User talk:WilliamJenkins09

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 09:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation?
Talk:Organic_Chemistry

A bit of constructive criticism to consider!

I saw your comments about naming ethers but I didn't understand what you meant by "substitutive"?

Any more thoughts on moving ethers to their own chapter versus renaming the 'Alcohols' chapter to 'Alcohols and Ethers'?

Ewen 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. What I was trying to say (and maybe I didn't say this very clearly) is that to label one type of nomenclature "IUPAC" to me implies that the other type of nomenclature isn't approved by IUPAC, which may not be true. I'm by no means an expert on IUPAC, but it seems as though they have approved on average a dozen different ways to name each compound, so it doesn't make sense to say that one name is the IUPAC name of a compound. For example, according to Traynham, both "bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane" and "1,7,7-trinorbornane" are considered valid names by IUPAC for the same bicyclic compound. In the same way, Traynham seems to state that "ethyl alcohol" is just as "IUPAC" as the name "ethanol." However, I guess I should do a bit more research and check out what the actual position of IUPAC is on these points. On the other hand, I have yet to meet a chemist who said "Wait, that name I've been using for decades, it's not approved by IUPAC? Oh no, I had better switch to using the IUPAC (or better said an IUPAC) name for it!" Practicing chemists do not seem to lose sleep over the IUPAC's opinions of their naming systems.

- WilliamJenkins09 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)