This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Alpha and beta carbon was copied or moved into Locant with this edit on 12 December 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Merge proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. No objections to the proposed merge. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to merge Alpha and beta carbon into Locant. As discussed somewhat over the years at Talk:Alpha and beta carbon, the current title of that article is problematic. First, as a case of WP:AND, there really should be a title that collectively refers to both α-carbons and β-carbons. The current title is even more inappropriate given that the article also discusses gamma carbon, alpha hydrogen, and beta hydrogen, begging for a more encompassing title. While not a very commonly used term, the best term does appear to be "locant", and is used by IUPAC (see the Blue Book) to refer to identifying the location of substituents in organic molecules. The current locant article focuses on the IUPAC-favored numeric system, but it stands to reason the Greek letter locants favored in the common system should be discussed in the same article. So, while the resulting article will still have much room for improvement, a merge (as originally suggested by Black.jeff) will resolve the title issue at Alpha carbon and beta carbon and discuss them in a broader context. Open to other ideas, but it seems like a merge is at least an improvement over the long-standing poor status quo. Pings to previous discussion participants Itub, Kjkolb, and Christian75Mdewman6 (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
