Talk:Secosteroid

message: I would submit that referring to the secosteroid cholecalciferol as a "vitamin" is an outdated notion based on the observation that oral intake of irradiated foodstuffs could prevent rickets (c.f., e.g.,  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets ).  In addition to the fact that this metabolite is synthesized endogenously (like "non-essential" amino acids) under historically normal environmental circumstances, cholecalciferol and its analog ergocalciferol are not widely distributed in human diets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodowdus (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

message: In particular, the restriction of the definition to B-ring scissions, based on the singular cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) example, is corrected. (A variety of ring scissions are possible and are indeed well-known.)  
In addition the dead google books link to the Ayers citation was fixed, and the URL for the UArizona Press was used to replace it.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making definition consistent with web definitions, and across wikipedia 

message: Is the debate is about whether secosteroids are a class of steroids vs being similar to steroids?  That's all?  Not being an expert in natural products but having seen the swkwardness that ensues with IUPAC, I would lean toward the more flexible usage from journals and handbooks that experts in the area consult.  But surely the two clever editors above can finesse this minor conflict with some text in a footnote to satisfy nomenclaturists.  Then we can get back to our main business - adding content.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly is the argument about?

message: ... to make clear the basis for the original text of this lede, to which it was returned in the reversion.  Added IUPAC, Dictionary of Steroids, and Hanson citations to make clear the basis for the original wording. NLM Mesh and other citations will follow on short order. Web definitions only satisfy if one is seeking to move forward a minority perspective on this matter. It is prooftexting to choose these to open the lede, and ignore the solid, stable, and very widely held conventions in this field (as reflected in IUPAC, NLM Mesh, Dictionary of Steroids, Nat Prod Reports, etc.).  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V says we can include all reliably sourced details, even ones in minority compared to more common/popular/formal origins, and conversely that excluding minority positions or alternatives solely because they are minority or from a less authoritative source is a form of editorial bias or non-neutrality. DMacks (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not disagree, @User:DMacks, at all. But in the end, the Steroid article will ether develop, with or without coverage of these steroid topics, and that is the underlying question—not whether all variations of definition may be mentioned, but whether it will be the IUPAC/NLM Mesh definition, or web definitions, that guides content.  Cheers, look forward to your further (always astute) comments. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations added