Talk:Baldwin's rules

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerma (talk • contribs) 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exceptions to the rule: Cations often disobey Baldwin´s rule and reaction where a second-row atoms (eg. S) are included in the ring.

That 5-endo-trig is disfavoured is often a big surprise...!

ChristianB 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not expand the article with this information, interesting stuff! V8rik 21:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "✓" characters in the Table are not showing well; use a more standard symbol? Pgpotvin (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the problem, in my browser tables look the way they should look V8rik (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently looking at the very first illustration on the article, especially the example showing the "6-endo-tet" ring closure. From Anslyn's and Dougherty's Modern Physical Organic Chemistry, chapter 10, I would expect such a reaction is be a paradox. If a bond breaks from a tetragonal carbon, how can such bond remain inside the ring? I would call the reaction "6-exo-tet".

80.71.133.199 (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Nicolaj Andersen[reply]

Yes, I agree. I think it's exo too. Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.42.105 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction suggestion

The 6-endo-tet illustration has one curly arrow in the wrong place, it actually depicts 6-exo-tet now. A 6-endo-tet process would involve cleavage of other bond in the cyclopropane and formation of a 7-membered ring. 79.100.250.119 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks weird. My original drawing was based on several K.C.Nicolaou's papers on epoxide cyclisation, where he called these 6-endo. See e.g. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989, 111, 5330-533. I've removed the controversial cyclopropanes and drew 6-endo-tet as originally suggested by Baldwin. If you can find a published example of cyclopropane opening being called, e.g., 7-endo-tet, please let me know. kovsky (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Minor Correction suggestion

The last diagram in the "Applications" section does arrow pushing from a completely irrelevant methalene carbon instead of starting both arrows at the lone pair of the BOC protected nitrogen group where the actual nucleophilic attack is occurring from. 149.155.222.31 (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded a replacement image. Does it look correct now? DMacks (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me (albeit rather simplified). kovsky (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 3D models linked in the article has been removed. Perhaps if someone knows another site, it could be changed. Petedskier (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]