Talk:Orbital hybridisation

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleFalconn (talk • contribs) 
: 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 sp², 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)
thread_title: General Discussion

message: In the methane hybridisation picture towards the bottom of the article, the nodes appear to coincide with the nucleus which is, I am assured, incorrect. The nucleus should lie a little way into the minor lobe. Mullet 13:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: I have a question on this quote from the article: "Carbon will never form any less than four bonds unless it is given no other choice, which seldom occurs."
I have been taught that carbon ALWAYS forms four bonds, now this may be because I'm not a chem major yet and it's somethign to be viewed later, but could anyone verify and confirm wether the quote is accurate? The PA 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Always is a dangerous word. Carbon doesn't always form four bonds, but if it can its significantly more stable for it to do, and if the activation energy is low enough and if the process is exothermic enough (ie, enough to prevent simple reconversion to some other bonding state) it will. There are exceptions. Lone carbon atoms, certain reaction intermediates, carbocations. EagleFalconn 07:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbon bonds

message: I removed this from the introductory paragraph:
:... made of atoms of the groups 2,3,4 of the periodic families of elements.  On the other hand, groups 1,5,6 and 7 in the periodic table do not hybridise, i.e. this approach is in that case not useful.
That is in contradiction with the VSEPR theory, in which hybridization of atoms of groups 5 and 6 are useful. Please do some research before putting it back in. -- Felix Wan 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been tagged as needing verification and sources; hopefully the original main authors will provide the sources, but it might need to be combed through anyway. --AySz88^-^ 19:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this where the dispute is? To fix this article, I think it is important to nail what exactly it should be talking about. I think it would be more valuable to focus on the heurstic aspects of the theory first, and if we have time, add some results about ab initio calculations. --HappyCamper 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited usage to certain groups? 

message: Hi Smokefoot, Hybridization theory superseded by MO theory? I suggest that the orbital hybridization page starts with an explanation of the concept followed by a criticism section and not the other way around. I notice that the MO theory page completely lacks elemental MO diagrams let alone that of methane. I have seen this before in the Banana bond page where one editor was so certain that Banana bonds were made redundant by Walsh orbitals that he advised wiki readers to forget about banana bonds altogether. The Walsh orbital page has yet to be written.... My suggestions: we should try to find a methane photoelectron pic like this one here , explain how it is possible to fix orbital hybridization theory in order to accommodate this uncomfortable truth and move criticism part to the bottom, and also start working on a MO diagram page  V8rik 15:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi V8rik, I figured that you would have useful suggestions. My goal was a short "disclaimer" early in the article to prevent impressionable readers believing hybrid orbitals (not that I so much of a theorist to strongly complain, but hybrids have just disappeared from modern textbooks).  But I will follow your recommendation to move the section lower down. About getting a photo-electron spectrum on the MO or methane page, that would be desirable, but I dont know where to look for a copyright-ok spectrum.  I have ppt slides of qualitative MO's for methane and one of these days I will figure out how to load graphics on WE.  --Smokefoot 16:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: this is the kind of material I have: .
(If you can tell me how to better save this ChemDraw, that would be appreciated, it looks grainy - I just saved ChemDraw as .png).  Is this the kind of graphic that you were thinking of?  I also have a drawing () somewhere in wikispace but I dont know how to work with it - it does not seem to load. Possibly too big.  In any case, this is the kind of stuff I have for a future MO diagram article.--Smokefoot 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: V8rik yes, the organickers love hybridization.  And its seems unlikely that this terminology will slip soon. --Smokefoot 22:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybridization theory has been superceded by MO theory? 

