Talk:Amino radical
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Name of this article edit
Triggered by a recent discussion at Talk:Azane#Recent_changes, this article was renamed from "Azanyl" to "Amino radical" by its creator, who wrote "I named the Azanyl article, and incorrectly so. 'Azanyl' refers to the class of azane side-chains - azyl (NH
2-), diazanyl (N
2H
3-) are all azanyl side-chains.". I am not aware of any reliable source for that. To the contrary, the first reference in this very article lists "azanyl" as one of the IUPAC names. I therefore feel this move should be reverted. — SebastianHelm 03:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
- EBI, generates its IUPAC names by an automatic process, and does not take into account the subtle differences to the current IUPAC naming system. I referenced that name, before I was aware of it being incorrect. Referencing to databases such as EBI, for IUPAC names, must be verified to conform with actual IUPAC nenclature rules. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting; I didn't know that. Still, we have no source for the claim that "Azanyl" is wrong. Compared with no source, a professional, but potentially not quite reliable source still is far superior, don't you agree? — Sebastian 06:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I gave one reference indicating that 'azyl' is correct, in the discussion in Talk:Azane (labled as [1]), there are more. IUPAC uses this reasoning behind the difference: how do you distinguish between two individual monoazanyl groups, and one diazanyl group, they cannot both be called diazanyl, otherwise you would have the molecules, CH(NH2)2OH and CH2(N2H3)OH having the same name: diazanylmethanol. However, if the -an- infix was removed for the first member of the series, then the former molecule would be named diazylmethanol, and the latter would be named diazanylmethanol. Of course they did not uses azanes in their example, but they logically extended this idea to other parent hydrides. That aside, azyl is not the prefered IUPAC name in any case, but amino is. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I now see what that unexplained link to http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00755441?LI=true#page-1 was intended to show. I see that the authors do use 'azyl' for the side chain, which proves that at least some people use it in that way. It does not prove, however, that "azanyl" is wrong, and even less so that "amino radical" is correct. Again, If you want to claim that the name preferred by the IUPAC is wrong, then you need a reliable source for it. — Sebastian 08:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I gave one reference indicating that 'azyl' is correct, in the discussion in Talk:Azane (labled as [1]), there are more. IUPAC uses this reasoning behind the difference: how do you distinguish between two individual monoazanyl groups, and one diazanyl group, they cannot both be called diazanyl, otherwise you would have the molecules, CH(NH2)2OH and CH2(N2H3)OH having the same name: diazanylmethanol. However, if the -an- infix was removed for the first member of the series, then the former molecule would be named diazylmethanol, and the latter would be named diazanylmethanol. Of course they did not uses azanes in their example, but they logically extended this idea to other parent hydrides. That aside, azyl is not the prefered IUPAC name in any case, but amino is. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, here you go: [1]. However, remember that whenever appropriate, an article title needs to reflect the most commonly used term for the subject. 'Amino radical' passed this test. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good, thank you! This link shows that 'Amino radical' is used. However, this source does by no means show that 'Amino radical' is the most commonly used term for the subject. To the contrary, it describes the name as "A non-IUPAC term for aminyl radicals"; that can only mean that it is not the name that they prefer. — Sebastian 02:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, here you go: [1]. However, remember that whenever appropriate, an article title needs to reflect the most commonly used term for the subject. 'Amino radical' passed this test. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- True, but a simple google search does yield more results for it, than for aminyl radicals. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
BTW, we also have the article Amidogen, which seems to refer to the same radical. I suggest the two should be merged, but I want to hold off on this before we have an agreement on the article name. — Sebastian 03:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the articles should be merged. I suggest that the amidogen shouldbe merged into this article as this one predates Amidogen. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Should this article be for radicals only? edit
Currently, this article only covers the radical NH
2•. We don't seem to have an article on NH
2 as a side-chain. Since this article is currently only a stub, I think the best course of action would be to include that related topic here. Thoughts? — Sebastian 02:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is an article on the side-chain: Amine. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm You're right - and what a nice article! I've even been there recently, as I saw from the purple link! — Sebastian 18:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Section 6 has issues. edit
Section 6 (Applications and Impact on Human Health) appears to have multiple issues to me. Among other things, I think that the parts about free radicals in general (not the part specific to nitrogen radicals) and the part about antioxidants are too long and should be shortened and a {{See also|Free radical|Antioxidant}} template added to the top of the section. Also, I think that there are numerous instances where better wording could be used and that only the first word of the section should be capitalized. However, because no one seems to have previously commented on these issues, I'd like input from others before I set out to fix any of them. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)