Talk:Α,β-Unsaturated carbonyl compound

On 16 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Alpha-beta unsaturated carbonyl compounds to Α,β-Unsaturated carbonyl compound. The result of the discussion was moved.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Acryloyl group was copied or moved into Α,β-Unsaturated carbonyl compound with this edit on 9 June 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Merge Acryloyl group into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. General consensus that acryloyl groups should be discussed in this broader article. Any issues with the merged content or its arrangement in the article can be dealt with post-merge via the normal bold-revert-discuss editing process. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted Smokefoots edits to Acryloyl group. He created a redirect to this page. I understand the rationale, but there is information lost. We should merge the article content here if we want to do a redirect. BFG (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this. Well, editors know my recommendation. The Acryloyl article is no doubt well intentioned and a reasonable idea (maybe better for Wiki-dictionary). As it stands, the Acryloyl article contains little info and is occassionally misleading. Most importantly, readers are better served by reading about "acryloyl" in context of related, IMHO. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a chemist so my revert was based purely on the fact that I saw there was information lost. If the information is indeed inaccurate, that's something I can't assess. If you can, please remove any inaccurate information. BFG (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All information covered in the Acryloyl article is covered equally in the alpha-beta unsaturated carbonyl compounds article. In fact, the acryloyl group is referenced directly (though not linked). Naturally, as Smokefoot rightfully points out, the moiety is better served in the context of the larger functional group class it belongs to. Synpath (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I expected to see, which I didn't was that acrolyl group be it's own sub headline, probably under α,β-unsaturated acids, esters, and amides, and that the graphic be transferred. This will make it easy to redirect directly from acrolyl group to Alpha-beta Unsaturated carbonyl compounds#Acrolyl group. A general redirect would be confusing for the non-expert reader. E.g. me. I would do this myself, but I don't feel confident in treating the subject matter correctly. BFG (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the redirect name ideally would have its own subheadline or minitopic, but this situation is not ideal. Alpha-beta Unsaturated acids, esters and amides contain the acroyl group but they are not called acroyl, so your otherwise fine suggestion doesnt really work here. The approach that I was recommending is that those few (!) readers who know the term acroyl are pretty sophisticated automatically and would understand the redirect. I am recommending that we redirect specialized jargon (acroyl) to a general article.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably tell you why someone like me even has an interest in this article. I was doing some cleanup of mathematics related articles in the Norwegian Wikipedia. Certain articles were miscategorized, and I ended up disentangling a Nowegian article that confused several different meanings of acrylic and down the rabbit hole I went. I ended up reading a lot about this on English Wikipedia in order to guide me in the Norwegian. What I'm trying to say is that even though I'm not an expert on this subject, there are reasons why you end up discovering some topics from totally unexpected angle. I'm the non-expert here, as long as you consider my perspective I will yield to you in the end, if you truly thinks this is the best option. BFG (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the merge discussion banners that Smokefoot removed; this discussion is still open (has not been closed per WP:MERGE) and I don't see consensus yet. I don't think there is consensus for the status quo, which is separate articles. I agree two topics have sufficient overlap to be discussed at the same article. A simple WP:BLAR that Smokefoot did originally would likely be okay, but I agree with the nom that there is probably some content that could be merged into the broader article. Right now, acryloyl group is bolded in the target article, implying that it redirects there, when it does not, so the situation must be rectified somehow. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the merger discussion was cut short. I never meant to oppose it, just raise some concerns. BFG (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my understanding is you opposed the blank and redirect, but would support a merge. It seems there is consensus against having separate articles (unless Smokefoot's removal of the merge tags indicates a change in position, but I don't think it does...I think it just means he acknowledged opposition to the BLAR). The only disagreement, if there is any, is whether any content should be merged. If there are no further comments, I may close this as merge and use my judgment as to what content should be copied over, which users are then free to edit or remove through the normal WP:BRD editing process. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use your judgement and go ahead with the merge. BFG (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2022 (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.

