Talk:Ullmann condensation

Page split?

Does anyone have any opinions about this page being split into its component reactions? I get that they're all aromatic substituation reactions but beyond that they seem pretty unrelated. Project Osprey (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are related: substitutions involving copper. There are always editors on the lookout to merge articles so lot of effort but no gains. V8rik (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction among different-named reactions

What in particular is the Goldberg reaction vs Ullmann? Is the boxed amidation reaction (cited to Buchwald but not even a classic Buchwald–Hartwig reaction a variant of Goldberg or more formally considered as a separate variant of Ullmann? DMacks (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ullmann and Goldberg were married, so there was a lot of overlap in their work. As I understand it: classically the Goldberg reaction makes a di-aryl amines, while the Ullmann condensation makes diaryl ethers. The original reactions are over 100 years old though and I think they both now sometimes mean 'aromatic carbon-to-heteroatom bond formation'. It is sometimes reported at the Ullmann–Goldberg reaction/condensation and I would support such a name change. The Hurtley reaction would seem to belong over at Ullmann reaction (if not its own page) as its' C-C bond forming. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic point

None of these are actually condensation reactions. So why are they so-named? --Project Osprey (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]