Talk:1,8-Diazabicyclo(5.4.0)undec-7-ene

Discrepancy?

There seems to be something wrong about the educt's name as well as the number of carbon atoms throughout the synthesis' mechanism.79.204.224.125 (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is that you see, but perhaps you are confused by the fact that the chemical name is derived from undecene which implies eleven carbon atoms, but the article describes a chemical with only nine carbon atoms. This is because the "diaza" part of the name indicates that two carbon atoms have been replaced by two nitrogen atoms. I hope this helps, -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Mr. no-nickname. There is considerable confusion. Reaction scheme image (at least its original version; UPDATE: I've fixed it quickly, afterwards) has incorrect name for the substrate structure (pimelic aldehyde), "suberic aldehyde". Obviously, pimelic aldehyde is wrong as well, as one carbon would be lost during simple primary amine / aldehyde condensation (+ reduction). The correct substrate should be adipic aldehyde. (Probably just a structure drawing mistake. At least the name do they have correct in the paper (Regalado), „… reductive amination of adipaldehyde with the well known propane-1,3-diamine …“) ​​ —Mykhal (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)