Talk:Le Bel–Van 't Hoff rule

Not actually true

The real scope of this rule is substantially more limited than the article claims. If the rule really says "2^{# asymmetric carbon atoms}", it needs to be clearly identified as now-known-untrue, or at least only true for certain classes of structures. In the 1870s, it's likely that the only kind of 3D asymmetry understood at a structural level was tetrahedral carbon. But why not a silane with 4 different alkyl chains? Chiral sulfoxides are well known. Are there really any specific asymmetric carbons in a helicene or BINAP? DMacks (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested, with an additional new redirect from Le Bel–van 't Hoff rule, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Bel–van't Hoff rule → Le Bel–Van 't Hoff rule – Correcting the spelling of this article; there should be a space between Van and 't as in Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff, Van 't Hoff equation and so on. Additionally Van should properly be capitalized as the surname is used in isolation (see Tussenvoegsel), although there may be some discrepancy in actual usage in English. 86.130.177.64 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.