File talk:Tert. Amide Structural Formulae V.1.png

According to the IUAPC "Compounds having one, two or three acyl groups on a given nitrogen are generically included and may be designated as primary, secondary and tertiary amides, respectively" and "Amides with NH2, NHR and NR2 groups should not be distinguished by means of the terms primary, secondary and tertiary. This molecule is not a tertiary amide, this is a primary amide, di-substituted. This is a very common mistake, and it probalby should be corrected on lots of wikis, including en: and de:. Rhadamante (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of IUPAC's definition, "tertiary amide" is routinely used in the chemical literature to describe compounds with the chemical structure depicted in this image. If you think this image needs to be renamed, that's fine. But to tag it as a disputed structure (which leads to eventual deletion) is a very bad idea in my opinion. The structure is not wrong, and it is consistent with commonly used organic chemistry nomenclature. Ed (Edgar181) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's even directly stated by IUPAC that this "should not" case actually is done anyway:

common usage of the term "tertiary amide" to describe a disubstituted primary amide wih the general structure R-CO-NR'R' '.

(IUPAC 1993 recommendations[1]). I'm going to untag it, since it's just a non-ideal (but correct per common use) name rather than a factual mistake in it. The more important concern is to make sure that articles that use this image describe the nomenclature correctly (mentioning these two ideas, or at least not stating that the common-use one is the proper systematic one). DMacks (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)