Talk:Acetyl group

Synthesis of acetyl (methyle ketones)

• From terminal alkynes with H2SO4/HgSO4
• From terminal alkenes with Wacker Condition (dmf, O2, Cu(I), PdCl2)

ChristianB (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Abreviated to Ac

Does the statement in a chemistry article that "acetyl ... is sometimes abbreviated as Ac" require a citation? Mitch Ames asserts that it does, because the abbreviation is ambiguous (Ac is the chemical symbol for actinium) and so it seems improbable that it would be used in a scientific context. Smokefoot asserts that no citation is required because it is "common knowledge" and a "trivial contraction". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If its necessary to have a citation for the abbreviation of acetyl to Ac I found that it's on the acs's abbreviation list: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsguide.50308 Toucan2 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

According to the lead section "acetyl ... is sometimes abbreviated as Ac". I have twice requested a citation, but the request keeps getting reverted as being "common knowledge" or "trivial ...contraction, Pr is for propyl and promethium ...". By the same logic I might add a section to the Copper article that it is sometimes abbreviated as "Co", because some people would make that trivial contraction - and they'd be wrong. Given that:

• The article is clearly technical in nature;
• The article says "acetyl ... is sometimes abbreviated as Ac (not to be confused with the element actinium)";
• Chemical formulae are generally quite precise and unambiguous;

surely it is reasonable that a citation be provided for this apparently ambiguous abbreviation. Thus I again request a citation - or a few other opinions here to provide some consensus that my request is unreasonable. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If abbreviations are shortened words, then Ac is an unremarkable abbreviation for acetyl. True, we capitalize the A of Ac. I terms of confusion with actinium that you suggest, virtually impossible. Actinium is extraordinarily rare and thus presents no problem - unless one is feeling litigious. Here are some guidelines that might apply to this theme: WP:UCS (use common sense) and WP:CLUTTER. In some ways, the requirement to cite every statement can inhibit the readability of an already technically difficult topic. Tthe concept "acetyl" is challenging enough without worrying about the etymology of the verbage. The symbols for elements have nonobvious histories because most important elements were discovered when English was not dominant, so the Cu for copper is an abbreviation for the Latin word. The main thing is to focus on whether the article on acetyl is approachable, not on whether each substatement is cited. Sciencey stuff, not lawyering. But I do see your point and appreciate your patience in dealing with me at least.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes abbreviations are shortened words - in common usage. But this is a chemistry article, a field where more specific rules ("sciencey stuff") apply. There is clear evidence that "Ac" is unlikely to be a scientific abbreviation, because of the stated ambiguity. The rareness of actinium is irrelevant - in a normal chemical context if one saw the abbreviation Ac, one would read it as actinium, in accordance with the normal rule. I suggest that - in the context of a chemistry article where an ambiguous abbreviation is presented, in a field that normally requires precision and unambiguity - "Citations should be used whenever non-obvious information is presented" In a scientific article it is not obvious why an ambiguous abbreviation is used. (Alternatively, one might consider just removing the reference to the abbreviation, because that abbreviation is not used elsewhere in the article.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"The rareness of actinium is irrelevant" I disagree, it is pretty relevant. The only reason to meddle here to make some litigious point, and eventually you will win this debate, for sure. These chemistry pages attract all sorts of editors despertate to make their mark, regardless of whether their contribution helps readers or not. Congratulations.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I've never edited this page before, and came here because I saw the RfC notice. I'd delete the abbreviation. First of all, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, so we really don't need to define such abbreviations, unless they are notable in some way. Second, we do not have a redirect from Ac to this page, so there is no need for that reason. Third, as noted above, the standard scientific use of the abbreviation is for actinium, so this abbreviation here is more like a non-standard informal shorthand, and as such, is not particularly encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ac redirects to AC, a disambiguation page that includes Acetyl. I have recently been cleaning up the AC page to remove links to articles that did not explicitly include the abbreviation AC, Ac, etc, on the grounds that it is a disambiguation page, not an dictionary of obscure acronyms. (See the history of the AC page for details.) I deliberately left the Acetyl entry because the Acetyl page includes the abbreviation. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about Acetyl to state that Ac is definitely not a valid abbreviation - I merely assert that if the abbreviation is used by people working in organic chemistry, a citation is appropriate, for the reasons already mentioned. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Ac abbreviation is very notable and is one of the most common ones in organic chemistry. I would just add a citation to a big organic synthesis (text)book like Jerry March's one. Nergaal (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Another RfC comment: If any content is disputed, it should be supported with a citation. If the need for a citation is disputed, err on the side of adding a citation. If that citation isn't possible because a citable source can't be found, then the content shouldn't be in the article. Æsthetic concerns about clutter are all very well in other contexts, but I don't think they're justification for leaving disputed content unsourced. bobrayner (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• One more RfC comment: I can see both sides. I don't see the issue with adding a cite, nor do I think it should be difficult to find one. I would also agree that "Ac" for "Acetyl" is common knowledge, and as an abbreviation doesn't need to cited so much as defined. What has been done for Methyl? Is there a mention of the commonly used (in organic chem) "Me" abbreviation? As to the comment above that Ac is non-standard informal shorthand - it really is more than that. The prevalence of AcAc ligands, and the practical concerns about writing out the entire formula make it more than that. I would say its usage in organic / organometallic chem is fairly standard. Canada Hky (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Hearing what other editors have been saying, I want to back off from part of my earlier comment about it being non-standard, and say, instead, that it should probably just be sourced, since that doesn't sound like it will be difficult to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And actually, Methyl group gives the Me abbreviation without sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yet another RfC comment: Source it - I haven't really looked at this very closely, but I'd point out that verifiability is central to what Wikipedia is. If the "common knowledge" rationale is ever challenged, it's almost always a good idea to source. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• RfC comment: Whether Ac needs to be cited depends on context. It is known throughout organic chemistry that Ac stands for the acetyl group and not for actinium. Therefore, just like Pr stands for propyl and not praseodymium in organic chemistry and therefore does not need a citation since it is common knowledge in organic chemistry, Ac can be universally understood to stand for the acetyl group, but only in organic chemistry. The context of this page is organic chemistry. Therefore, there is no need for citation on this page. FREYWA 06:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this page, like all our pages, is written for the general public, not for organic chemists. Thus, the "context" is general readership. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. One alternative solution is to wiki-link "It is sometimes abbreviated", or perhaps just "abbreviated", to a separate page "organic chemistry abbreviations" that lists all the abbreviations, perhaps with rationale and reason why they are not like chemical symbols for elements. (Or perhaps a section in IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry.) This would eliminate the need for a citation (on this and every other organic chemistry page) while allowing people like me (basic chemistry knowledge, but not organic chemistry) to learn more about the "common" abbreviations used in the field. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reference: {{Cite book | last1 = Clayden | first1 = Jonathan. | title = Organic chemistry | date = 2001 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford ; New York | isbn = 978-0-19-850346-0 | pages = 1513}} (Clayden, Greeves, Warren and Wothers, a big undergraduate-level textbook). Regarding the "Ac could be actinium or acetyl" thing, Ar could be argon or aryl. I think simply making a note (+ref) that it's an organic chemistry abbreviation provides sufficient clarification. Brammers (talk/c) 11:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• When I was on the page for ethanoic acid, I read that it is „commonly“ abbreviated as Ac. I am not against the abbreviated of majuscule A & minuscule c [a very nice & convenient abbreviation if you ask me,] but accoding to scientific rules of chemical nomenclature, an abbreviation of a chemical shall only contain elements, not compounds. There is even an interesting category of the naming of chemicals. Throughout my study of chemistry, I have never encountered exceptions to these rules [nor have I ever encountered the abbreviation of Ac, except only for the element 89. All I am asking if you can please provide with a reliable reference to your claim, say an updated book that includes & describes the abbreviation.