message: The statement "hybridisation is an integral part of valence bond theory and the valence shell electron-pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory" is in fact incorrect in the latter part as the original authjor of this VSEPR approach claims that there are no orbitals involved in the theory. I do not have the references given to hand but I have no doubt they support the statement. They are however wrong as are so many others. Of course you might argue that VSEPR is incoherent if it it does not implicitly include orbitals of some kind, but that is WP:OR. Gillespie would not agree. Because this is controversal I bring it here rather than just delete it. --Bduke 02:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the VSEPR claim. VSEPR doesn't require hybridization, it's just a qualitative model that tries to place the electron pairs as far apart as possible (like charges on a sphere). The fact that the geometries predicted agree with those corresponding to spmdn hybridizations is a coincidence that was unfortunately taken too far by general chemistry textbooks for some time. Now that there's consensus that involving the d orbitals is not correct, most modern textbooks talk about VSEPR without involving hybridization.--Itub 08:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxman reverted my deletion, saying "the VSEPR part appears to be part of a referenced fact. If you have beeter sources, adjust it of course. Either way the article should link and discuss the relation to VSEPR". I checked the sources, and they make no such claim. I'm sure you could find some old general chemistry textbook that wrongly makes such claim, but that doesn't mean we need to keep propagating such nonsense. I've cited a recent article by R. J. Gillespie, the author of the VSEPR theory, which clearly says that VSEPR is completely unrelated to orbitals and to valence bond theory. --Itub 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on the nail. Gillepie says the same thing in more detail in a Chemical Society Review. --Bduke 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, for small molecules the "flow of information" is usually (1) start with a molecular formula, (2) draw a Lewis-dot structure, (3) apply VSEPR to predict the electron-pair and molecular geometries, and (4) apply VB to get approximate compositions of hybrid orbitals.  If your main interest is structure (geometry) you stop after step (3).  In other words, you apply VSEPR first, get an answer, and don't need to worry about VB to explain (check, etc.) the VSEPR prediction. -- Astrochemist 02:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valence shell electron-pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory

message: For experimentalists, I think that the most-common approach to VB theory is determine a structure (spectroscopic, diffraction, etc.) without reference to orbital hybridisation.  As this article's "Hybridisation and molecule shape" section describes, mathematical relations exist to connect bond angles and hybridisation ratios, so if one can get (by VSEPR or measurement) a bond angle then a hybridisation ratio follows.  I'm not sure how often the reverse is be done, getting a bond angle (structure) from a p-to-s ratio.  There certainly are cases in EPR/ESR when isotropic and anisotropic hyperfine coupling constants can give p-to-s ratios, which in turn are converted into bond angles. (The Wikipedia EPR/ESR article is poor, so I'm not citing it.  There's almost nothing there about hyperfine coupling of any type.)  -- Astrochemist 02:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a force field called VALBOND that uses hybridizations to compute the angular bending energy (and therefore the structure). The hybridizations themselves come from empirical formulas that are parameterized so that certain elements have a higher preference toward p character than others In VALBOND the possible hybrids are a continuum, including things such as sp2.81, which can lead to equilibrium angles different from the "textbook cases" of 109.47, 120, and 180 deg. --Itub 05:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond angles and hydridisation ratios 

message: (copied over from Talk:Sp² bond; please continue conversation here)
This article (sp2 bond) doesn't say anything that's not already in orbital hybridization or chemical bond, and "sp2 bond" is not a common term. Actually, I'd say that the term doesn't make much sense, since the hybridization is based on the atom and not on the bond. What is more common is to say "a bond involving an sp2 atom", or an sp2-sp2 bond, (or sp2-sp3, etc.). I propose deleting this article, maybe leaving a redirect to orbital hybridization. Itub 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Put merge tags on the two articles to draw attention to your suggestion. --Bduke 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Itub 16:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant sp2 bond article 

message: 3plx help!!!!
In PCl5, why can't the 4s orbitals be used in the "hybirdization"? Why is the hybridization of P in the compound as sp3d, but not s2p3( using a 3s, a 4s, 3 3p orbitals)?
What is mean by the statement: there is a conflict between 3s and 4s in the hybridization?
thx
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trigonal_bipyramid_molecular_geometry"
58.152.216.169 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCl5: why sp3d but s2p3? 

message: The view that the d orbitals contract on the central atom when the other atoms are highly electronegative was studied over many years by David Craig but never really established. The view that the d orbitals are not involved in bonding in these molecules is now well established due in part to the work of Eric Magnussen. Most General Chemistry text are beginning to remove the sp3d2 etc hybridisation discussions. I'm just about to leave for a few days and will be on wikibreak. I'll try to look at this when I return and dig up the references. --Bduke 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: How about an image of an sp hybrid orbital? It looks essentially like a p orbital, but it's different. 168.122.108.87 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An sp hybrid doesn't look much like a p orbital- one lobe is far, far larger than the other.  Two sp hybrids are orthogonal to each other at right angles, so the equivalent picture would look like two big lobes at a right angle, with tiny lobes across from each. --Noren (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sp orbital? 

