Talk:9-Nor-9β-hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol

Requested move 28 August 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: Consensus to move. to the capitalised version, I think currently with 9-Nor and not 11-Nor. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC) &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

9-nor-9β-Hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol → 9-Nor-9β-hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol – The proposed new name (original name/displaytitle was 9-nor-9β-Hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol, fix here) is blacklisted from some reason. However, the nor- (cyclo-, apo-, seco-, homo- as well, unlike e.g. ambo-, endo-, exo-, rac-) prefix is not to be italicized according to the IUPAC Blue Book 2013, and e.g. the IUPAC Nomenclature of Steroids (Recommendations 1989); and is the one to be capitalized (not the following part), according to the latter ref (examples, e.g. (72) ‘24-Nor-5β-cholane’). Mykhal (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. 9-Nor-9β-hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol is the correct capitalization as described by Mykhal.   See 11-Nor-9-carboxy-THC as a long-standing example.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems that you independently came to the conclusion, that the correct name should be yet different one, "11-Nor-9-hydroxy…" (see e.g. graphical abstract text of doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2005.11.023). In the mean time, I have edited the page, but have forgotten that there's some blacklist item preventing the desired page move. If you agree, feel free to modify the page move request, or cancel and make a ne one, if you are experienced in this type of operations. Greetings, —Mykhal (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the "11-Nor" name, just that this article should be capitalized in the same manner as that one. The proper numbering scheme isn't clear to me for either article.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Name: ‘9-nor’ vs ‘11-nor’
It's amazing that the name 9-nor-9β-hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol appears relatively often, even through it's rather wrong one – (more) correct one should be 11-nor-9β-hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol, as appears (but in more substituted form) in doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2005.11.023. —Mykhal (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Chemical Abstracts lists 9-Nor-9-hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol and (-)-9-Nor-9-hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol as a valid synomyms for this chemical compound, but does not list any synonyms that contain "11-nor". -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit that the common cannabinol numbering scheme is derived from benzo[c]chromene (dibenzo[b,d]pyran) skeleton (IUPAC) numbering, which ends with 10a. Also here we have a picture, which (currently) has the (C9-attached) methyl not numbered (it's not clear to me whether there's a literature source of this nice cannabinoid skeletons numbering table). However, the nor- prefix means (unsubstituted) methylene group (including methyl one: -CH2-H) removal from a chain or ring (in this case it means a ring contraction), the one with the highest locant possible, and the original numbering is preserved (not shifted). I consider the 9-nor-9β-hydroxy… name as an attempt to make a sort of least incorrect one (I'm convinced that there is no nomenclature rule allowing usage of nor- prefix for the attached methyl removal) made by someone oblivious to the existing (perhaps not-yet well-known or existing) cannabinol numbering extension to include the methyl numbered as 11, as used e.g. in already mentioned 11-Nor-9-carboxy-THC, or 11-Hydroxy-THC. (Unfortunately, there are no IUPAC cannabinoid nomenclature recommendations yet). —Mykhal (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

This is terribly written
--Snippert (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC) It's obvious this article was written by someone with poor writing skills. If you have a 9th grade-level understanding of writing, do not create articles. This is embarrassingly bad.