Talk:Isomerization

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Isomerization article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pre-2010 Comments

Anyone else think this should be merged with isomer? As this article has alot more detail and loads more information on isomerisation than this article. - G

Is word spelled with S or Z? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

Smokefoot has proposed that the articles Isomerisation and Isomer be merged. This space is for the discussion of that proposal. EdChem (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the history for vandalism , the isomerization article turns out to be a bit longer, no longer a need to merge V8rik (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking behind the merge proposal (sorry this message comes several hours after the proposal): It seems that the concepts of isomerisation and isomer are so intimately connected that they should be merged. To well-read chemists, we would notice the nuanced difference, but my guess is that most readers would be puzzled and would be toggling back and forth between the two articles. I welcome learning about other's views on the difference between isomer and isomerization, I realize that one is a set of objects (the isomers) and the other is the process of interconverting them. My interest is in helping readers vs the semantics. But I look forward to suggestions.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before Smokefoot tagged the article for merging, I was thinking that the article needed a major expansion. There are plenty of examples of isomerisation reactions that could be described. The material V8rik has restored is only the start, in my view, and mostly the material does not belong in isomer where it is just going to obscure the description needed there. By the way, I also plan a re-write of the isomer article, it's poor in my view. 12:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that many isomerisation reactions that could be described, is not the issue. All of us can write a lot... The question is how isomerization can be presented to general readers without elaborating the detailed nature of isomers? We already have Cis–trans isomerism, Structural isomer, Chirality (chemistry), E-Z notation, Stereoisomerism, Diastereomer, Racemization, Epimer, Prochirality, Atropisomer (should there be a separate article on atropisomerization?), Conformational isomerism, Planar chirality, Tacticity, Stereoselectivity, Stereocenter, etc, etc.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general it is a bad idea to include specialist topics (isomerisations, valence isomerisation) in a general interest topic as isomer for the simple reason that the specialist content tends to get deleted. Why not keep it separate, I agree with EdChem the potential for the isomerization page is huge. V8rik (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just perplexed as to how we will write separate articles on isomers and isomerisation. I guess we should plan to complement atropisomer with an article on atropisomerisomerisation and to complement diastereomer with diastereomerisation? In any case, if experienced editors do not favor the idea, then the suggestion is not going ahead. It would be useful to define the distinction between the articles on "isomer" and on "isomerisation".--Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge has been done. This article is on isomerisation / isomerization, with a section in Isomer which introduces the concept of isomerization, and directs readers here for more detailed information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title error

I believe "Isomerization" comes from "Isomerize" and so it should be spelled with a "z" not an "s". Ironically it is correctly spelled with the article at least a few times.131.215.32.217 (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Nat[reply]

Certainly the more common spelling is isomerization, so per WP:Common name I have moved the article to that title with Isomerisation redirecting here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question... how does WP:Common name interact with WP:ENGVAR? Isomerization is a US spelling, isomerisation is a British / Australian / most of the world spelling. I would have thought that the article title should stay with the spelling originally adopted, the alternative being a redirect. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC) PS: The IP is incorrect, the base term is "isomer" not "isomerize / isomerise". PPS: Looking at earlier posts on this page, it is clear I prefer the "s" spelling, and it is used by some other editors as well, but my question is about whether WP:Common name is controlling in this case. EdChem (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an ENGVAR issue - see this explanation. As this word can end in both ise and ize for British English, then it comes down to which use is the more common, and more sources use ize than ise. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talk point removed

Hikingbert (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isomerization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723140400/http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/chemistry/organicchemistry/common/common.htm to http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/Organicchemistry/Common/Common.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]