message: Water is an unfortunate choice of an example for this article, since water isn't actually an sp3 hybrid. This can be (and indeed has been) easily proven with XPS spectroscopy. The fact that its geometry happens to be close to what would be predicted by an sp3 hybrid is merely a coincidence.
:It's not coincidence.  The valence s and three p orbitals of the oxygen are all occupied, and there is hybridization between them.  The counterintuitive part that you're missing is that lone pairs and the bonding orbitals are not equivalent- proportionally more of the lower energy s orbital is used by the lone pair than by the bonding orbitals.  See Bent's rule, which is tragically a bit of a stub at the moment.--Noren (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water example 

message: Just using carbons is a cop out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inthemtns (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not do a N central atom? 

message: I have added a "citation needed" tag to the sentence "The combination of these forces creates new mathematical functions known as hybridised orbitals", although it also refers to the discussion in the paragraph above leading up to that statement. I would like to know whether that explanation appears in any textbook or paper. It seems to me to be quite incorrect as it implies that hybrid orbitals are the result of physical forces. The mainstream  view is that hybridisation is just a mathematical process in valence bond theory to get four distinct bonds and nothing more than that. The fact that we can quite well explain the bonding in methane without using hybrids shows that hybridisation is not a physical process. I will try to fix this but I am curious to know whether the explanation in the article has been seriously put forward. --Bduke  (Discussion) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed in sp3 section 

message: Let me try to discuss the last two edits by myself and DMacks. First, "The hydrogen-carbon bonds are all of equal strength and length, which agrees with experimental data" is true but there is no basis to say it at the point where it now is as the hybridisation theory is not yet explained for ethene. It needs to be moved down to after the theory is explained. Second, The sentence above is not clear. Second, I fail to see what "(however, the π bond may or may not occur)" achieves. We are discussing ethene. The π bond does occur. This very simple idea has been badly explained in this article for two long. Another problems is that the diagram is not normally called a Kekule structure. I have had a go at rewriting this. The sentence on 2.5 hybridisation does not fit well in this section, but that is another matter. It must be very unclear to some readers. --Bduke  (Discussion) 07:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit was merely to undo the preceding anon-IP edit, but apparently you and I had an edit-conflict involving other changes you were making at the same time. That said, the original wording was also quite confusing and in need of work and Bduke's changes certainly are an improvement. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that has happened to me too. I rewrote the second para and will work on the rest of the article. The lead needs work. The mention of hybridisation in MO theory, for example, is close to nonsense. Hybrids are very rarely used in MO theory and then for special reasons. It just needs removing from the lead. Others can add it later if they have sources. --Bduke  (Discussion) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sp2 and ethene 

message: There are two geometries associated with sp3d
The first is trigonal bipyramidal and can be thought of as sp3d(dZ2)
The Second is square-based pyramidal and can be thought of as sp3d(dx2-y2)
Also, There is an sp2d hybrid which corresponds to a square planar geometry.
This is shown on page 119 of "Inorganic Chemistry" 3rd edition by Catherine E. Housecroft and Alan G. Sharpe (2008)
I am unfamiliar with the controversies of the d orbital contributions so will not post revisions but discussion and investigation is needed. Perhaps these ideas have been dismissed, but if so i suggest mentioning them and explaining why they are no longer thought of that way.... but since this textbook is only 2 years old I am inclined to believe a certain portion of respectable chemists find these hybridizations convenient still (and if student's are being taught it, wikipedia should mention them).
Astote-ap (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 types of ''sp''<sup>3</sup>''d'' as well as absent ''sp''<sup>2</sup>''d'' information 

message: This section is quite out of date. The consensus is now clear that d orbitals are not involved in bonding in molecules like SF6 any more than they are in SF4 and SF2. In all three cases there is a small and roughly identical participation of d orbitals as polarisation functions. This has been established in both MO, by Magnussen and others, and VB theory, by Cooper and others. I will try to rewrite it, but I am busy, so this is something of a reminder, but feel free to have a go. --Bduke  (Discussion) 00:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy regarding d-orbital participation 

