Talk:Conformational isomerism

message: I changed / shortened the introduction. My first basic problem was the previous intro was unbalanced & didn't cite sources. I intend to put some more references in here soon. I guess the intro should stay short, cause the two main pages (Alkane Stereochemistry & Cyclohexane conformations) where it points to do a lot of explaining (and citing), also when it comes to relative stabilities in those cases. Hope this is ok to some people reading this, I still intend to improve it. --WijzeWillem (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed Intro

message: Anybody know anything about Cram's Rule?
it's very important in determining major and minor products of various substitution mechanisms but my knowledge of it is flawed.
Also some coverage of the finer points of conformer naming would be good. I know antiperiplanar is coincident with the simpler anti configuration. Snarfevs 04:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Crams Rule

message: This page is used as a redirect for conformers but doesn't explain what is meant by that term85.210.50.176 22:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its short for conformational isomers. Richard001 05:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Conformers]]

message: Why does conformational analysis redirect here? The article doesn't even have the word "analysis", much less talk about what the term means! I get the idea that this page is all about conformers, but that's not what I'm looking for, which is, what constitutes "conformational analysis". 67.159.76.48 (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conformational analysis 

message: Two equienergetic gauche (they are distinct non superposable structures)and one anti.
The png to the right of page  also needs to be corrected and have the intension to do that also.Cleanthis (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Three conformers for butane

message: The introduction section is appropriately detailed and seems accessible to the general public. I thought it was good that you clarified that two conformational isomers can be exchanged without breaking a bond, whereas configurationally isomerism requires bond breakage to interconvert. It seems pretty obvious to us, but if you put in some arrows in the first figure to show how the bonds are rotated to go in-between gauche and anti, that might clarify the topic a bit. I like your figure of the free energy vs. dihedral angle, but it might be helpful to have Newman projections on each peak/trough to make more obvious what each energy corresponds to which conformation and maybe have units for the free energy to show the energies of the interactions. Also, under the topic “Types of conformational isomerism”, I thought maybe you could list the energies associated with specific eclipsing and gauche interactions to give an idea of which kinds of interactions are more energetically disfavorable.
I thought that the section for Protein rotamaer libraries was a bit too distantly related and long to be a sub-section; maybe it could be its own Wikipedia article. If not taken out, I think there should be a figure added to it to break up the big block of text. Also, the two final figures are in the protein rotamer section, but they should be formatted to be under the conformation-dependent reactions section.
Under the heading “Isolation or observation of the conformational isomers”, maybe the terms “protein folding” and “aliphatic” could be linked to their respective Wikipedia site. The figure of electrostatic and steric repulsion of eclipsed ethane should be made bigger and bolder, as it is pretty hard to see. Under “Conformation-dependent reactions” and in the associated figure, make sure you italicize the t or tert in t-Bu. Also, it might be helpful to show the 6-membered ring interactions that explain why the axial t-Bu group so unstable. You could also make a reference to the Wikipedia page for A-values in explaining why t-Bu is a conformational lock.
I think that the third-to-last figure could be eliminated because the final figure sums up the idea well enough. For the first figure, I do not think it is necessary to have two depictions of gauche, rather it would be more beneficial to show an eclipsing interaction of Me/Me and H/Me. The overall presentation is good, some of the figures should be made larger, bolder, and moved around to be next to the section that they are relevant to.
(Yvonnedep (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2013 

message: UMChemProfessor (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Comments

message: The :alkane stereochemistry article only covers the conformational aspect, which is already covered in :conformational isomerism. The topic of :stereochemistry involves other aspects as well, and these are already also covered in their own separate articles. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, just for the record as no-one else seems to care very much! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Support, I am glad that you are doing this kind of work.  It is confusing to readers when we have articles on heavily overlapping topics.  It is also worthwhile to create redirects of related quasi-synonyms to minimize this effect.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: you can see from the previous section that this article was the topic assigned in some course.  That fact often guarantees that the article will be wordy, US-oriented, and often quite mediocre. So be prepared to slash and burn.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose on the grounds that Alkane stereochemistry seems to be a subtopic of stereochemistry; conformational isomerism is a subtopic within stereochemistry, but there are many topics that are the subject of stereochemistry that are not about isomerism. Klbrain (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply: I don't follow your reasoning: why would it matter that these are both subtopics of stereochemistry, which also has many other subtopics? My concern with the present contents of alkane stereochemistry is that it is mostly a wordy discussion of some of that material that is already present in conformational isomerism. I have no objection to alkane stereochemistry on its own but it would need new material unique to that article; that mostly consists of the rather slim subject of chiral branched alkanes like 3-Methylhexane. As far as I know there's not yet enough to say about those to devote an article, but someone could always write it in the future if warranted. Does that seem reasonable? –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: MadeOfAtoms correctly clarifies that the problem is the current content of the articles, not their names. And it's also a good point that "alkane stereochemistry" as a topic seems like a difficult niche for specific content. DMacks (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another relevant factor that supports merging is that conformation is a Gold book term relating to the topic being discussed in these two articles, whereas there is no term equivalent to "alkane stereochemistry" in the way it is used in that article. Readers would be more likely to search for "conformation..." than "alkane..." when seeking an article like this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawing opposition, given the arguments about content rather than title. So, perhaps merge the content as indicated in the proposal, then the decision about the direction of the redirect can made separately. Klbrain (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Alkane stereochemistry]] into [[Conformational isomerism]]