Talk:Steroid/Archive 3

Changes to captions — discussed where?
Someone deleted parts of two earlier captions (04:56, 10 December 2013‎). Where are the cuts discussed? The Edit Summary says they're made because captions should be succinct. A policy is quoted. Are other policies ignored?

One cut changed the caption meaning. "substructure required present in" is not the same as "substructure required present in (or in a precursor to)". (precursor = parent?) Which is correct, before or after? 4 rings are present in dehydrocholesterol. 4 rings are not present in vitamin D. Both are still considered steroids. The earlier text is more correct. It could be made shorter. But its meaning should stay in.

In another, the caption cut was an earlier edit that "merged" other older captions. The older captions were merged when some pictures were deleted. The earlier picture and its caption had remained in place for a long time. This makes it seem like the information in the cation might be useful, at least. The early merged caption said something like "The 8 carbon chain attached to 17-position (C-17) is sometimes referred to as the side-chain." This information is now deleted. Why take it out, only now? Was it unimportant all that time, before?

There was content in an earlier version equivalent to - - "The sub-structure without double bond in B-ring and hydroxyl group in the A-ring, is the parent cholestane." This also traces back to a caption and deleted picture. Should this information on the structure of cholestane be moved, or removed? Move it to text, maybe?

Lastly, in the cut caption, there was some introductory explanation - - "Wedges that appear indicate methyl groups above the plane of this projection, and the hashed bond indicates a methyl group below the plane". This is also now deleted. No discussion. I think this might make this opening picture more understandable to the general audience looking at the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.23.101 (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Still no secosteroids in steroids ...
...and still no clarification in the text that classes of seco-steroids can be derived from tetracyclic precursors, but not be tetracyclic themselves. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Section headings revised and subsections created...
…to facilitate future editing from specific content experts.

On the request of a colleague that wants to contribute total synthesis information, the section containing phytosterol microbial transformations and the Marker partial synthesis were subdivided, so that each type of content could be developed and expanded separately. At the same time, the Section on isolation was converted into a subsection on the same topic (because isolation has to precede partial synthesis). The new heading and subheading are now:
 * Isolation and syntheses of steroids
 * Isolation of steroids
 * Microbial transformations
 * Partial and total chemical synthesis

Each subsection has its appropriate tags, and can draw particular subject matter experts to develop them. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition of seco-steroids to begin
Over the last several months I've asked addition of content and references for seco-steroids to this article, of those interested in governing its overall content (see Talk sections immediately above).

I am facing time-pressure to finish work at Wikipedia, and am sitting on content on partial and total synthesis, of mine, and contributed by colleagues. The problem is that this necessarily contains material on seco-steroids, and ideally, this synthesis text would be added after the article is made ready for it by integrating text on seco-steroids throughout the rest. In re: the regular appearance of seco-steroid content in synthesis venues, see JR Hanson, 2010, "Steroids: partial synthesis in medicinal chemistry, Nat Prod Rep. 27(6):887-99. (doi: 10.1039/c001262a, PMID: 20424788. Link:, find article in list, and click [+] "Expand" to see abstract). Seco-steroids (vitamin D derivatives) have been a part of this esteemed review series for many, many years.

Given the time that has passed, and lack of discussion, I have to assume silence implies consent and add the stub section on seco-steroids myself, allowing work to proceed on adding the partial and total synthesis material. Note, because the early lede, nomenclature, and other defining sections appear to be of particular interest to those governing the evolution of the article, I am not going to make any editorial changes there. I leave it to the editors who have assumed responsibility for these opening sections to decide how to add seco-steroid text and references there, so that there are no inconsistencies in the article (WP Contradict ).

