Talk:Diamide insecticides

"Diamides" not "Ryanoids"

This class of insecticides is called “diamides” and not “ryanoids”. The only place that the designation ryanoid is used is here, and probably in papers by students who were misled by this page.

The page was created in 2013 by a user who has since been banned for abusive usage of wikipedia, of which this page is one more example.

Usherwood and Vais in the publication cited here use the word “ryanoid” to mean derviatives or analogs of ryanodine. This is correct and common usage of the word ending “oid”. See for example pyrethroid, which are derivatives and analogs of pyrethrum. It is mischievous to define ryanoid as any compound with the same mode of action as ryanodine.

Insecticides and other pesticides are given a common name by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which is internationally recognised. Insecticide classes however are not given a common name in a manner that has been agreed upon by international bodies. Insecticide compound classes are named informally until after some time a consensus arises. The most authoritative international body that uses compound class names is the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC), which assigns insecticides and insecticide compound classes to their modes of action.

Therefore, wikipedia should use the compound class names that IRAC uses.

It is not acceptable to create an alternative name of your own choosing as was done here.

It is also not acceptable to create a page named according to a chemical compound forming the scaffold of a class of insecticides, and then to describe the insecticide class as one of the possible uses of derivatives of this less substituted compound, as was done with the benzoylurea and N-Benzoyl-N′-phenylurea pages.

I will make the corrections. Bosula (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosula Makes sense to me, so I moved the page. If you want to make the content match or add some things that'd probably be helpful. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: turned out to be not that hard to fix the content. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this paper seems to use them as synonymous -- one of the authors published a paper in 2001. So maybe they were misled by the Wikipedia article, but it does seem to be a term in use. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosula, do you mind putting in the middle of the first paragraph of the History and examples section, which citation you intended to use for the sentences in the middle? It's unclear if the information is intended to be cited to the citation at the beginning or the end of the paragraph. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the structures. I was working out how to do that myself. Looks good now. Have another look though before we call it a day. Bosula (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]