Talk:DMBMPP

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Juncosamine → 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-bromobenzyl)-6-(2-methoxyphenyl)piperidine – "Juncosamine" is a fake name for this compound that was made up by whomever created the page. This is totally unacceptable because the standard for chemical nomenclature is for the chemist who first synthesized a new molecule to assign the name. No where in any of the professional literature is this compound called "juncosamine". The proper name for this compound is 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-bromobenzyl)-6-(2-methoxyphenyl)piperidine because that is what it is called in the chemical literature. ISFSN (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC) ISFSN (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. I don't see any evidence to support the use of the name "juncosamine".  The only uses of the name seem to derive from Wikipedia's use of it.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hesitate – can you show us sources with the name you propose? I'm not finding any.  One of the cited authors is Juncosa, yes?  this one.  Perhaps this author provided the name?  Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The source for the name I proposed is from the article describing the synthesis and characterization of this compound: the only paper published about it That is what the inventors of the compound chose to call it when they published. The only place that "Juncosamine" appears is on this Wikipedia page.  At this point there is absolutely no evidence that anyone connected with the development of this compound wants to call it Juncosamine.  So the article needs to be deleted or renamed.  ISFSN (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So maybe you can see the problem. You didn't tell us where you got the name, and now that you've told us, it's a paper we can't access to check.  Can you quote the relevant paragraph here at least, so we can have at least some clue that this name goes with the subject of this article (sorry, I'm not a chemist; maybe someone who is a chemist can pipe up and say it's obviously the right name; I just don't want to go by one editor's unsupported assertion overriding a previous editor's unsupported assertion).  Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The name I suggested is also the systematic (IUPAC) name that is listed in the Wikipedia article. That information was first posted by the person who created the Wikipedia page, so even if you can't access the article because of the Paywall, you can always check the history of the Wikipedia page.  But here is the relevant section of the article (from p. 107):


 * "(±)-trans-2-(4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxybenzyl)-6-(2-methoxyphenyl)piperidine (9b). Following the general procedure for brominating phenethylamines, 0.110 g (0.291 mmol) of 35b yielded a clear oil (78.2 mg, 63.9%) that was converted into the HCl salt and obtained as white crystals; mp: 230−232 °C (d). 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3): δ (ppm) 11.45 (1H, br s, NH), 7.32−7.38 (2H, m, ArH)..."


 * It is from the Methods section of the paper, so it may be a bit confusing if you are not a chemist, but at the end of the paper they describe the series of reactions used to synthesize the compounds that they have characterized in the paper, and each description begins by listing the chemical name of the product of the reaction, and then lists the reaction conditions and the analytical data for the product. Here the product is "(±)-trans-2-(4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxybenzyl)-6-(2-methoxyphenyl)piperidine".  You will notice that I have omitted the "(±)-trans-" from the name. That is because this compound has two stereocenters and 4 stereoisomers, and in that section they happened to be producing only the trans-isomer.  But the Wikipedia page is about all of the stereoisomers, so cis- or trans- would not be specified in the title.  ISFSN (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you; that is helpful. Saying it was the name put in by the article creator is not at all helpful, since if he made up "Juncosamine" one might as well assume he also made up the other.  I can Support the move now.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm glad you agree. Just to clarify, the reason I said that the name was added by the article creator wasn't to justify the use of the name.  It was in response to your statement about "one editors unsupported assertion overriding a previous editor's unsupported assertation".  My point was that the previous editor was the one who added that name to the page, not me, so we both agree that this is the name of the compound. ISFSN (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (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.