|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Why do I have the impression that anyone who understands what the text is saying, would now what a schiff-base is anyway? Could anyone enhance the text so that it is understandable for people without a PhD in Biochemistry? Maybe include a more informative graphic. The one used at the moment is realy scary!
Cheers 22.214.171.124 11:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Added image V8rik 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The joke punchline bit is obtuse, even to someone who knows a bit of organic chemistry. Perhaps it should be clarified. --Pmetzger 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone please explain the joke.
I think it's a pun on the euphemism "shitfaced" to mean 'drunk' - after the addition of ethanol? 126.96.36.199 10:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Guess it wasn't very funny.
I stll didnt get the joke.
This page seems to be a bit redundant, as a Schiff base is just an imine, isn't it? Shouldn't this page be merged with the imine page?
- Agreed, this page should be converted to a redirect and the content moved to imine. They mean exactly the same thing, except that no Schiff base has N-H (these are also rare for imines) and people in coordination chemistry use the term for chelating imine-ligands, but that would just be a subsection in the merged article. So do it! --Smokefoot (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I find the term Schiff base confusing and unnecessary, although I realise it's a common term of reference in biology. Schiff base should redirect to a section at Imine, explaining the meaning/usage of the term. Aldimine should also be subsumed into Imine.
- My concern is for people who just want to know what a Schiff base is, that is what an encyclopedia is for. Too quickly terms are called archaic or obsolete when in fact they have a specific meaning or specific use. And if editors like Ben have already made up their mind that the term is unnecessary, editors like Ben will eventually delete any trace to the term when it is included in the imine article. Keeping the article separate is the best way to prevent deletion creep V8rik (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to delete all mention of Schiff base. I propose making it a subsection of imine, like I said. I want it to exist, just not as a separate article. But I don't really mind, I'm not out to force the issue, just to show I agree with the OP's suggestion that this article is a bit redundant.
But if editors like V8rik think deletion creep is a likely problem, keep the article. Jeez!
- I don't understand this discussion either, especially the "clearly" part. When I was a student, gfggffgfggffffffffffffffffbvvvvvvvvvvvvvvused because Schiff bases looked like just another imine, but the term was used by older teachers. Eventually Schiff base would be a good entry for Wiktionary. Anyway, there are more pressing issues around here. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at the last three edits
- Now the general structure of the Schiff base has an H (from which definition is that?)
- It says "The chain on the nitrogen makes the Schiff base a stable imine." hmm
- It says that "Schiff bases in a broad sense [...] R is an organic side chain." - I think that Schiff bases in a broad sense would include imines coordinated to metals etc... And btw IUPAC does not say that the side chains of an azomethines has to be organic...
- And just FYI: Carey and Sundberg (2007, book B, page 46) says: "The nitrogen analogs of ketones and aldehydes are called imines, azomethines, or Schiff bases, but imine is the preferred name and we use it here." Christian75 (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)