Talk:Aroma compound

Untitled
Shouldn't Hydrogen sulfide be part of this list? - MarXidad (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

'A chemical compound has a smell or odor when two conditions are met'? Surely the human olfactory system also needs to be set up to sense them?! --Oolong 12:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is eugenol listed as an aldehyde? Isn't it an alcohol? --71.227.190.111 04:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Aroma compounds classified by structure section
Is this section supposed to be exhaustive? --Abdull (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of chemical compounds used for their aromas, so the list should be restricted in some way to the more notable or commonplace ones. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for example, there is an entire article on Esters which amongst other things has a comprehensive list of examples, so should not that paragraph simply have a quick summary sentence then a redirect to that separate article? Old_Wombat (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible citation
I was looking for some journal articles for work and came across this chapter of this book to have a rather similar definition for "aroma compound" which I'll quote: "Aroma compounds, also known as fragrances, odorants, or flavors, are chemical substances with sensorial properties showing a wide variety of odors" but I'm hesitant about adding that as citation due to it being not at all identical, plus the issue of "Which is first" to which I lack the tool and time to dig through the article's history. Should I add though? Mnmt.Sw (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . We should be cautious of a reference that appears to be interpreted from alternative medicine (based on quackery), but I am unable to read the whole source, as it is a subscription which makes it generally unreadable for most users. With this edit, I added accessible reviews from the food science literature, and hope this revision helps to satisfy content and sources you were seeking. Zefr (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you for getting back to me and my apology that I wasn't able to respond as quickly. As for the whole source, I was able to find it on LibGen using the ISBN (978-0-12-816453-2), although it can be problematic due to legal issues surrounding the site, but do you mind checking it out now that the paywall issue is (somewhat) resolved? And indeed, you have a valid point that we should cautious, a point that I did in fact missed intially. Thank you for pointing it out! Mnmt.Sw (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The book is a problem both because of its alternative medicine emphasis (untrustworthy), its paywall which nearly all Wikipedia readers will be unable to access, WP:READER, and the hesitance many would have in using LibGen (as I do). Better to use commonly available, inline citations that anyone can read, so the solution would be to copyedit and use easily-accessed sources, as I tried to do with this edit. Zefr (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2022

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Aroma compound → Odorant – Far more commonly used Ngrams over 5 million to Aroma compound 220k Iztwoz (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose. Odorant is rather the equivalent of the German article Duftstoff. Aroma compound is specifically focussed on chemical compounds that diffuse an odor. Odorant rather refers to mixtures of aroma compounds. --Wickey (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.