message: I removed two sections that were instructions on how to analyze structures. One didn't actually seem to address the idea of hybridization at all (maybe it was just about determining valency). The other did lead from valence-electron counting to atomic hybridization, but was simplified so much that it contradicted the analysis of water and pentavalent atoms in previous sections of this article and also the N in pyrrole (and anything else with a similar resonance effect). In addition, there were WP:TONE/WP:NOT#HOWTO problems in the writing. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removed 

message: I've separated the section on misconceptions, generalized the water description to all molecules with lone pairs and created an exceptions section where those that don't follow the general scheme are listed. This is partially to decouple this page from VSEPR theory as VSEPR does not correlate to the hybridisation types as quantum chemical calculations have shown.--Officer781 (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial overhaul of article 

message: This section title is quite confusing. For main group molecules, chemists (like Pauling) thought a long time ago that hypervalence is due to expanded s2p6 octets. However as the article correctly says, this concept is now obsolete so why have a section title which says that it is true? Unfortunately some readers skim and will only read the section title, so let's have it say something which is true.
As for d(u)odectets, I have never seen this word (with any spelling) and it is not explained in the article. From the text, I think you mean that transition metal complexes tend to complete a d10s2 shell. But again, the title implies that p orbitals are important and the text explains that they are not, so the title is misleading. 
Perhaps a better title would be Hypervalent molecules have s2p6 or s2d10 electron shells, if that is true. Dirac66 (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented. Please do take a look and see if the titles are alright.--Officer781 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is a much clearer header. The superscripts are not close to another line of text so I think they are all right. To say the same thing clearly using only words would require a much longer header with two or three lines, which is worse I think. Dirac66 (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I have thought about this header some more. For the main group examples it is true that molecules such as PF5 and SF6 which have been classed as hypervalent actually have an s2p6 shell with minimal d participation. Similarly TM complexes have minimal p participation according to recent calculations, but ... these complexes are not generally described as hypervalent. So I think the best solution is to remove the subsection header in question and just promote the subsubsections to subsections, one for hypervalent main-group molecules and one for TM complexes without describing them as hypervalent. Dirac66 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypervalent molecules expand their octets or dodectets 

message: I do not believe that section provides an adequate summary of hybridisation in hypervalent molecules, especially since it does not fully address situations where there are no lone pairs like sulfur hexafluoride.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read the post "Sulfur hexafluoride" before this. We had a debate on sulfur hexafluoride before it was agreed sp3 hybridisation is the best way to explain this. You can imagine this by instead of splitting the four orbitals into four, we split it into six "partial orbitals" directed towards the ligands to accomodate the electron pairs which are partially bonding and non-bonding. Consistent with MO-theory in the sense that the "space" between the central atom and ligand consist of both the bonding orbital and non-bonding orbital.--Officer781 (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would we really call this sp3? The reader generally thinks about orbital conservation - the number of orbitals mixed must produce an equal number of orbitals out. I don't find that a very satisfactory explanation using hybridisation and 3c-4e is much more intuitive to me. The octafluoroxenate anion and iodine heptafluoride then become very hard to explain using hybridisation because it's not easy to imagine 4 orbitals acommodating 7 electron pairs (perhaps 3 orbitals taking 6 is easier). More importantly, how would we draw orbital diagrams for these if we were to treat them purely using sp3 (not 3c-4e)?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nono, the sp3 talks about the hybridisation and 3c-4e talks about the details of bonding (here adapted to valence-bond terms, so might be confusing. If there is any better way to explain it without invoking MO theory, please do discuss). Iodine heptafluoride is included in the article as sp3 too as there is no lone pair (ie there are only enough pairs to put between the central atom and all the ligands). the octafluoroxenate bonds would then be purely p in character as the s-orbital holds the electron pair. But as for the sp3, I do agree it is somewhat inadequate. Any ideas for how we should call it?--Officer781 (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, and it just goes to show that hypervalency discussion is not truly possible using just the orbital hybridization model, as has been established. I think we shouldn't attempt to explain it using that model, and I now think we might want to call those hypervalent molecules "Cannot be explained by hybridization" in the table heading, though that may be a little too long.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Personally I am kind of reluctant to direct the readers to MO theory as many are not trained in it. But if that's the only choice to make it simple, then maybe we should switch to it. Perhaps one active in this area like Dirac66 could share some opinions.--Officer781 (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: d-orbital hybridization seems to be the simplest explanation to those readers but would still be confusing as it's now established to be inaccurate. Do we have alternatives?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd keep the current explanation of dividing orbitals into non-integer parts (partial-orbitals, if you like) if it's mathematically sound and reject it if it's not as it may probably be the only way to explain molecule shape using hybridisation (a hard-to-picture and non-intuitive explanation though. I've removed the details of electron count and left it to 3c-4e. We could try to simplify the explanation further). Perhaps one who knows the math of hybridisation can shed some light as hybridisation is essentially mathematical in nature, although only the concept without the math is known to most of us.--Officer781 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I realized I did not answer your question on orbital diagrams. In such cases as each electron pair does not fully reside on the central atom, it would probably be impossible to do those. The molecular orbital 3c-4e diagrams would serve to illustrate how many electrons are in bonding or nonbonding orbitals. We could probably just convince readers that we can split orbitals into non-integer parts to see how the orbitals are spread to explain the shape. Electron-occupancy in specific orbitals for hypervalent molecules probably isn't the job of hybridisation to tackle, but rather 3c-4e.--Officer781 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No hybridisation" 

