Talk:Cope reaction

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move to cope rearrangement?

This is a case for Wikipedia:Duplicate articles violet/riga (t) 18:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be moved. Cope rearrangement is a sigmatropic rearrangement and the Cope Reaction is the cleavage of an amine oxide. The Cope Reaction article itself states that the two should not be confused. Ollie 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• do not move: in chemistry, chemists can have several different reactions to their name V8rik 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rb looks like it's saying rubidium... not alkyl group b like I think it's meant to. (163.1.81.111 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Fixed. DMacks (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it is completely unrelated to the cited ref as far as I can tell, and is thus unsupported. As I said in the removal, "fails verification", which is about the best reason to remove content (there were too many specific inter-related statements for me to feel comfortable leaving it stand with a simple {{cn}} since I don't know that any of it is true). Feel free to re-add with a ref that supports it. The JACS article is about (amino)cycloalkanes and (aminomethyl)cycloalkanes, not cyclic amines. And it's about medium/large rings without addressing whether small ones work at all. The ref does discuss the reaction mechanism, and I don't see anything in that discussion that would preclude it from working on smaller rings. DMacks (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now there is a ref that supports it. DMacks (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have retraced the literature and everyting should be in working order now V8rik (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]