[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.

[tnbp]

  >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.)

I do not owe you any answer, let alone why someone who is not me decides to represent anything in any form. Both versions (the original ball-and-stick model and the current skeletal structure) are valid, though one of them accounts for protolysis, and one doesn't.

  >2. You have failed to realize the significance of being consistent in presentation especially when stuff is presented in encyclopedic form.

My point was not that the current version is or isn't consistent, my point was that it is WRONG.

  >except for geniuses such as yourself of course

Next to you, I would appear that way. Go to the current version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#/media/File:Aspartam...) and count the hydrogen atoms. Then compare to the actual molecular formula of aspartame.

I'll accept an apology, but please stop being this obtuse.