[hilbert42]

What I didn't mention was that I double-checked in case I was going crazy, so I crosschecked on ChemSpider: https://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.118630.html - see 3D model (presumably it's also incorrect).

I've yet to check Wiki as of today, so I don't know if the site has changed since last August or not. I will check momentarily.

I acknowledge what you say and I'm not necessarily disputing your points. If this is the result of another of the many nomenclature problems that plague and beset chemistry then I'm damn-well sick of it (and I'm certainly not alone).

It's about time that someone—some authoritative body, most specifically IUPAC et al, sorted this mess out.

PS: you haven't really answered why both the skeletal and ball-and-stick would be different. Moreover, the skeletal outline in the story is also the usual default (i.e.: the same as in both versions of Wiki and in ChemSpider).

[tnbp]

IUPAC has nothing to do with it--aspartame is a trivial name. It's no mess, either--chemists know that 1M sulfuric acid does not contain any H2SO4, even though H2SO4 is sulfuric acid. The skeletal and ball-and-stick structures differ precisely because they weren't created from the same source--the author of the ball-and-stick structure cites a crystallography paper as their source, and solid crystals consist of zwitter ions.

[hilbert42]

That type of problem is found throughout chemistry but usually an accepted nomenclature applies (when it doesn't is when we get into troubles).

So why did Wiki make the change when I pointed the matter out if it is incorrect?

I'd now suggest you get it corrected.

Edit: also tell Wiki that it shouldn't post inconsistent information as it only confuses (similarly ChemSpider).

Edit 2: 'aspartame is a trivial name'. Very true, but aspartame is not known to the world by its IUPAC name, even at best it still means that a nomenclature problem exists.

[tnbp]

  >That type of problem is found throughout chemistry but usually an accepted nomenclature applies (when it doesn't is when we get into troubles).

It is not. Nobody who is into chemistry is confused by it, and those who are usually learn something new when they first stumble upon it.

  >So why did Wiki make the change when I pointed the matter out if it is incorrect?

Possibly because most Wikipedians aren't chemists and assume good faith.

  >I'd now suggest you get it corrected.

That level of entitlement...

  >Very true, but aspartame is not known to the world by its IUPAC name

Please think about this statement. Thoroughly.

[hilbert42]

There's no point in me continuing this discussion with a closed mind.

No offense intended.

[tnbp]

Indeed there isn't. It isn't a discussion either--you asked a question, which I answered, while you continued to argue from ignorance.

[hilbert42]

1. You still haven't answered why other more authorative sites such as ChemSpider also display ball-and-stick as per the later Wiki version. (If more than one authorative site does so then there must be some reason for it - for this common consistency.)

2. You have failed to realize the significance of being consistent in presentation especially when stuff is presented in encyclopedic form. To do so in any other way is misleading.

That means that the skeletal and ball-and-stick depictions should be consistent with each other (otherwise it's confusingly - except for geniuses such as yourself of course).

Can't you understand that many people compare both models and that they expect them to match? (It's common practice to count the hydrogens on both to cross reference the chemical formula, etc., etc. - that's a common teaching practice where I come from.)

3. I never said that I disagreed with your assessment of the chemistry and I still don't. In fact, I do understand what you are talking about but (a) it's irrelevant if I do or don't in this instance and (b) expressing the more 'complex' state of molecules isn't normal practice in encyclopedic references. Yes, I'd agree that in textbooks such detail is normal but not here.

If you want to be precise to the nth degree and grind things superfine AND also be consistent across chemistry (i.e.: have common and consistant [standard] nomenclature to describe things) then you could not describe water as just 'H2O'.

OK: now where do we start for a proper formulaic description of water?

We would have to add in hydronium - or should that be hydroxonium (I learned the latter but I'm happy with both). Or should we refer to that as 'oxonium' only? Or should we start the description with something as confusing as:

Water = H20+H3O+ +... . ('water' + oxonium-type ion and then some extras)

How do we describe the protonation in its fullest form (as a formula)?

As you ought to know, this gets even more complicated, should we add in all known cations (Zundel, etc.) for a basic description of water just to ensure the formula is complete in all circumstances (cover all states/conditions)? (And then add a footnote that we may still not have them all as others may still be there - yet to be discovered).

Of course not. It's ridiculous.

Any chemist who works at that level already knows this stuff so it's unnecessary to describe the 'basic' molecule - dare I say it - in anything other than in its simplest (basic) form.