The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norleucine → (2S)-2-aminohexanoic acid – Please refer to the following reference: Nomenclature and Symbolism For Amino Acids and Peptides. Pure and Applied Chemistry, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp.595-624, 1984. Norleucine, while a common name for this compound, is in fact a complete misnomer, as discussed in the article. The approved naming convention would be to use the systematic name as it is short. Thus, having norleucine redirect to the systematic name is the most appropriate choice here. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) 130.60.228.85 (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really Wikipedia's responsibility to enforce chemical nomenclature rules. Wikipedia is descriptive. If norleucine is the common name for this chemical compound, there is nothing wrong with using that as the title here. See WP:COMMONNAME. ChemNerd (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopedia. Thus, first and foremost, accuracy and precision. Then somewhere down the list, superficialities. 2. Enforce? Perhaps a poor word choice as it sounds a bit excitable in a discussion over the name of a chemical compound. This is not about enforcing anything. It is about accuracy and precision. Even if you had a legitimate point, in this particular case, where the common name is actually a misnomer that collides directly with the proper use of nor which specifically invoves the same set of compounds (amino acids) that norleucine belongs to, this should be an exception. If nor were not a prefix used to describe compounds specifically, or even if it was defined but not in use, again, there might be an argument for leaving norleucine as it is. There is a reason scientists have moved from using common names to using systematic ones in most instances. The exceptions are well known and defined. I would have expected a Chemnerd to have some appreciation of that fact. I would not have suggested the move if it were not for the fact this is a misnomer. If you want to discuss enforcement of views, then why don't we discuss why Wikipedia should enforce the use of misnomers that might confuse the general reader? This is not an argument fitting a discussion of a scientific topic. Philosophy...maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.91.225 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:OFFICIALNAME -- do not use the official name when a common name is available ; WP:JARGON -- avoid jargon ; WP:UCN -- use the most common name. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The common name policy you cite does not appear to even graze on this issue. It is in reference to things like having Samuel Clemens redirect to Mark Twain rather than vice versa. While this might be a perfectly acceptable policy in the realm of the social sciences or humanities, it is the exception, rather than the rule in the sciences. The criteria here, in the scientific realm, is to justify not using the agreed upon nomenclature. Those exceptions are obvious (such as the common names of most biochemical compounds) and should excite no argument. I don't think that a misapplied Wikipedia bureaucratic policy should trump the collected and agreed upon wisdom of the world's scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.91.225 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    • A search on Google scholar turns up many many more incidences of the use of the term norleucine compared to the use of 2-aminohexanoic acid, so if we are going to go by the "wisdom of the world's scientists", then we should stick with norleucine. ChemNerd (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • A curiously unscientific assertion from someone who claims to be a scientist. I've pointed out, twice, that not only is the agreed upon rule to not to use norleucine for this compound, but that in this particular instance, it is extraordinarily inappropriate. This fascination with common names is nonsensical. The common name for HCl is muriatic acid, now long out of favour. Nevertheless, it is the common name. Shall we enforce the use of muriatic acid? I suppose your argument is that we all rely on people like you as arbiters of when it is appropriate and when it isn't? How objective and systematic a system would that be? The instances where the common name is appropriate are very obvious. There is no debate. The existence of debate here strongly asserts that this is not one of the examples where the common name is appropriate. The only argument for relying on the common name here is the inertia it possesses from having been in use first. Hardly a scientific criteria. Now, as for your google scholar results. I just searched norleucine. In the first 20 results, 2 are dated in the early 2000's, none of the others are younger than 1980. In one of the most recent papers, some physiologists supplemented rats with leucine and norleucine. Forgive me for asking, but perhaps you are a better scientist than I am, and you can tell me whether they supplemented with actual norleucine, or the misnamed compound? I looked through the materials and methods, and these sloppy individuals didn't even mention where they purchased the compound which might have allowed me to track down and identify exactly what they had used. Of course, we can all assume it was the misnamed compound, but again, that isn't something your supposed to do in science unless absolutely necessary, and then, only with an overt acknowledgement of the assumption made. Thank-you for pointing me to such a perfect example of the continued folly. It was very sporting of you. It does, however, lead me to challenge your assumption that searching google scholar necessarily provides us with the collected wisdom of the world's scientists because I'm not sure I consider these individuals scientists at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.91.225 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The preceding comments are mean spirited and insulting. We editors are trying to do the right thing for our readership, and while we might not agree uniformly with the views of fellow editors, we try to start from a position of mutual respect. And for an editor such as ChemNerd has a long record of contributions, a little humility is probably indicated for an unregistered editor with a thin record of contributions. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is mean spirited and insulting is the existence of righteouos individuals more interested in superficialities and style rather than substance. This is a scientific topic. A little objectivity is in order. Your hyperbole and histrionics shows your irrational and emotional response to anything you dislike. Do you have an actual argument based on reason and logic to use? The perceived value of an edit is based on whether you think the person is nice? Whether they contribute a lot to Wiki, and more importantly, in a fashion you approve of or like? I am a biochemist, so I am at least as qualified to comment on this topic as ChemNerd. I intend no insult. I address arguments. Searching a term and saying there are many instances of one, and only a few of another is not a reasonable argument for the reasons I addressed. It is certainly not a scientific argument and would be laughed out of peer review. If you didn't know that, now you do. It doesn't justify naked ad hominem attacks against me. ChemNerd is, I'm sure, a big boy. He can use his scientific acumen to rebut any argument I make that doesn't cut the mustard. Why then should I need to stomach your insults? Insults in a post that contains not one substantive contribution to the argument at hand? Is that appropriate wikipedia behavior? I'm new here so please enlighten me. Not liking my arguments doesn't constitute bad behavior on my part. I can't help it if you have some emotional connection to this page, the term norleucine, or ChemNerd and his chosen advocacy. None of which is appropriate here. By the way, how many hours rebutting people who seem to like asserting only their contrary opinions with no references or counterarguments would I have to commit to this before my contributions to Wikipedia would gaint me the accolades you heap on ChemNerd? Do you think I don't have better things to be doing?