Once the section on seco-steroids is stubbed in, I will begin adding further sourced material both to it and to the partial and total synthesis areas. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Request suggestions for length of seco-steroid, and partial and total synthesis sections
I will be adding the seco-steroid stub, and adding to that and the partial and total synthesis sections in the coming weeks, and would request any input that Bohog or other regular editors would wish to offer, as to the word counts that might be appropriate for these sections. If I can have a response by the end of May I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will base length on the mean of comparable sections in comparable articles. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Added secosteroid stub subsection as an additional structural variant
Placement of secosteroids as a second structural classification is my good faith attempt to fit the needed mention of this topic into the existing structure of this article. Its continued presence there is less critical than it being somewhere in this article. As noted above, we need basic secosteroid text here to allow for their discussion under partial and total synthesis of steroids (as good sources in the secondary literature discuss seco-steroid synthesis alongside steroid, for obvious reasons). LeProf Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Order of appearance of images (correcting in-text pointers, but needs further attention)
The various in-text pointers (above, below, right, etc.) have gone wonky, and so I am correcting them today. More importantly, long term…

The order of appearance of images does not make sense with regard to the mention of steroid structures in the text. The visual order of appearance of the images (with the Table of Contents open) is:
 * (1) gonane, (2) cholesterol, (3) lanosterol, (4) cholic acid, (5) testosterone, (6) progesterone, (7) medrogestone, (8) sitosterol.

The order in which references are made to steroid structures in the text, are:
 * (1) cholesterol, (2) [bile acids, general], (3) estradiol (4) testosterone, (5) dexamethasone, (6) cholestane, (7) lanosterol, (8) cycloartenol, (9) gonane, (10) [cyclopentaphenanthrene].

That is, gonane appears first in images, but is only mentioned much later, opposite for lanosterol, etc., and there are many images that appear where there is no correspondence between text and selected illustrations at all. I would suggest the lack of parallel ordering and of correspondence between text and structures, and the specific selection of appearing structures is tremendously confusing to nonspecialists. Generally, in textbook and encyclopedic writing, the images are specifically chosen to illustrate the text. I think this needs remedying in a major way, either settling on a text and deleting images that do not correspond (creating/adding ones that do), or in some other way making text and image set consistent.

I also question some specific examples chosen for absence/presence: dexamethasone is the most commonly prescribed corticosteroid for pain, prednisolone is the most commonly used oral steroid, the fluticasone in Flonase is likely the most widely prescribed inhaled corticosteroid. Yet, of these, only dexamethasone appears in the text, with no corresponding image, and none of the others appear—though medrogestone does.

I am aware at Wikipedia of the practice of illustrating articles based on material already available at WikiMedia Commons; this can't be the route taken, long-term, with articles dependent on chemical structures. The practice necessitates contortions of a vaudevillian kind, between text and figure, if it is pursued.

I am wary to attend to these major changes, because of earlier firestorms here, so leave this for those more generally governing the content and direction of the article to attend to. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature section, citation verification failed, etc.
I softened the existing "they are called" text to say "Hence, together they can also be termed cyclopentaphenanthrenes". But:
 * This is not correct, at least not without adding "per-hydro" or some such (the link appearing is to an aromatic structure!), and
 * without further softening qualifiers to make clear that we are talking only about a possible way to refer to the gonane skeleton.

In general, the whole of this section is still in a very poor state, and with this one non-citation—which is not being used as a citation, but to show a structure related to the name given, and is not, in any case, a citation that supports the text statements (!)—we are left with a section completely without citations, despite there being an enormous body of secondary literature on this. See, for instance, the first external link that I provided long ago:

I am wary to attend to these major changes, because of earlier firestorms here, so leave this for those more generally governing the content and direction of the article to attend to. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Slight change to isolation, analysis, and synthesis section headings, to allow new material to be placed
I am making these changes because this fits with the structure of the information that I will be adding, and I think it will make perfect sense to any contributing steroid, organic, nat products, or medichem editors (which is the subject matter expertise of these areas). Please discuss here, before raising cain (or reverting). Merci. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation tag for nomenclature resolved, etc.
I added two solid refs, and removed the tag. In so doing, I also replaced what was a poor and unsourced paraphrase of the IUPAC steroid nomenclature document with the originating IUPAC text as a quote, and cited the source. This removes various ambiguities introduced by the cribbing and paraphrasing (dropping the essential "[a]" in the cyclopenta[a]phenanthrene, for one). The IUPAC definition also talks about ring scissions, expansions and contractions, setting up the later seco- definition, and opening the door to further examples from modern steroid natural products work (e.g., on marine and plant examples). Sticking to the quote, and adding "hydro" terminology resolved other specific ambiguities based on using the "phenanthrene" language, and I made clear that pentacyclo[a]phenanthrene-based names are uncommon. Finally, removed some other awkward moments, like use of "bonded" as it appeared earlier. Let's see how this works. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Further, about the lede
(1) If dex and other important lede topics are added so they appear in the main body, then these do not need citations in the lede. (This is my preference, i.e., that the lede summarize important information that has citations, from the main body, so it need not have any citations).

