Talk:Oxazolidinone

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

Nomenclature mess

There are two separate isomeric ideas: by naive glance, there can be either of two relative locations of the N and O in the ring (scattered vs adjacent--I assume that is the difference denoted by the prefix "iso", comparable to oxazole vs isoxazole) and independently the position of the carbonyl (any of the three C--the number is presumably that locant):

O/N adjacent: File:3-Isoxazolidinone.png (amide; [1192-07-0]) File:4-Isoxazolidinone.png (ketone; [2168656-08-2]), File:5-Isoxazolidinone.png (ester; [98026-51-8])
O/N not ajacent: File:2-Oxazolidinone.png (urethane; [497-25-6]), File:4-Oxazolidinone.png (amide; [5840-83-5]); File:5-Oxazolidinone.png (ester; [6542-32-1)

This article appears to conflate these two ideas. The cited refs do not seem to well support the claimed distinctions because of the two variables in play. I think these chemicals are too different from each other to have a unified chembox, since it only contains some of them and uneven coverage/details about them. It would probably be better as a setindex with a table of images, which would make a cleaner distinction with the systematic names displayed more clearly (and all six CASNo could be listed). DMacks (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that we had a mistake on oxazolidone vs oxazolidinone. Then I found the med chem article that defined the three adjacent isomers. For some reason, the scattered isomers did not occur to me. And I did not take the time to figure out the iso- nomenclature, a mistake. If you want to revamp, revert, or whatever, please go for it. I am sorta distracted these days. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should create Isoxazolidinone, and each article should refer to the other.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]