Talk:5-Hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid

Requested move 19 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5-Hydroxyicosatetraenoic acid → 5-Hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid – There's a missing e in the acid name, indicating its eicosanoid nature. RoadTrain (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ – while this is an eicosanoid, reference #2 at the article spells it "5-Hydroxyicosatetraenoic acid". At the least, some WP:RS need to be produced to show that it should be spelled with the "e". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, references 3 and 4, as well as the PubChem entry use the "e". kennethaw88 • talk 00:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, based on the Chemspider entry, both spellings have been used (and the one without "e" looks to be the IUPAC version). Based on the ambiguity, I'll sit this one out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As both names are used in references, it's OK to have both. I only care about consistency, as there are other eicosanoids named this way and that. Also, from purely linguistic PoV, the e-containing variant seems more correct.--RoadTrain (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.