Talk:Aliphatic compound

message: The article says, "aliphatic compounds are non-aromatic and non-cyclic". This requirement that it not be cyclic is consistent with sources such as Hampel, Glossary of Chemical Terms, 2nd edition (1992), page 11 and Hackh's Chemical Dictionary, 5th edition (1987), page 22. However, the IUPAC definition provided at IUPAC, Pure and Applled Chemistry, 67, 1307-1376 (1995), page 1313 says, "aliphatic compounds: Acyclic or cyclic, saturated or unsaturated carbon compounds, excluding aromatric compounds". Since IUPAC sets the standard in defining chemical nomenclature, and since their definition permits cycles, I question whether the Wikipedia definition should say "non-cyclic", and suggest that, at a minimum, it should state that the term is used sometimes with, and sometimes without, a bar on cycles.  Comments?
Dr. Mark L. Berch 9/19/2005
: I just stumbled on this page by chance and completely agree with your sentiments. Feel free to modify the article as you see fit. The joy of Wikipedia is that you can be bold and make these sorts of changes yourself without the bother of establishing consensus. :-) Best, David Iberri | Talk 21:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected this blatant error. --Itub 08:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyclic aliphatic compounds

message: Hello I just wanted to add some questions:
1.What is the meaning of "aliphatic" compounds and where has this word been derived from?
2.Isn't it possible to "create" cyclic patterns of aliphatic compounds as well? If yes then why were cyclic compounds not considered as aliphatic?
Aamil Syed Naeem, India 07/30/2006
"Due to it being a non-aromatic compound, aliphatic petroleum solvent is used as a starter for barbecues"  Is it the toxicity that prevents using aromatic ones?... the why is not explained.  - Ashi Starshade 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questions

message: Aliphatic aldehydes should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 05:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aldehydes

message: alkanes'''
alkanes are the simplest class of organic compounds.
they are made of carpon and hydrogen atoms only and contain two types of bonds,carbon-hydrogen (c-H)and carbon-carbon (c-c)single covalent bonds they do not have functional groups
alkanes from ahomologous series with the general formula CnH2n+2,where n is the number of the carbon atoms in the molecule.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.144.140 (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  aliphatic compounds 

message: 'Open chain' redirects here, but isn't that technically incorrect if an "aliphatic compound" is one that does not contain aromatic rings, while an 'open chain' compound is one where it has aromatic rings but they're not adjacent and instead attached via a chain structure? Nagelfar (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call an aromatic compound "open chain". To me, "open chain" implies an acyclic compound. Some aliphatic compounds are acyclic, but no all, and not all acyclic compounds are aliphatic. The redirect is misleading, especially since this article doesn't use the term "open chain" at all; it could give readers the impression that "open chain" is a synonym for "aliphatic compound". --Itub (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, wait, I see. You were probably referring to the use of "open chain" in alkaloid chemistry, or for opiates as used in the Phenadoxone article. Maybe it would be better to start an article about that, because it has nothing to do with aliphatic compounds. --Itub (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, you agree "open chain" should not redirect here. Would there be a better place to redirect it to, or might it be able to warrant it's own article and started as a stub that won't get tagged for deletion? Nagelfar (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "open chain" redirect. 

message: This page says:
The simplest aliphatic compound is methane (CH4).
By what definition?
Ethyne contains fewer atoms, and is a simpler configuration as the atoms are arranged linearly, methane has a three dimensional structure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.62.210.50 (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By convention, alkanes are considered simpler than alkenes and alkynes. Shorter carbon backbones are also conventionally considered simpler. Methane has acetylene beat on both counts. Joe Avins (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  simplest aliphatic compound 

message: This article seems to need a lot of work, some of which I can do but some I can't. It is in need of general editing, such as missing spaces after punctuation, capitalization of sentences, etc., which I can work on.
The article title is "Aliphatic Compound" yet the contents spells the word as "eliphatic" throughout. Aliphatic is the spelling I have encountered in all other sources. Since I'm not a chemist, I couldn't say if perhaps there is a good reason for the eliphatic spelling; if there is then the article title should be changed, and a redirect added for aliphatic. If not, but eliphatic is a valid alternate spelling, then a redirect should be added for that.
I came looking for the characteristic the definitively separates aliphatics from aromatics (since I know it is not the rings) but the article does not address this at all. This needs a qualified expert to answer.
In mentioning the inclusion of elements other than carbon and hydrogen it begins "Besides hydrogen, gold, and other elements..." Gold? Why mention one of the least likely elements to be found in any compound? I'll take it out unless someone can give a good reason not to.
A(E?)liphatic acids are mentioned in a section of their own. Why acids but not alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, ethers, esters, and others? Why single out acids for inclusion? (Badagnani, why single out aldehydes?) I can take a shot at fixing this.
Joe Avins (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues 

message: The IUPAC Gold Book definition states "Acyclic or cyclic, saturated or unsaturated carbon compounds, excluding aromatic compounds". Thus, all non-aromatic organic compounds are by default aliphatic, no matter what elements they contain. In addition, parts of molecules may be described as aromatic and aliphatic; e.g., 1-phenyloctane has aromatic and aliphatic parts.
130.95.99.158 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aliphatic" does not only apply to hydrocarbons 

message: Intro proposes the difference between aliphatic and aromatic then says some stuff about those things without explaining wtf they mean 24.143.103.193 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with this: a clear definition of the term aliphatic is necessary. As a layman, I get only get a vague idea of its meaning. Another confusing issue in the introduction: "In organic chemistry, hydrocarbonsare divided into two classes: aromatic compounds and aliphatic compounds" and "Cyclic compounds can be aliphatic if they are not aromatic". This may suggest that there is a third class? Ernstvgr (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I also fully agree. There should be a clear definition, in the intro, of what "aliphatic" means, one that doesn't require clicking on a link to the "Aromatic" article. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro 

message: I added " If other elements are bound to the carbon chain, the most common being oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine, it is no longer a hydrocarbon, and therefore no longer an aliphatic compound." which is a modified version of what another editor added. I think the other editor was contradicting the definition of what a hydrocarbon is given in the intro. OTOH I am a layman, so I hope I am right. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chlorinating a hydrocarbon makes it not a hydrocarbon?