Requested move 16 April 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. There is consensus to move the article as per proposal. (non-admin closure) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha-beta unsaturated carbonyl compounds → Α,β-Unsaturated carbonyl compound – The article title should use Greek letters, as this is the way this term is commonly written in reliable sources, with a {{lowercasetitle}} template used to correctly display the title as α,β-Unsaturated carbonyl compound (note that the first letter in the proposed name is a Greek capital alpha, not a Roman capital A). Furthermore, the first non-prefix letter in the title should be capitalized (see WP:CHEMPREFIX) and the article title should be singular. While this does represent a "class" of compounds that otherwise may be pluralized per WP:PLURAL, classes of organic compounds are singular per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Organic functional groups and related compound classes. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 晚安 (トークページ) 15:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea so long as you can navigate the rules and regs of the Wiki article titles.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: Does WP:TSC apply to this? There are probably a lot of somewhat-similar article titles, e.g., Alpha-Methyltryptamine, Alpha-Pyrrolidinopentiophenone, Alpha-Ethyltryptamine, Alpha-Pinene, Alpha-Methylserotonin, Alpha-Pyrrolidinohexiophenone, Alpha-Pyrrolidinopropiophenone, Alpha-Pyrrolidinobutiophenone, Alpha-2C adrenergic receptor, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof:. It does, but Greek letters fall under the first "characters not on a standard keyboard" criterion, which specifies such characters are allowed in titles but to make sure there are redirects in place for ASCII forms that are likely to be typed. WP:CHEMPREFIX is the relevant naming convention, which conforms to WP:TSC. I am slowly working on page moves for compound articles like the ones you mention to bring in line with CHEMPREFIX. It's a long process because I am cleaning up and adding redirects as I go. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move, for precisely the argument that Mdewman6 makes; "characters not on a standard keyboard". Klbrain (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That one cannot type the title with a keyboard is not sufficient reason for an article not to be titled by its common name, per WP:TSC. The WP:COMMONNAME of the subject of the article is written as proposed, so that's what page at which the article should be located. Redirects allow users to quickly reach the article with any plausibly typed variation. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The Greek letters seem to clearly be the proper way to express this topic name. Spelling them out in ASCII might happen sometimes in English, but in this case, the Greek letters are the correct expression and are not serving a merely decorative function. I'm not sure whether this should be applied wholesale to every superficially similar topic or not – e.g., for Beta blocker, but in this case it seems proper, since I have the impression that high-quality scholarly/academic sources would use Greek letters when discussing this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wouldn't be opposed to making it policy that we prefer characters that can be typed on a standard keyboard, but under current policy the proposed title aligns better with WP:PAG. BilledMammal (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: I see the point you're making; withdrawing objection. Klbrain (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the use of Greek letters in titles when there is a common option to spell in English. Greek letters in titles cause trouble, and are often avoided, and should be avoided for the sake of a simpler url. Greek letters look attractive for the first five or so, but then it becomes pretty ugly pretty quick and you learn the error of using Greek letters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The IUPAC recommendation for nomenclature contains Greek letters, not the English versions of their names. There is no problem with using alpha/beta in the text, but the name should be proper according to the nomenclature. The name of the article would also be shorter and there can always be a redirect from the original name. KingisNitro (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2022 (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.

Handling of terms like "alkenone" and "alkenal"

Another issue worth consideration is with Smokefoot bringing several topics together at this page (which I generally support), several terms now redirect here that may not be adequately defined in the article. Specifically, terms like Alkenone and Alkenal may refer to any compound containing both functional groups, even if not conjugated. See, for example, the article previously at Alkenal. The terms Enone and Enal are usually used to refer to conjugated compounds, but I don't think this distinction is absolute. I think we can have such terms redirect here, but we should define them broadly, and then make clear the α,β forms are the most important. I have added mentions, but the wording would need to be updated. Also, the article previously at Alkenone specifically about non-conjugated, long-chain compounds with paleontological relevance was moved to Alkenone biolipid; again I support the general term alkenone being defined more broadly elsewhere, but not sure Alkenone biolipid is the best title. Open to suggestions; eventually I will take a stab at edits to address these things. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of some of my possible hastiness. This process is evolutionary, and many of my changes are probably positive but further evolution in your hands is also welcome. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the definitions here; upon further investigation I think Alkenone biolipid needs to be moved back to Alkenone, with a hatnote directing users to this page. The biomolecules discussed in that article have a good body of literature and are simply referred to as alkenones. I think we can just keep that as the primary topic for the term and use a hatnote to here; Enone will continue to redirect here. If there are any concerns let me know here an I'll be happy to discuss/make appropriate changes. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

αβ-unsaturated in March

Interesting fact: March's organic textbook, mentions αβ-unsaturated 120x. An important topic in organic chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]