People have said in the comments of my question IUPAC naming of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) heterocyclic core and its locants that the question would take many pages to answer, and/or that I wouldn't understand the answers due to my not knowing enough about chemistry.
Trying to do some research for the question with Google I found that someone had asked almost the exact same question in 2018 and never got an answer: https://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=95212.0
At one point he said, "Currently, I have only found 2 IUPAC names for LSD: 9,10-didehydro-N,N-diethyl-6-methylergoline-8β-carboxamide, which is easy to follow but doesn't offer much (sic) with the naming of complex polycyclic/aromatic compounds because the cores (sic) structure is simplified to -ergoline; and (6aR,9R)-N,N-diethyl-7-methyl-4,6,6a,7,8,9-hexahydroindolo[4,3-fg]quinoline-9-carboxamide from the Wikipedia page which (sic) is very confusing and could use come (sic) clarification."
Would you agree with him that the shorter IUPAC name is "easy to follow"? It's not easy for me, and it therefore occurred to me that if I asked about this supposedly easier IUPAC name instead, then my question would be improved.
What do you think?
Edit: Since Mithoron, with my consent, has taken the question in a somewhat new direction, with several upvotes as result, I don't think I'd like to rewrite it. So I wonder whether a question about deducing or explaining why or how the (much easier, although still very hard for a beginner like me) IUPAC name 9,10-didehydro-N,N-diethyl-6-methylergoline-8β-carboxamide can be deduced from the skeletal formula for LSD would be well-received on Chemistry? What do you think?