message: This article and the above discussion seem confused as to the exact meaning of 
terms such as sp3 and sp2 especially sp. Before discussing SF6 further, we need to return to some basic definitions (which should be added to the article). The intro should specify that hybrid orbitals are linear combinations of orbitals on a given atom, introduced by Pauling as approximate description of  orbitals directed towards other atoms to form bonds. And we should refrain from guessing hybridization schemes which cannot be found in reliable sources. See WP:OR.
The term sp3 does not mean just any combination of one s + three p; it implies that the  weight of the s component is 1/4. The (normalized) wave function = 1/2 ψs + (31/2/2)ψpσ, where pσ is directed along the bond, or an equivalent combination of p orbitals along coordinate axes. These coefficients are fixed by symmetry for CH4, and are a good approximation for substituted methanes which also form four sigma bonds. Similarly sp2 describes an orbital which is 1/3 s, as is approximately true for C2H4 since the pi bond has no s-orbital contribution.
Molecules with lone pairs are more complex and the Pauling schemes are less exact. H2O is sometimes described as sp3, but the bond angle is less than 109.5° which implies that the AO forming the bond is less than 25% s. The true % s can be estimated from the bond angle or another physical property or from molecular orbital calculations. If for example the % s is about 20%, some describe the hybridization as sp4, which does NOT mean that 4 p AOs are involved. Similarly the sp2.5 now in the article means that the % s is 1/3.5 = 29%. An unspecified combination can be written as spx. However some (e.g. some solid-state physicists) describe this hybridation as sp, which is confusing as it suggests sp1 (50% s) as in the C2H2 molecule.
As for SF6, Pauling proposed sp3d2 which implies 17% s, 50% p, 33% d. More recent work (such as that by Magnusson cited in the article) shows that the % d is much smaller. So only 4 AOs on S are significantly populated and form 6 bonds, using 3c-4e bonds as already discussed. So what is the hybridization of the sulfur orbital which forms the 3c-4e bond on each axis? If it is called sp hybridization, that means only that there is no (significant) d participation, which is a confusing use of the term sp and to be avoided here I think. It cannot mean that the sulfur bonding orbital on each axis is 50% s as that would mean a total on the 3 axes of 150% which is impossible. As for sp3, this means 25% on each axis and 25% in a lone pair, which is possible; however the bond angle of 90° suggests pure p orbitals leaving s as a mostly non-bonding pair. So not hybridized is the simplest model, although MO calculations may indicate some small s character in the bonding MO’s. In any case we should not guess and should only include a value if we can find a source.
Finally re mention of orbitals being split into non-integer parts or “partial orbitals”. There is no such concept in quantum mechanics. If intended meaning is one (or more) lobes in space, this looks pretty in diagrams but does not correspond to a one-electron wave function which can hold two electrons. Similarly for a mathematical component of an orbital function, which also is not an electron state which can hold 2 electrons. If the term “partial orbital” has some other meaning of which I am unaware, we need a source. To describe 3c-4e bonding without talking about “partial orbitals”, just say that the orbital on the central atom can bond to 2 other atoms at once, and link to the 3c-4e article for more detail. Dirac66 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I've inserted a source from GVB analysis that talks about hybrids in hypervalent molecules and removed the mention of partial orbitals. Also inserted the definitions for the spx sdx terminology and revamped the usage of the terminology accordingly. Please do help me verify the changes for quality. The next step might be to simplify the main-group-with-lone-pairs table as it seems to be too complicated. Any ideas?--Officer781 (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is better. I have made a few more changes, of which the most important is to write a hybrid orbital wavefunction explicitly. I think this will be clearer, at least for readers who have seen wavefunctions before. Dirac66 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the definitions 

