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. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perhaps re-add research section?
editPerhaps the research section removed in 1248648816 should be re-added in some form? H44dyss9900 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Re-add removed historical usage
editThe 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)
- 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)