Also, if it is not too much to ask can you also [anyone] fix the synonyms for the page Acetate anhydride. Ethyl_acetate, [though the chemical structure to acetic acid], is not the synonym for acetate anhydride. So, „Ethanoyl ethanoate“ is not the synonym for Acetate anhydride. As you can read by the chemical name itself, the suffix „-ide“ [being a single atom anion] is not the same as „-ate“ [being a polyatomic anion.] Then again, you can reference back to the derivative of acetic acid, acetate & argue the same. So, please: All I ask for everyone in Wikipedia is not to edit Wikipedia without assurance of reliable information, which means everyone needs to do their job to research before editing the page. Use the playground to carry out any mischievous experiments. Thank you.

序名三「Jyonasan」 ^Talk_Stalk 19:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Pronunciation

What is the proper pronunciation of "acetyl"?

Solo Owl 00:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talk • contribs)

Relationship between acetyl and ketone

After looking at the acetyl and ketone definitions, it seems like acetyls are a subset of ketones wherein one of the R groups is a methyl group. However, neither article makes any mention of this relationship. Could anyone with a chemistry background clarify this?

Attys (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Related compounds

Why is carbon monoxide listed as a related compound? Toucan2 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

SVG Images with black foreground, transparent background, don't work in dark mode

This has been a problem with numerous articles on Wikipedia for many years. Perhaps I've been more bothered than others because of the way I browse, but it's my hope that now that Wikipedia is offering a dark mode option, the problem will become glaring enough to the average user that it might get addressed.

I'm reporting it for this specific page at random; it likely affects thousands of pages. There are at least two obvious ways to fix the problem, neither of which I'm equipped to do as an end user. One is to replace the transparent background of every SVG image with a white background. The other is to dynamically alter the SVG foreground color to contrast with the web page background color. The former is the simpler and more sensible approach and it would be fairly easy to implement for someone who has programmatic access to Wikipedia sources.