Talk:List of compounds with carbon numbers 50+

Title and name
Title is "", while there's a table containing compoounds with more than 100 carbons. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alfa-ketosav Had not even noticed this until now. See below. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  18:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 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 section. 

List of compounds with carbon numbers 50–100 → List of compounds with carbon numbers 50+ – Contains a section for carbon numbers >100. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. It is a bigger problem that the >100 carbon atoms section is heavily populated with proteins, polypeptides are arbitrary and endlessly variable amino acid sequence.  It is more important to remove the natural proteins.  I note that sequence variability in the proteins is ignored.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support iff the proteins and polypeptides will not be removed, else neutral. Proteins and polypeptides are technically compounds as well. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not expert enough at chemistry to grasp the significance of SmokeyJoe's point above, but as long as the >100 entries are present (and compounds like ziconotide, ramoplanin, enfuvirtide etc. do seem to within scope) then it makes sense for the title to accurately represent the contents. 11:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)

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.