Talk:List of compounds with carbon numbers 50+
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:List of compounds with carbon numbers 50–100)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title and name
[edit]Title is "List of compounds with carbon numbers 50+", while there's a table containing compoounds with more than 100 carbons. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Alfa-ketosav Had not even noticed this until now. See below. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 11 January 2022
[edit]- 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 section.
It was proposed in this section that List of compounds with carbon numbers 50–100 be renamed and moved to List of compounds with carbon numbers 50+.
result: Links: current log • target log
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
List of compounds with carbon numbers 50–100 → List of compounds with carbon numbers 50+ – Contains a section for carbon numbers >100. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. It is a bigger problem that the >100 carbon atoms section is heavily populated with proteins, polypeptides are arbitrary and endlessly variable amino acid sequence. It is more important to remove the natural proteins. I note that sequence variability in the proteins is ignored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support iff the proteins and polypeptides will not be removed, else neutral. Proteins and polypeptides are technically compounds as well. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I'm not expert enough at chemistry to grasp the significance of SmokeyJoe's point above, but as long as the >100 entries are present (and compounds like ziconotide, ramoplanin, enfuvirtide etc. do seem to within scope) then it makes sense for the title to accurately represent the contents. 11:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
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.