This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
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
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)
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 time16:46, 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)Natreply
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 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:
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.