Talk:Amyl

(Apparent vand)
"Amyl is slang in latin (meretrix) for prostitute...." Seems to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.5.168 (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2006

isomers of amyl
The article mentions that there are 8 isomers of amyl, then redirects to pentyl, where there aren't any. What's going on here? A listing of the isomers would be nice.... RobertAustin 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are formulas for the seven of the eight, with hydrogens omitted for clarity. I'm not sure how to generate the names, or the eighth isomer.  The assistance of an organic chemist would be appreciated!
 * R-C-C-C-C-C (n-amyl or n-pentyl)
 * R-C(C)-C-C-C
 * R-C-C(C)-C-C
 * R-C-C-C(C)-C
 * R-C-C(C)3
 * R-C(C2)2
 * R-C(C)2C2
 * And no, I'm not trying to get help on my homework! RobertAustin 03:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I infer that the (C) portions refer to side chains, and don't see an 8th structure, tho i won't claim my failure proves anything. (Oh wait a minit - hmm, no, that one's redundant.)  I'll copy this section to talk:pentyl, and strike it thru here. --Jerzy•t 03:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "cyclopentyl group", "a ring with the formula -C5H9" is another -C5Hn, and since there apparently are no stable 4-carbon rings, it would have no remotely stable isomers since even one single-carbon side chain would leave only 4 to form the ring. Perhaps the "8 isomers" editor erred in restating an accurate source whose own wording implicitly allowed for counting both -C5H11 and -C5H9 groups, altho IMO "isomer" rules that out. --Jerzy•t 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Breakup
The only sign of a core topic is the etymological relationships, and since NAD this is not a term that (like Fuck and Nigger) has aspects justifying an etymology-/usage-focused article. The title should become a Dab, and the sections become Dab-entries and in some cases stubs. --Jerzy•t 03:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jerzy, agree. Marked as dab. Widefox ; talk 09:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Clean-up tag
Hi,. Can you elaborate on why you tagged this page for clean-up? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, as you've no doubt seen from the history this has unilaterally been converted to a dab by me, and we still have an incoming link and a niggling doubt that there may be an article here that's been lost in the conversion. If another pair of eyes agrees with this as a dab, then the see also needs slimming. Regards to your good work, Widefox ; talk 07:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)