Talk:Α-Aminoadipate pathway

Fungi Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi 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.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diabetes?

The introductory comment "In the eukaryotes, this pathway is unique to the higher fungi (containing chitin in their cell walls) and the euglenids" doesn't fit very well with the reference to predicting diabetes (in humans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tslumley (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

KingisNitro proposes that this article be split into Α-Aminoadipate pathway and Α-Aminoadipic acid, writing "I am suggesting split because these are two different pages and I really don't see a reason to only mention them together". Note that these articles used to be separate until they were merged in 2013 (see Talk:Alpha-Aminoadipic_acid). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe the solution should be to expand them instead of merging them. And if they are merged, I would personally move this to Α-Aminoadipic acid instead, as that is what the pathway is named by, not the other way around. KingisNitro (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely more content could be added about the compound and/or the pathway. I think part of the ratioale for the merge was there wasn't really enough content at the time to justify separate articles. I think you may have a point about the name. In that case, I would suggest a new requested move discussion to consider switching the names. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]