(2) Having referenced the nomenclature section in the main body, the references to this information in the lede can be removed, or merged with the reference information in the main body (IUPAC references, now four times appearing I think).

(3) It is noteworthy that the lede currently summarizes only the first two of more than 9 outline points in the article; it stops short of covering biological significance, pharmacology, biosynthesis, metabolism, isolation-structure-analysis, synthesis, and history. While some of these are weak, not all are. Some of these might be eliminated/regrouped, if further thought were given to the article structure. (E.g., biosynthesis and metabolism already overlap and could be combined into a metabolism that covers anabolism (biosynthesis) and catabolism, biological significance could be changed to "significance" that included chemical and historical and so the history section might become unnecessary, etc.) Whether the outline remains complex, or is simplified, the lede should fully reflect the content of the article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the stub in the Isolations etc. section
I resolved the issue raised by a bot on my talk page (that "extraction" and "LC-MS" linked to disambiguation pages). Note, the purpose of the current content in this section stub was to set a general direction for the section, based on solid references (and my experience with the meaning of the title terms of this tripartite Section). It is to guide, to suggest, for purposes of either discussion or further action, as other interested editors see fit. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

carbon numbers switched
This statement in Nomenclature is backwards:

cholesterol with a C4-C5 double bond differs from testosterone and progesterone, which have a C5-C6 double bond.

It's the other way around, as shown in the accompanying diagrams.

173.25.54.191 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fast work makes mess.  Well caught.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Inadvertently deleted example structures re-added
✅ As headline states, in process of editing I appear to have deleted four examples, unintentionally. Here, they are returned. Next edit, after this talk posting. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Swapping more complete generic steroid numbering structure
This contains all of the gonane information, and will be more broadly useful for other steroid examples with carbons not shown on the existing gonane image. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede factual information not all verified in body
In my earlier analysis of images, it became clear that some facts appearing without citation in the lede appear nowhere in the article that follows (where, per WP, an appearance with citation in either place, but not neither, is acceptable). I marked the dexamethasone sentence, because dex was the one that stood out, but the whole set of unreferenced factual statements in the lede should be checked, before that tag is completely removed from the lede (to make clear to editors that the lede needs that kind of attention). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dexamethasone is clearly a steroid and clearly an anti-inflammatory. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. We can easily find a citation to support this statement, but what is the point? There is no need to source statements that are patently obvious. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well. nice to see some things never change. Your response, mate is nonsense, on so many levels.  That dexamethasone is a steroid is not common knowledge. That dexamethasone is an anti-inflammatory (or what it means that it is) are not common knowledge. For whom are you writing?  Besides which, apart from verifiability, citations also provide the means for an interested reader to go deeper on a subject—but only if any such citation appears. Regardless: as a peer, and fellow editor, I am asking that citations be provided for lede and other sentences that are not common knowledge—since this is apparently not obvious, not common knowledge to the likes of you and I (as PhD chemists), but to my 14 year old nephew, who ought to be able to use Wikipedia to learn. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is you who have beaten me over the head for not writing to a general enough audience. I just queried a room of college-educated individuals, nonscientists generally (though one horticulturalist), and no other individual in the room knew that dex was either a steroid, or an anti-inflammatory. Two did peg it as a drug, though one admitted that his offer was a guess. Request stands, ignore as is your wont, but there it is. This is not digits on a hand, or color of sky. Sorry. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevant guideline is Scientific_citation_guidelines. There was already a further reading source that documented these basic facts.  However I have added this source in-line to remove any possible doubt.  Also is it possible for you to make a point without attacking other editors?  I recommend that you read WP:TALK.  Finally do you enjoy talking to yourself?  Your personal attacks combined with your excessively long talk page posts would turn off most editors. Boghog (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In re: providing a citation for Dex, your page numbers were inaccurate; I could not find discussion of that subject, or estradiol, or testosterone, in the page range you specified, in that citation (which, recall, I originally provided). See separate section below on action taken, and why I think it was best, and respectful.