Keep Norleucine. This is the name chemists and biochemists and biomedical people call this compound, whether we like it or not and if our intention is to help readers vs right great wrongs, we should stick with the ordinary usage. This morning I searched a Chemical Abstracts Service (recorder of all publications in bio- and chemical sciences) gave these results: 6291 references to norleucine and 122 references to 2-aminohexanoic acid. I understand the frustration that some editors have with a lot of weird names and their good intentions of fixing things, but this is another case where the name change would not serve readers, in my opinion. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am a biochemist. It is an archaic term that appropriate peer review would remove from any publication. Full-stop. Sloppiness is not an argument. It is also not a name change. Anyone searching Norleucine will not be redirected to the ether. They will land on the exact same page with accurate information rather than inaccurate information. I've already addressed at length why searching abstracts and totalling references to the two names is not an argument. It is a superficial attempt at data analysis. At the absolute minimum you would have to limit your search to the last decade or some reasonably recent period of time, and I'm sure you would still have a preponderance of norleucine. That doesn't mean it is correct. It is not being used by choice by scientists deciding to keep the old name. Such usage is purely out of ignorance and sloppiness. As I said above, appropriate peer review would have the term changed before publication. I know because that is exactly what I have done. If I were wrong, my argument for change would be rejected during peer review. Never has been. I work in this field, but I don't rely on my opinion like every other person here. I've presented a reference. Where is yours?

Keep Norleucine. That is what people prefer to call it. (And in my opinion they do so with good reason. But that's irrelevant to this discussion.) Maproom (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • In your opinion, norleucine is used with good reason, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Forgive me for my confusion, but how so? I'll quote my reference: "Section 3AA-2.4. Use of the Prefix 'nor': The prefix 'nor' denotes removal of a methylene group (Sections F-4.2 and F-4.4 of [15]), but this is not the sense in which it has been used in the names 'norvaline' and 'norleucine'. Such names, although widely used, may therefore be misinterpreted, so we cannot recommend them, especially since the systematic names for the compounds intended, 2-aminopentanoic acid and 2-aminohexanoic acid, are short." It is not enough that this is the case, now people have edited the article to minimize the commentary on the inappropriate nature of the term norleucine. The statement addressing this has been changed merely to indicate the systematic name and moved the reason the systematic name should be prominently mentioned to the reference section. If that isn't an example of people taking an overly possessive interest in their own personal opinions on an article, I don't know what would be. There is absolute no reason to even mention the systematic name in the body of the article if you aren't going to address the naming issue and the fact that norleucine itself is a misnomer. Perhaps we need an entire new Wikipedia rule addressing misnomers specifically? Apparently simple common sense rules, backed up by an "anthropogenic global warming is real" level of scientific consensus on the issue isn't enough.

• Giving it one last relist. I'll drop a few notes at the relevant projects in the hope of generating some more opinions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article for norleucine should be at norleucine 24.131.80.54 (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It is called "norleucine". If there is something "wrong" about this name, get the reliable sources to change their practice, and then Wikipedia will follow. Wikipedia reflects source use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.