Talk:Hybridisation

Over the next several days/several edits I'm going to try and overhaul this article and make it more comprehensible. I've got it on watch, so any sugestions along the way are welcome. -EagleFalconn


 * I think it could have more cross-referencing for the introduction, and a more focused body. There's perhaps just two much writing that's introductory, and it makes it a bigger read than necessary. I think another article shoud introduce the theory of atomic orbitals, in terms of the solutions to the Schrodinger equation for electrons. I'm going to see if something like that exists. Then, the hybridized orbitals can be introduced as a mixing of the atomic orbitals, as a linear combination of basis (linear algebra)states. This would improve the understanding that hybridized orbitals are the result of multiple basis states existing in superposition, with a significant energetic stabilization due to resonance in hybridized orbitals compared to atomic ones. So I think this could use more work (yes, I'll do some!) rmbh 07:08, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! The molecular orbital page builds all the way to hybridization, and it doesn't link to this page! There's been a lot of duplicated effort here...it's really the molecular geometry concepts that are unique to this article. The specialized hybridized orbital pages should probably be incorporated here, instead of the bulk of it, which is better explained in the molecular orbital page. rmbh 07:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about it over the weekend, and I was considering expanding on the bottom section and discussing in more detail the various forms of hybridization. I realized it would be fairly redundant, though I don't believe a page exists for any hybrids except sp&sup2;, which right below is indicated as needing work as well. But you're right, the molecular orbital page certainly does do much of the pre-hybrid explanation work. I feel like it is explained a little better with the discussion of methane, though everything prior to where the stress exists that orbitals are models could be considered unnecessary. I think that the explanation in terms of molecular orbitals and in terms of atomic orbitals are unique and each contribute in separate ways, so there may be merits for leaving it there. Also, you have to consider: More people are familiar with atomic orbitals than molecular. I'm something of a Wikipedia noob, so perhaps this is a dumb question: Is the goal of Wikipedia with this page to educate someone who has the majority of the background knowledge for this article, or to try and relate it to someone who might not be all the way there? --EagleFalconn 15:57, 22 Nov 2004
 * You raise a dead-on point. I think that the Wicki approach constantly raises this issue: as a piece of unified writing, introductory material is required, but as a Wicki, introductory material is largely redundant, and clutter-promoting. After perusing Wickipedia:Forum for Encyclopedia Standards, I expect that the latter view dominates amoung Wickipedians. An obvious exception is large overview articles, like 'Canada' which may contain 'Canadian Bacon'. A subject as broad as 'quantum chemistry' probably has no such centralized article for exposition; perhaps a history article would suffice. In general, articles should be both accessible and of sufficient depth to be useful. I mean, everyone knows, Britannica will tell you more than World Book, which makes it better for researchers than for elementary schools. I think only time will tell, but there's a lot of expertise out there, and Wickipedia seems to draw unprecedented attention, so it's possible that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.
 * I agree that the entries for the popular handles for hybrid orbitals should be kept. I agree that hybridization should be kept as well, but most of the page should be moved to molecular orbitals. There is plenty of complementary material, and we could try to edit the bulk of the article starting with that configuration.
 * Hybridization is, specifically, the 'mixing' of atomic orbitals into molecular ones. The current hybridization article does a good job of explaining that molecular symmetry is difficult to reconcile with atomic orbitals. I would add (I propose to add!) that the quantum indistinguishability of the groups surrounding the carbon atoms are the source of MO symmetries. To satisfy these necessary symmetries (described by group operations, connecting to group theory), the atomic orbitals are hybridized. The actual hybridization is represented by a linear combination, or superposition of atomic orbitals.
 * So I like the idea of the hybridization article not defining 'orbital'. By ignoring the actual wave-equation, the article can discuss the geometric implications of hybridizations, which is arguably the 'champion concept' (go Pauling!), without considering things like antibonding orbitals, or the exlusion principle. Definitely keep the methane, although it stinks! ;) rmbh 02:22, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with merging the two articles is the approach. Molecular orbitals certainly do lead right into hybridization, but from a very different angle than the one the article currently takes. Merging the introductary material also poses a problem. I'm not sure that they really are cohesive and belong in the same article. We could create two separate articles, "Molecular Orbital approach to Hybridization" and "Atomic Orbital Approach to Hybridization" but that seems unnecessarily extensive. Perhaps the blatantly redundant information could be removed, and a link at the top of the article to molecular orbital saying "A different approach to hybridization can be gleaned from the article on molecular orbitals in lieu of the explanation in terms of atomic orbitals given here." EagleFalconn 03:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that since we've established that the page needs some work, but is for the most part better than it was, I'm going to remove the attention tag. EagleFalconn 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is Hybridization redirected to Hybridisation? Hybridisation doesn't seem to appear in webster's dictionary nor the cambridge dictionary.

"S" vs. "Z"
Can we decide on one? The title has s, but every mention of hybridi(z/s)ation is spelled with a z on this page. Furthermore, the two "hybridization" links lead to two different spellings (molecular bio has a z, chemical has an s). I have no qualifications to make this decision - hopefully somebody else does and can take care of this. Thanks. The freddinator 23:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've returned it to the original spelling (using s). It appears that an anon editor changed it to the US spelling (contrary to WP:ENGVAR) in November. It should have been reverted then but has evidently been missed. --Athol Mullen 01:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The colleague applied the established remedy, which is to revert changes to the article's established convention (presumably barring bad-faith -- e.g. pre-emptive -- planting or extinction of a yank or Commonwealth "flag"), while considering inconsistency among topicsharmless and irrelevant. --Jerzy•t 03:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with..."
If it can refer to orbital hybridisation then how is it "Not to be confused with..." it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elecbullet (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, the anon colleague's question seems to have effectively been answered "It can indeed so refer, will be so confused, and thus has had the wording in question replaced!" ---Jerzy•t 01:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Res ipse loquitur! Jerzy•t 01:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)