 * Next, note, there is not one relevant guideline on this or many of the others that we have been at loggerheads about in the past—there are now, as often, several, to be held in balance. The fact that this is true is clear, for you have already referenced two policies, in arguing with me about the necessity of providing a Dex citation (when, you seem to admit, that in the same time you could just as easily provided it). You oft choose to pick one policy and elevate it, in essence, using it as a bludgeon (since its choice uniformly coincides with something your opponent is not doing that you believe crucial); when have I once heard you say, "Well I see you are following WP:XXX and WP:YYY very well, but have you considered WP:ZZZ?" No, for you it is black and white, and you are seemingly always in the right. (Caveat, you did on one occasion admit to missing a topical bit in an online textbook, despite three looks and declarations of its not being there. I had hoped that might have been a turning point for us.) So to close, I say, again, firmly: There is not just a single WP policy that applies to the matter of providing citations for factual scientific material appearing in Wikipedia, and I believe I am within my rights as a fellow, peer editor, to ask for citations as I wish, when, as is clearly the case here, the material is not common knowledge for a general reader.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In re: Talk length and "attacks": I do not care a whit for your view about Talk length; you and others here are oppressively non-communicative, non-collegial, and authoritarian (not discussing before acting, relying on Huggles and Winkles and edit summaries to form rapid opinions, ignoring Talk until an argument starts and generally acting without due diligence and peer respect). Given the huge swaths of text about things far less important than an accurate and scholarly presentation of the important topic of steroids, I think this organization can bear a few more weeks of me going on as I do. But feel free to ignore me, please. Finally, I'll not begin again the pointless back-and-forths with you about what you consider attacks. You cannot make history go away, and in our history you far from blameless. Moreover, the history continues (hence, my "some things never change" in response to your patronizing "The relevant guideline is… etc. etc.".); where is the mutual respect of a fellow editor in: "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. We can easily... but what is the point? There is no need to source statements that are patently obvious… Finally do you enjoy talking to yourself?" These are all your recent statements, and they are not respectful.


 * So, in interacting with you, for the little I hope to as I finish, I have one last time—but will no longer—call attention to continuing patterns that I find abusive from you; you have already seen its nadir (silence for weeks, and no initiating with you at all). You will only see it, formally, if you again follow me to new articles, and so establish a pattern of stalking and harassment. Bottom line, stick to content, please, and otherwise, "Physician, heal thyself". Otherwise, cheers, and hope you are well, surviving another challenging season for industrial medichem. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We are non-commicative because of the length and tone of your talk page posts. Concentrate on improving the article. Boghog (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First, unless you intend a "majestic plural", speak for yourself, please. Second, I advise again, "heal thyself".  Per WP policy, I either raise questions here, or edit boldly, and you retort with denigrating comments (e.g., "do you enjoy talking to yourself?"), or, repeatedly, with a single WP policy reference marginalizing the comments made or questions asked—as if  your one chosen WP: always clearly settles matters. Look to yourself, mate. Uncontested matters are always short. Single WP: bludgeons will not solve matters, or replace discourse and discussion. Neither I, nor you, are always correct.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Added dexamethasone structure
…which is given as an example in the lede. Thanks to Bohog for creating this structure, originally. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Some minor restructuring and clarifications
In the spirit of editing boldly, I created bullets of the complicated four-part existing sentence in the paragraph, moved the examples earlier in the paragraph, and am now reordering the existing examples so they match the appearance of the terms in the text. See how this fits. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding further structural subclasses to the secosteroid structural subclass heading
Adding nor- and homo- structural subclasses, with examples and citations, and an example structure (having an interesting story that Wikipedia already presents). Note, the example structure's markup text is placed in the preceding subsection, to make the pictures stack reliably. Change if you have a better way. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Per 6 month old tag, replacing bullets with prose
…then removing tag. I will add little or no text, nor deal with the issues of completeness of the list, or the lack of referencing. (Added one sentence with refs, the first of those in the section, on Prokarya.) Note, the undated tag was removed because the lists are now prose, but because the issues reflected in that tagging are not resolved, the additional "expert needed" tags were added to try to get the current form of the prose "lists" reviewed and completed by those knowledgable. See how this fits. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Added cholestane structure
...as an important structure referred to in the text, and adding Foyes as a citation in places where its material is already mentioned. I think the steroid drug structures might be moved lower, in with a section describing them, but I will leave that for later (discussion and action). Otherwise, some legend and text tidying, as indicated in the edit summaries. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what I did wrong
…in archiving half the extensive steroids talk, but if the error is explained, I will try to avoid it in future. In doing the archiving, I followed the instructions at the WP help page on the subject. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Would appreciate good homosteroid secondary refs
The structural section needs brief additions on homosteroid and heteroatom-containing steroids (aza-, oxa, etc.), to finish out the structural subclasses. (A closing sentence will cover any remaining minor subclasses that the MESH or other comprehensive categorizations cover.)

