Talk:Stereochemistry

Figure

i think that the place of numbers 2, 3 should be replaced by 1, 4 in the right figure, as they r related to the vertical lines, they should be directed to the backword direction.

Really questionable shape, at present

This has to be one of the most important chemistry articles in the encyclopedia. Please, lets elevate it in priority and get some subject matter experts to attend to this. One cannot possibly link to it in this shape. Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors Organic Chemistry I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CAH aaliyah, Riversosa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Riversosa (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GreyAvocado, Nicl0728 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: DerekDong135, Carbon20, Royhe62, Nidhidanda28.

— Assignment last updated by SwangoPrism (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nicl0728:. You are an undergrad doing homework on a topic where you are inexpert, so please stick with textbook references. Stereochemistry is a very mature area, and you are very inexperienced. See WP:TERTIARY for the guideline. Standard grad level organic textbooks should be sufficient. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your suggestion! --Nicl0728 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Org scheme options

@DMacks and Michael D. Turnbull: Any opinions on these two schemes?:

The different types of isomers. Stereochemistry focuses on stereoisomers.

Two kinds of stereoisomers

.

My preference is for the simpler one but maybe I am missing something. Also, the article is not about "isomers" per se, but stereoisomers.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, upon reflection, those schemes belong in isomers, not stereochemistry.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

March's section on stereochemistry

With regards to stereochemistry, it is useful to review the organization of that theme in the very mature textbook on organic chemistry, which spans about 100 pages (page numbers indicated to indicate emphasis given each topic): OPTICAL ACTIVITY AND CHIRALITY page 136 Dependence of Rotation on Conditions of Measurement 139 What Kinds of Molecules Display Optical Activity? 140 Creation of a Stereogenic Center 153 The Fischer Projection 153 Absolute Configuration 154 The Cahn–Ingold–Prelog System 155 Methods of Determining Configuration 158 The Cause of Optical Activity 162

MOLECULES WITH MORE THAN ONE STEREOGENIC CENTER 164 (epimers) Asymmetric synthesis 167 Methods of Resolution 172 Optical purity 179

CIS–TRANS ISOMERISM 182 Cis–Trans Isomerism Resulting from Double Bonds 182 Cis–Trans Isomerism of Monocyclic Compounds 186 Cis–Trans Isomerism of Fused and Bridged Ring Systems 188 Out–In Isomerism (bicyclic systems with,e.g. C-H pointing inside vs outside) 189 Enantiotopic and Diastereotopic Atoms, Groups, and Faces 191 Stereospecific and Stereoselective Syntheses 194

CONFORMATIONAL ANALYSIS 195 Conformation in Open-Chain Systems 197 Conformation in Six-Membered Ring 203 Conformation in Six-Membered Rings Containing Heteroatoms 209 Conformation in Other Ring 211 Molecular Mechanics 213

STRAIN 216 (does not seem so relevant to stereochemistry to me at least) Strain in Small Rings 217 Strain in Other Rings 223 Unsaturated Rings 226 Strain Due to Unavoidable Crowding 230-233

One lesson is that Wiki-chem covers these topics pretty well. March massively emphasizes chirality etc. Another lesson: our article on stereochemistry is too focused on isomers and rotamers, and not enough on cyclic systems. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Stereochemistry studies.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead Image

Hi all.

I've added a lead image illustrating planar chirality, because the article previously had no lead image.

While planar chirality isn’t the most iconic example of stereochemistry (e.g. a classic pair of enantiomers), it does represent a less commonly visualised but still important form of stereoisomerism. Using a more unique example helps highlight the breadth of stereochemical principles beyond tetrahedral stereocenters.

Happy to discuss adjustments or alternatives if anyone strongly prefers something different.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I switched back in the image that had been here for many years. User:Smokefoot had transiently switched it to a simplified version, and then removed it altogether, but it seems his question about it didn't spark a discussion. So now we have a discussion.

I like the long-standing image because it places the topic in a context of related ideas that are all on the same "intro level" as this article's field. Adding a lead image is a great idea. But using a "less common"/"more unique" example is a poor way to represent the whole topic because it is not as easily recognized and less relevant for the majority of readers for this non-essoreric topic. It's not eye-catching or a good hook either. DMacks (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I support the classification scheme that was added. Like you say, it gives an overview. The topic is thorny enough without representing planar chirality.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, after seeing the long standing image returned, I am convinced it is a better lead image than the planar chirality one.

Somehow didn't notice it on Commons, nontheless the article is better of with it anyways.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)