message: I think that this article goes on too much about how it is taught and how it is controversial and even wrong. I believe it should focus more on what hybridisation is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.51.171 (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a small suggestion 

message: I see that Officer781 has been cleaning up some of the references, which is generally good. However I disagree with the deletion of Laing's paper as a source with the edit summary we don't need two sources referring to the same thing. There can be several reasons why two sources for a given fact can be better than one:
#Reliability: if two authors (or groups of authors) agree on a fact, it is more likely to be correct.
#Clarity: it may be easier to understand an explanation on reading two different versions
#Access: some readers may not have access to one version; citing two increases the chance that a reader may be able to find one source
#Link rot: If one of the two sources disappears from the Internet in 1 or 3 or 10 years, it is useful to have another already available.
Of course we very often only have one source because no one has bothered to find a second. But if we have two, as is the case here, it makes more sense to include both for the above reasons. So I will restore the Laing paper as a source, and retain the Weinhold group paper also. Dirac66 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sources are often better than one 

message: I readded the "AXE notation"; I found it used in both Housecraft's "Inorganic chemistry" and "Molecular orbitals of transition metal complexes" by Yves Jean. Christian75 (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AXE notation 

message: How will we be able to describe or find hybridization of certain compound like C2H4,C2H6,C2H2 by using electron configuration alone?without use of orbital diagram. Alishasapkota (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly straightforward for normal, textbook molecules like ethane, ethylene and acetylene that you mention. If a hydrocarbon has only single bonds, its C atoms will all be sp3 hybridised. If there is a C=C double bond, the double-bonded carbons will each be sp2 hybridised. If there's a C≡C triple bond, the triple-bonded carbons will each be sp hybridised. In allene, H2C=C=CH2, the terminal CH2 carbons are sp2 and the central C atom is sp hybridised. All you really need is a Lewis structure of the molecule. --Ben (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  hybridization and electronic configuration.. 

message: If something is not mentioned in the body of the article, it should not be mentioned in the lead section.  Also, there should not be blue links in bold face in the article lead.  Seems that at least two editors are not aware of these basic standards.  95.145.130.4 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither MOS not content-organization guidelines are good reasons for removing content that is itself supported by content guidelines. Perhaps you can figure out an alternate wording, formatting, or organization that you feel is better but that does not wind up actually losing the material itself.  DMacks (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: why do you think that what I removed should not have been removed? 95.145.130.4 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

text:  The reason why I chose not to respond to this thread is that this IP seems (to me) to be blatant block evasion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/200.120.158.78.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: pathetic. 95.145.130.4 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye, Jasper. CU has handled it...nothing further to do here. DMacks (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic article standards 

message: Why is methylene mentioned under the header sp3? I was trying to close out the discrepancy to remove the  tag, but the alt-text is kind of a confusing run-on sentence that mentions a lot of things that aren't there, e.g., the bond angle of carbene. Is the use of the unfavorable structure useful at all as part of the explanation? Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 14:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Great clarification, Thank you! It helps to make that diagram more useful in that part. Reconrabbit 20:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methylene sp3 hybridization 

message: how to calculate unit vector 137.196.0.34 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article on unit vector. I don't see the term used in this article. Dirac66 (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  unit vector