Talk:N-Acylamides

Terminology

I think there is a problem with the terminology used in this article. The term N-acylamide is misapplied. If an acyl group is on the N of an amide, the result is an imide. But none of the chemical compounds listed in the article are imides. Most are amides, which could be described as N-acylamines (not N-acylamides), but that wouldn't be proper nomenclature. I also don't understand the intended scope of this article either. Most of the compounds described in the article are fatty acid amides, though some are fatty acid esters, so perhaps the content of this article should be merged into those two articles. ChemNerd (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Following up on ChemNerd's comment above, one option move the good stuff to fatty acid amides. A quick glance suggests that is what we are dealing with aside from possible self-promotion (the article cites a poster at at technical conference). --Smokefoot (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Also some of the entries in the article's table are n-acylamino acids (e.g., N-acyl glycine) which are structurally distinct from fatty acid amides. They should be split out into a new article or deleted. Boghog (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it some kind of biochemistry nomenclature?. Searching gave me the definition "An acylamide having the general structure R1C(=O)NR2R3 where one or both of R2 and R2 is an acyl group." from ["http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/chebiOntology.do?treeView=true&chebiId=CHEBI:51514 www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi]. Christian75 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose; the proposal has been stale for more than 2 years, and over that period has greatly expanded, including a broader range of references. Given this, and the evidence that there are many more molecules than just fatty acid amides, suggests that there should be no merge. As this is stale, I'll close the proposal. Klbrain (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)