Talk:Vitamin B6

message: "may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts,"  This is silly - biology is just as complex as it needs to be for us to survive. Reminds me of the quote - "If our brain were simple enough for us to understand how they work - we would be to simple to understand that".
Please don't simplify - put in hyper-links to basic concepts but - biology is simply way more complex than what even most biologists realize.  Most of what people think they 'know' is actually ungrounded narratives. Pretending that this page can explain vitamin B without understanding other bits would require "pulling the wool" or what I would call lying. It would also make it a useless web page - the Internet is already full of those.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Is this article still a stub? Dark Nexus 20:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: * The redirect Vitamin B6 was originally listed on WP:RFD, but I realize now I should have listed this move here. The reason for the move: The page Pyridoxine actually talks about the two major forms of Vitamin B6, pyridoxine and pyridoxamine. However, pyridoxine is just one of these forms. Originally the page pyridoxamine was an exact duplicate of pyridoxine except for the image, but I redirected pyridoxamine to pyridoxine and added the pyridoxamine image to pyridoxine. However, since pyridoxine actually talks about both forms of Vitamin B6 it should be moved to Vtamin B6. What follows is the original discussion on WP:RFD. Exabyte (talk)­ 05:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
* Pyridoxine is just one form of Vitamin B6, and the content of both this article and Pyridoxamine talks about both forms (in fact they are exactly duplicate except for the image). The Pyridoxine article, because it is actually about both forms, should be moved to Vitamin B6 and either the image from Pyridoxamine should be included in the article and Pyridoxamine be changed to a redirect or the resulting redirect from the move should be converted to an article and Pyridoxamine changed to be specifically about pyridoxamine. Exabyte (talk)­ 20:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
*Would anyone like to comment on the proposed move before it is done? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving page [[Pyridoxine]] &rarr; [[Vitamin B6]]

message: - What's the symbol or chemical formula for vitamin B6?
- What is the half-life for vitamin B6 ?
:It appears the chemical formula is C8H11NO3. SpazKitty 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Upgraded it to start. TerriG149.155.96.5 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: Why, under history, does it only have one sentence about history, and then goes on to talk about chemical composition?  But I worry about messing with this page too much. Gaviidae 15:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Set-up

message: Shouldn't the name of this article be Vitamin B6? This article makes use of subscript with a template. Perhaps we can use this:
 
DanPMK 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Carl Pfeiffer knew (by the mid-1970's, at the latest) that pyridoxine increased dream recall. He recommended that certain of his patients (those suspected of what he called histadelia) take increasing amounts of pyridoxine each day until the dreams became unpleasant, and then cut back a little. Perhaps orthomolecular.org may have a citation. Unfree (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dreaming

message: These sections should be combined due to numerous redundancies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.59.104 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functions vs. Metabolic Functions 

message: Would someone knowledgeable add the appropriate info from here... 
http://aahf.nonprofitsoapbox.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=677&Itemid= 68.83.72.162 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the information to pyridoxamine, rather than here, since it is specific only to that compound, and not to any of the other forms of vitamin B6.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA: pyradoxamine = drug, not dietary supplement? 

message: Sections seems confused and useless, should be removed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.8.99 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Future Experiment 

message: In the Army, we used Vitamin B6 to reduce bug bites (yes, it works).  Has there ever been a study about this? 138.162.128.55 (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bite Reduction 

message: The chart at Vitamin B6#Dietary reference intakes makes use of acronyms that are not used elsewhere on the page. Could someone knowledgeable in this topic please create a legend for the chart?  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dietary Reference Intake no longer a chart, and all acronyms explained.David notMD (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronyms 

message: Consider adding hypophosphatasia as a cause of elevated B6 levels.
http://www.oif.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Hypophosphatasia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherishhealth (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider adding hypophosphatasia as a cause of elevated B6 levels. 

message: 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) 14:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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) 12:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary Reference Intakes 

message: References 15, 20 and 41 are identical. But I do not know how to do a multiple-cited ref. (I try and mess it up).David notMD (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To whoever fixed this, thanks. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate references 

message: February 2021: Beginning process of improving article before nominating for Good Article. This will be my eighth vitamin upgraded to GA (if I succeed). David notMD (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as possible, replaced refs that were more than 20 years old. And needed fewer refs for the foods listed in the Sources table. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Submitted for GA. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Prep for Good Article nomination

message: What does "per serving" mean? Usually, you indicate the amount per 100 mg or 1000 mg. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point. From looking at all vitamin articles, B1, B2, B12 and Pantothenic acid have no table, K and B6 have per serving, and Folate, Niacin, Biotin, A, C and E have per 100 grams (D has per gram). I will change the B6 table to per 100 grams. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Change to amounts of B6 per 100 grams. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serving 

message: Bullet points of the GA rejection are being addressed. As of August 25, number of references has increased from 28 to 58, and article bytes from 28,000 to 50,900. The intention is to address all bullet points in the review, then resubmit a GA nomination. Participation by all editors is welcome. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Resubmitted to GA nomination. David notMD (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not have internet access Sept 17-26, so please do not start the GA review during that time. David notMD (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 2021 

message: Which format is preferred? What are the sources of information to remedy this? Some of the vitamins have the compact Drugbox, while others have a longer Infobox Drug or Chembox. David notMD (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chembox or Drugbox or Infobox Drug?