant you'd need good MEDRS sourcing and a re-write to avoid the WP:RELTIME issue. Maybe propose something and see if you can get towards consensus. But if you keep up the rule invention and cringey user page threats you will be unlikely to find willing colleagues. Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I was a bit unclear in my proposal. Anyways I am not proposing here that any potential present day usage of methylene blue should be included in the article, I'm talking about purely historical information. H44dyss9900 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (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.

Re-add removed historical usage

The historical usage of methylene blue removed in 1249340040 should be re-added to the article. The information is proportionate in relation to the other information in the section. The source used for the information is a reliable source that is used in the article and the information is correctly representative of the source.

WP:MEDRS guidelines do not apply because the aforementioned information is historical information and not medical information. See WP:NOTBMI

If no one contests this I will be adding H44dyss9900 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to rephrase it then to remove e.g. "the drug's antidepressant and other psychotropic effects". What precise change are you proposing? Bon courage (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]