If anyone has good introductory secondary references to homosteroids or aza-/oxa-/etc. subclasses, I would appreciate having them posted here, so I can incorporate.

Note, the complex example given of a steroid having 2 ring changes yet still remaining a steroid need not ultimately remain. It was placed to have an example of how wild things can get (and because it is a nice story already in wikipedia). Otherwise, the synthesis material is accruing, with Figures taking the most time. A key German group is the latest collaborator.

Cheers, look forward to whatever folks can offer. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is making this article appear better than it is, an editorial priority?
Tags are repeatedly removed from this article before the issues involved are resolved. They reflect an apparent difference between one editor who believes that readers should know when experts perceive issues with an article, and another editor who appears to feel that the article should always look as if everything about it is fine.

A single editor disagreeing with a tag placed by another is insufficient basis alone to remove the tag. The issue has to be resolved with at least an attempt at agreement. For one editor to add and another person to remove reflects no consensus, and certainly no respect on the part of the latter; it reflects inherent disagreement, and a lack of commitment and respect on the part of the latter to resolve disagreement. Talk about the changes here, including changes to tags. One of us is clearly engaging, the other not, and there is no excuse regarding overlengthy Talk. (See here for example, of a tag removed after the issue was resolved, which still was accomplanied by a short Talk section to explain.) ''Don't just disrespectfully remove tags indicating an issue perceived by another editor. To trump these is to exert one editor's authority over another's.''

Finally, note, when I can resolve the issues quickly, I do, instead of tagging. But some issues are deep-seeded or pervasive, and the only way to mark them for needing attention it to tag them until work can be done. This also serves the reading public, who, e.g., may not understand otherwise, that an unreferenced section is a suspect section.

I will give it a week, but if the reasons for the earlier tags—the issues themselves—are not resolved, I will put the tags back in. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Why were two Expert-subject tags added to the same section with identical justifications? This is a clear example of disruptive tag bombing which needs to stop. Boghog (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The two expert tags did not have precisely the same content. They had the same reason, but were directed to two different Wikiprojects. I understand now there are ways of condensing these two tags into one, and I am amenable to returning the tag as a single entry. Please be careful in your descriptions of situations, AGF, and do not overstate impacts of tags. This was not tag bombing, and their placement was explained, prior to, in Talk (unlike the removal). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:OVERTAGGING, Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself. In short, sofixit Boghog (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dodging the question asked. All tagging is not overtagging. Why is your tendency to remove all tags, thereby expressing individual authority of one editor over another, rather than in any case, dealing with the issue raised? In essentially all cases. you eliminate tags without either attending to the proposed issue, or discussing at Talk. This is the matter at hand. What justifies this? Overtagging is a dodge; the actions are taken on all my tags, repeatedly. You could have instead addressed some aspect of any tag, in article or in talk; you could have condensed the two expert tags, as you are the more experienced operator here. Instead, you choose to exert authority.


