Talk:Paclitaxel total synthesis

message: Hi User:Alvis, I do not doubt your sincere intentions when you exchanged taxol with Paclitaxel in the title of this article but if you look at the references all titles state only Taxol trade name or not. What can I do to discourage you from changing the other titles in this cluster or even revert to the original title. The references cited should dictate the naming conventions. Thanks in advance for your reply V8rik 12:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking this up on the Talk page instead of just reverting.  From what I've read at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide, the International Nonproprietary Name is preferred to any commercial names for compounds. With a redirect for Taxol total synthesis, I don't think there'll be a problem. Alvis 05:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a pharmacology article, this is an organic synthesis article and should use the name that is overwhelmingly used in the organic synthesis literature. I suggest reverting back to Taxol. --Itub 09:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxol total synthesis is a much more familiar term than  paclitaxel total synthesis. I think  the name most commonly used in papers should be preferred. --Rifleman 82 07:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paclitaxel should be used in the Pharmacology article and for the total synthesis we should go back to the name everybody knows Taxol-Stone 07:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping that WP, being what it is and stands for, would lean towards non-commercial, globally-preferred scientific names for molecules and their related articles, but consensus is consensus. Alvis 08:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not here to prescribe non-commercial names based on idealistic principles, but to reflect the way things are called in the real world. --Itub 08:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Third search yields thousand hits for taxol total synthesis and below 10 for Paclitaxel total synthesis which makes it clear what the name should be.--Stone 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If this falls under WikiProject Chemistry, then isn't the INN recommendation at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) the end of this discussion? Alvis 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because of the "General rule" and the "Exceptions" sections. --Itub 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paclitaxel or taxol 

message: Fixed RFCxxx template, set section param to section heading. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The acetaminophen is a good example, but I stil do not like it, the point is that all mentionings on the page should be consistent and than all Taxols should be converted to Paclitaxel. --Stone 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsequentially all other total synthesis articles of taxol have to be renamed to and the renaming to Nicolaou Paclitaxel total synthesis I would revert without hesitation.--Stone 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Physchim62's comment - I too fear that in the long run, since commercial rights fade, it's in WP's best interest to promote a universal nomenclature.  I realize that the other published synths use "taxol", but we should keep in mind that it's in any chemist's best interest to have his/her work readily accessible when being searched for by peers that may only be familiar with as-of-then popular terms.  If not enough users agree with this, than this article should be reverted, and I'll take my concerns up elsewhere if I feel that a formal WP policy needs to be established in the best interest of long-term naming.  Per Stone, I was about to edit the rest of the synth articles for consistency per INNs, but held back until this could be resolved.Alvis 10:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Taxol is the trade name from 1939 for something total different, but was granted (1992) long after the Taxol was used for the extract from Taxus for an anti tumar agent. Nature suffered from this dispute and we should stand up against that hijacking of the name. -Stone 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paclitaxel/Taxol synthesis RFC 

message: I intend, shortly, to move this article (retitle it as) "Paclitaxel synthesis", reason being to make the correspondence between title and content accurate, with justifications being clearcut, and at least two:
* The article contains both "Biosynthesis" and "Semisynthesis" sections, neither of which are "Total synthesis", but both of which are "Synthesis", and these are substantial and valid content segments;
* The article does contain information on "Paclitaxel Total Synthesis", but in just one section, essentially co-equal in length and quality alongside the other two sections.
The simplest way to make the title and content accurate is to remove the word "total" from the title, and if not done automatically, to begin repairing links referring just to total synthesis, to the appropriate section of the article.
Will attend to later this week, but will give time for discussion.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Blue Rasberry (talk), @V8rik (talk), Per request, holding on any action here until the broader discussions of TS article organization  come to their conclusion. Note, for this article, my only desire was to have an accurate correspondence between title and content. From my perspective, this could (in an ideal world) become a standalone article summarizing from bird's eye perspective, the whole series of paclitaxel total syntheses articles that appear, and being maintained as that sort of overarching, perspective article (i.e., keeping the related semisynthesis section, but removing the the biosynthesis section to the main paclitaxel article). Alternatively, it could be renamed as I first suggested, so biosynthesis fits. In suggesting the simpler change, I did not realize I was stumbling onto the minefield of Exercisephys's proposals. On further review, my actual preference here, is for the article to remain with title unchanged, and for the biosynthesis content to be moved.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  If there is not objection 

message: …does this article not contain any actual Holton citations, as of today—either primary or secondary?  Mon Dieu.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Why for goodness sake