Talk:Polyunsaturated fatty acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The material on this page was partly covered by several lists, on

• Omega-3 fatty acid
• Omega-6 fatty acid
• List of omega-3 fatty acids
• Omega-9 fatty acid

I suggest that List of omega-3 fatty acids be wholly merged into this page, and that the tables in the 3/6/9 articles be replaced with See... links. David.Throop 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it should rather be merged with the omega-3, although adding the Ω-3/Ω-6/Ω-9 tables to the polyunsat article is not a bad idea either simply so that all relevant information is given to each page. However merging with polyunsat should only be done if it isn't already huge. If it's growing too large, they should only be stuck in with their respective type articles. -AeoniosHaplo 08:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep omega-3 section separate and cross reference

Many more people will look up omega-3 fatty acids than will look up polyunsaturated fatty acids. If there is cross referencing at the end of the article people will find more information by keeping the entries separate. Ed Dratz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.210.85.25 (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree. Keep it easy to Google or otherwise search for the specific reference. However, add the complete list of Omega 3 fatty acids to the main page -- it's not too long and it makes sense as clarifying detail. Cliff Bennett 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Cliff Bennett

I think you misunderstand. I wasn't suggesting merging Omega-3 fatty acid; it should certainly standalone. I suggested merging List of omega-3 fatty acids with this page. That page only has 1 table with 6 entries, and that information is completely duplicated on this current page. David.Throop 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I really think these lists simply belong in the corresponding articles (omega-3 fatty acid, conjugated fatty acid, etc.). These lists are all very short, there is no substantial information aside from the lists, and the corresponding articles all link to this article for an underwhelming amount of information. It doesn't make sense, given how massive the omega-3 article is, to omit something so basic as a list of the nine or so acids that occur in nature. I think there are too many fatty acid articles as it is; it's all very uncoordinated. This article's existence makes especially little sense because the article polyunsaturated fat lists "polyunsaturated fatty acid" as a synonym, and so you have two articles with essentially the same name, and this article includes fatty acids that aren't polyunsaturated. If you want a list article, it should be "list of fatty acids" and be all-encompassing. This alone doesn't really work. —Werson (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, why are there monounsaturated fatty acids listed under the omega-9's on the Polyunsaturated fatty acid page? It seems confusing, and too spread out. Gthorne (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Polyunsaturates?

Hi, I'm a grad student in Nutrition Science, and came to Wikipedia looking for basic information about fats for a handout I'm putting together. I started poking around, and saw the list on this page. I was wondering why Pinolenic and Podocarpic acids are not listed among the Omega-6's, since they are n-6? On other [non-wikipedia] webpages, they are considered Omega-6, but even if Wikipedia has better information, it seems like it needs some sort of explaination. Gthorne (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)