 * If the actual issues of each tag are not addressed or the tags preplaced, I will take this matter to admin review. You do not own this article. Acting repeatedly without prior discussion, when you know you share article interest with a fellow editor of equal expertise—this is what is disruptive, and I know others that will agree. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition of steroid
As I first mentioned here: The tetracyclic core of steroids, the vast majority of which contain at least one trans ring fusion, do not have any conformational isomerism. The initial ensuing debate largely missed the point. It is clear that I was not talking about secosteroids which are tricyclic. It is also clear that the tetracyclic core of steroids are relatively rigid. The apparent continuing disagreement is a semantic one. What is a steroid? A key component of the definition is that it is a organic substance containing four fused rings. Based on this definition, a secosteroid is not a steroid, but steroids are precursors to secosteroids (e.g., vitamin D). This definition is consistent with the following sources:



While the following sources list secosteroids as a type of steroid:


 * Periodically editors "get religion" about following IUPAC or some set of rules or guidelines. These instincts are well intentioned, but we don't follow any of them very carefully. Instead we are dedicated to common usage and everyday nomenclature. – Smokefoot This particular discussion was about the definition of alkenes, but I think the advice is generally sound and equally applies to other IUPAC definitions. In short, IUPAC is not necessarily the final word.
 * Periodically editors "get religion" about following IUPAC or some set of rules or guidelines. These instincts are well intentioned, but we don't follow any of them very carefully. Instead we are dedicated to common usage and everyday nomenclature. – Smokefoot This particular discussion was about the definition of alkenes, but I think the advice is generally sound and equally applies to other IUPAC definitions. In short, IUPAC is not necessarily the final word.

There are a range of definitions, but the majority would appear to exclude secosteroids as steroids. This narrower definition is consistent with the one given in the second paragraph of steroid but is inconsistent with the current definition used in secosteroid. Furthermore three out of the four sources used to support the definition in secosteroid also support a more narrow definition. I suggest that the definition of secosteroid be modified to be consistent with the one used in the majority of sources. I also suggest that the adjactive "subclass" be replaced with "related" in this article to describe secosteroids. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion or comment to offer here on the definition of secosteroid in its various places. The only issue I will address, to keep this simple, is whether secostroid coverage belongs in steroids. Secosteroids are present in UIPAC nomenclature and major reviews such a the Hanson series. I have no intention in changing this. Please be forthright and say you will oppose this, if you will, so we can bring it to adjudication if we need to.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Add NLM MESH headings to IUPAC and Hanson et al. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * so we can bring it to adjudication if we need to – Haven't you figured out by now this simply is not how Wikipedia works? Editors are expected to resolve differences on talk pages. What I would propose is that we modify the text to include both definitions. In particular, 3 of the 4 sources that you supplied in the secosteroid do not support the broad definition but do support a narrow definition. Why not include both definitions? Boghog (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Secosteroids are present in UIPAC nomenclature, NLM MESH headings, and major reviews such as the Hanson series. I have no intention in changing this. I have nothing more to say on this at the present time, given other issues pending. Please be forthright and say you will oppose this, if you will, so we can bring it to adjudication if we need to. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * so we can bring it to adjudication if we need to – Good luck with that. This simply is not how Wikipedia works. Editors are first encouraged to be WP:BOLD.  If this leads to disagreement, then editors are expected to follow the WP:BRD cycle.  If there are still serious disagreements, then editors are encouraged to seek mediation.  Only as a last resort in extreme situations such as edit wars do administrators step in.  This is how Wikipedia works. Boghog (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been WP:BOLD and edited the secosteroid article to include both the narrow and broad definitions. If you disagree, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Please also keep in mind WP:ONLYREVERT. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am going to revert, since you are changing the article status quo, and proceeded knowing that you did not have consensus. This is an important point. Are norsteroids, homosteroids, secosteroids, etc. etc. (classes covered by IUPAC and appearing repeatedly in the nats products literature going to be covered in this articleor not? You edit was not conservative, but in fact changes the direction of the article. All of the editing I did was preannounced, and you did not comment or object. You raised the quedtion, I objected, but you edited anyway. I am reverting, and ask that you leave the IUPAC AND NLM MESH (and internally self consistent) langiage in, so as to not be disruptive, UNTIL WE CAN BRING THIS TO THE WIKIPROJECT CHEM PAGE. Please.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, the proper place is to discuss this is on the article's talk page. Boghog (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)