Talk:Bufagin

Chemistry Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Molecular formula

CAn anybody confirm the molecular formula for Bufagin? I believe it is C24H32O5 and not C24H34O5 as entered

As far as I can tell, bufagins are a class of compounds with a variety of molecular formulas, so I have edited the article accordingly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name is used in both senses, as a specific chemical, and as a generic suffix. The definition here needs to account for both cases. I can find multiple chemical formulas for the compound from authoritative sources, so I'm uncertain what to do about the formula.Sbalfour (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are all the ones I could find structures for. Meodipt (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Listing these, or even their names, as in the article, is rather pointless, as there are hundreds, most without names. Unless we want to say something specific about a particular one, I think we should relegate the names and associated species to a footnote.Sbalfour (talk)

Oppose merge. The individual articles we have are sourced, not only via the references sections but also via the chemboxes, so they seem to pass the WP:notability threshold. Merging would lose us the chemboxes with chemical structures etc. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having separate articles for the individual chemical compounds. Even though there are hundreds of examples of this class of compounds, I don't see any problem with listing the names of some of the more notable examples and linking to separate articles about them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For merge. As a Encyclopedic article I think that it would be helpful to see the overview of a number of toxins brought together as a whole. From a reading point of view I think that it would be more engaging. Most of these pages only describe the structure and the isolation - I can't see them becoming that much richer. A good merge with each compound listed as a sub heading and keeping their chembox with them would make a much nicer and engaging article. --The chemistds (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per User:Anypodetos - and there are no problem making an overview article if any source exist. Christian75 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For merge. I can not find a single piece of scientific literature which delineates exactly what constitutes a "Bufagin", other than bufadienolides with "bufagin" at the end of the name. In spite of the existence of extensive medical studies regarding bufadienolides and their pharmacology, there appears to be no clear definition of what a bufagin is. FWIW I think the references in the article to a specific chemical structure of bufagin are referring to marino-bufagin. FChlo (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]