We currently have a tag .

The IUPAC Gold Book defines this (DOI: 10.1351/goldbook.G02620):

geometric isomerism [obsolete]
Obsolete synonym for cis-trans isomerism. (Usage strongly discouraged).

I know that the term is still very, very popular in some textbooks; however, I think we should follow the IUPAC recommendation and rename the tag. I don't think there is much need for debate, but there is a question remaining: Should we keep a synonym?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Cis-trans is itself not a great description - mostly superseded by E-Z. $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Jul 4, 2021 at 12:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Mithoron cis and trans goes beyond alkenes, it includes disubstituted rings, for example. $\endgroup$ Jul 4, 2021 at 22:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @orthocresol Sure does, but doesn't contain all E-Z so isn't equal to "geometric isomerism", even if its name is rather lame :) $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Jul 4, 2021 at 22:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Mithoron E/Z is nomenclature. It is part of CIP just as R/S are. You can have cis-trans isomers needing E/Z designations and you can have ones that need R/S nomenclature. So I would actually claim the opposite of you. $\endgroup$ Jul 4, 2021 at 22:33
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Using a synonym will be better than renaming as someone will unavoidably recreate the tag and it might get away unnoticed. $\endgroup$ Jul 5, 2021 at 13:16


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .