User talk:Officer781

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notice: User is serving compulsory military service as an airman and may not be as active on wikipedia as he used to be. Becoming a Warrior-Servant :)

Duty, Honor, Country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. - Douglas MacArthur

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Officer781, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! giggy (:O) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Software Hello Officer781. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==.

Thanks,
Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (TalkContributions) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

USAF warrant officer rank[edit]

Do you have reliable sourcing for your changing of the USAF warrant officer rank insignia? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

SGTMAJMARCOR[edit]

Here's the reference:

https://www.mfp.usmc.mil/TeamApp/SJA/Topics/20051115105457/IRAM%20MCO%20P1070-12K%20CH%203.pdf

Scroll down to page 6-36, right at the bottom.

This is a link to a Marine Corps Order, carrying the authority of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. It is the only reference that matters. Windyjarhead (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have contradicting information, cite your source, please. Nevertheless, no website or publicaation supercedes the authority of a Marine Corps Order. It is official published guidance, from the highest authority in the Marine Corps. Please see my comment here. Windyjarhead (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Template:US enlisted ranks, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.Windyjarhead (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

I, bahamut0013 , award Officer781 the Military Barnstar for your tireless contributions to military related articles, especially those regarding military rank. Keep up the good work! 22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming of chess articles[edit]

Thanks for the correction of the naming of the Makruk article. However, could you drop a note on the article's talk page pointing to the relevant guideline where the naming of chess-related articles is discussed, so as to avoid confusion in the future? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada[edit]

Well done! Good work. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Belgium[edit]

[1]: Undid revision 379779654 by Pdfpdf (talk) works on my IE7. and, svgs if possible as they are better quality. also, they are free alternatives

"works on my IE7" - What a strange response! Who cares if it works on your IE7? I've told you, it DOESN'T work on my IE8, and I can assure you that I'm not the only person on the planet who uses IE8. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have fixed itself. (Good! But I have no idea why.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! 129.49.72.78 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

USCG Shoulderboard etc.[edit]

Hi there! let me apologize first for my rude rollbacks but was running out! Yes, if possible will be better to have a vertical collar device just because they are worn like the officer ones. Than, in order to have more realistics shoulder boards i would like to share with you some sources, asking you, if possible, to improve your work with some details.

Here you have [2] and [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

Please have a look to the "embroidered stars" on the shield, they are "X" not properly "stars", but "X" represents stars.

then, as you can see, the original shoulder boards are dark blue, not light blue like the uniforms (a mistake of the prevoius uploader) ...probably they are in one of this coluors (e.g. like the official colours of the Italian Navy shoulderbopards):

  •   Dark Navy 19-4013 TPX
  •   Blue Graphite 19-4015 TP
  •   Blue Nights 19-4023 TPX

Can you update the Shield with star and stripes inside like both the link I've posted before? Thank you in advance, can't wait to see your job! --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Slovenian military ranks, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Commodore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Redesign for US Navy O10 insignia.svg[edit]

While I personally like to old version better, if you are going to redesign the image, can you please change all the ones for every rank as well for all four services: Navy, Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and NOAA Corps. That way, there is uniformity in all the images. Thanks. Neovu79 (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your good work on rank insignia images and related stuff. Well done! Pdfpdf (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Good work on the RAN Officer rank Insignia. Nathanael Ford 09:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

UK British Army Officer Rank Insignia[edit]

Hey. I understand you uploaded a newer version of the British Army Officer rank insignia? The new uploads are great except they are inaccurate as the 'Star' should be just that, a star. The star should look something like Correct Star design as opposed to incorrect star design (it's a diamond). Regards - Nford24 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (AEST)

My SVG tracing skills are not high and I don't have the ability to trace such a complex star as shown, which is why i greatly simplified it. If you wish to have the full star you could revert my edits and use the non-free images by Pdfpdf. Or ask someone who has an SVG editor and the required skills to edit it and upload over my images. Cheers. --Officer781 (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Problem now solved. Good work done well! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Officer781, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Officer781.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Greek NCO ranks[edit]

The current versions of Greek NCO templates (Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Greece etc) do not conform to STANAG 2116 (2010), which lists the Greek NCO ranks as follows:

OR-9 Anthypaspistis Anthypaspistis Anthypaspistis
OR-8 Archilochias Archikelefstis Archisminias
OR-7 Epilochias Epikelefstis Episminias
OR-6 Lochias Kelefstis Sminias
OR-5 Klirotos Lochias Klirotos Kelefstis Klirotos Sminias
OR-4 Dekaneas Diopos Yposminias
OR-3 Ypodekaneas - -
OR-2 - - -
OR-1 Stratiotis Naftis Sminitis

Have you perhaps some more recent source? SV1XV (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've realised that STANAG 2116 edition 6 actually has some problems. Checking the official Greek Navy website and the army ranks page here on wikipedia I've realised that the reservist kelefstis and lochias ranks (listed on STANAG 2116 edition 6 as klirotos) are already deprecated. Moreover, other countries' military ranks in edition 6 also has problems. Firstly, the Polish military ranks for enlisted actually contains the ranks already deprecated by 2004, as seen here: [9]. Another error was the British Air Force enlisted ranks, which are one row displaced up (notice the "no equivalent and then the flight sergeant in the same box. Found a source earlier on the internet but forgot its link). Again STANAG 2116 edition 6 lists three reservist ranks (kelefstis, lochias, sminias) when only the air force retains that rank, but when I checked STANAG 2116 edition 5, it doesn't include those ranks and seems to be better updated for some countries, which is very ironic, but the Polish ranks omitting the deprecated ones in edition 5 kind of confirms that. Moreover, the Greek ranks agree more in edition 5 ie the reservist ranks (efedros) currently in use (sminias, dekaneas and diopos respectively) are all at the same pay grade. Hence I used edition 5 as a reference with exception to Naftisa in the Navy which doesn't exist now. If I'm not wrong, the STANAG 2116 edition 4 also features the ranks arranged more in line with edition 5. Cheers. --Officer781 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you don't trust too much the web sites of the greek armed forces. There is a mess with the existence of many parallel career paths in the same ranks: Carrer NCO for the NCO Academy, conscripts, OPY/EPY (5 year contract) evolving into "long term volunteers", re-elnisted conscripts under a short-term contract, and recently EPOP ("professional hoplites"). I don't think the seniority level of the various almost parallel ranks has ever been documented in one single document other than the submission to NATO for STANAG.
And definitely do not trust at all the Wikipedia pages about the Hellenic Armed Forces, which are written or modified mostly by enthusiastic youngsters. This is the reason I rarely edit these pages.
BTW the rank of Sminias (HAF) is equivalent to Lochias (Army) and Kelefstis (Navy), not Dekaneas and Diopos.
SV1XV (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. Btw, the sminias I was referring to up there was the klirotos rank, not the career one. I was thinking during the image name change on wikimedia commons that instead of naming it in NATO pay grade which is hard to confirm since there's no definite source other than NATO for STANAG, which in itself to me seems to be flawed as well, should we rename the other ranks images according to their rank names instead (eg GR-Army-Δεκανέας.svg, etc. Some of the questionable ranks for other NATO countries such as poland and italy have already been named according to rank name rather than NATO pay grade)? --Officer781 (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the naming option you propose makes sense. Only drawback is that it leads to longish filenames, which I dislike. SV1XV (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah. but the other countries' ranks for NATO also have longish names I believe. Not a problem. ;)--Officer781 (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Reverted the ranks to STANAG 2116 Edition 6. --Officer781 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Romanian "Maistri militari" are not WO but OR[edit]

Hi there and happy new year!!! As you can see here [10] and here [11], they absolutely are not warrant officers but simple other ranks (OR), the only WO classiefied by the NATO-STANAG 2116 belong just to the U.S. Armed Forces. They must be integrated within the NCOs template, as sourced, but unfortunately I'm not able to do that. Thank you in advance!!! --Nicola Romani (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Done--Officer781 (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Well done! I own a *.pdf copy of the NATO-STANAG 2116 ed. 6 of 25 february 2010, do you have an updated version? --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I use an internet copy of STANAG 2116 Edition 6 for reference. :/ I don't have an updated version. Do you need it for anything? --Officer781 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Mhmhmhmh... just to check if correspond to my original NATO version. Thank you! --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I invite you to go to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#NATO_Army_warrant_officer_templates and argue the case out ;).--Officer781 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
25 February 2010 is the latest STANAG 2116 version. STANAG's undergo a review every 3 years. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Mind you a review does not necessarily mean it will be changed. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Code of conduct[edit]

It is very frowned up on when I see the same user in conflict with me on practically an entire topic. If your intention is to help write the encyclopedia (which I assume it is) I strongly urge for you to use the talk page more. Templates for deletion or article edit summaries is not the right place to discuss. Reverts should be minimized and in fact avoided if possible. If you give me a reliable source to look at (like you did), I will be more than happy to agree to your proposal.

Mind you up to date information is nice but we also have to maintain a historic perspective. This is not right. "NATO doesn't use the terminology any more" would require a source. Also even if such a source exists you shouldn't remove the old definition. Instead both should be presented something like "This is what it is now / this is what it used to be". This way our coverage is more detailed. Consider how well old version is known with some people and how old texts or even current laws may reference it.

Just so you know, I created the entire series of articles on Ranks and Insignia of NATO and other such templates and articles that has to do with ranks about half a decade ago - so I really care that these articles are as complete and accurate as possible. It is not like I own these pages (in fact it is the opposite) but I want to be able to edit these pages without getting reverted like any other user.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Warrant Officers of NATO[edit]

As I now am convinced the warrant officer templates are worthy to keep, I think we need to put all the different countries' warrant officers all into the same category. Other than the countries which already have warrant officer templates, to aid in classifying warrant officers, these are the warrant officer ranks of the different countries:

  • Adjudant ranks of Belgium, France (in which rank system also includes Major) and The Netherlands
  • Офицерски кандидат ranks of Bulgaria
  • Warrant Officer ranks of Canada and United Kingdom (this is quite obvious ;))
  • zászlós ranks of Hungary
  • puskarininkis ranks of Lithuania
  • praporščak ranks of Slovenia

I apologize for the misconduct and look forward to the template revamp. Cheers,--Officer781 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not really what I'd call "misconduct". :) It is just that in my experience friction leads to everyone being unhappy. I too apologize if I have been unnecessarily harsh. You have a vast amount of knowledge on ranks while I have the experience with templates. We can make this work and create something amazing. :)
To be honest, I am unsure how we can compare ranks of countries in the absence of a STANAG or some other resource to guide us. We can however explain what each rank range means in terms of how they rank among that countries other ranks. Eventually the STANAG would catch up.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work![edit]

Very nice! Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparative military ranks of Korea[edit]

I have observed your last change: Comparative military ranks of Korea. It’s simple to find comparative military ranks to the NATO OF-system.

I do not know the quality of these pages:

This indicates that the former «translation» were more correct.

Regards Gryphonis (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

STANAG 2116[edit]

We can resume working on rank insignia. We probably want to centralize this discussion. Suggestions? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I need to know how the revamped templates would look like before I can offer any. Cheers.--Officer781 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I need some ideas :) Should the ranks go left to right top to bottom and etc. I am thinking of creating a system which each level is a separate template. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army[edit]

I would welcome help in completing this table. I have already completed Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army/OF-10 and need help with Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army/OF-09 and onward. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

hmm. it's actually the most stabilising structure there is. (TiH4)[edit]

If you found a reference to that effect, I would appreciate it if you could add a reference so we don't end up with the same debate in future.JSR (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There aren't many papers mentioning hybridisation specifically for a molecule, but utilizing sd3 hybridisation rather than sp3 is more stabilising as the orbital energy levels are lower.--Officer781 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Which means you found a reference saying that? So include it there as well as in the Orbital hybridisation‎ section. Thanks.JSR (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It's already included in the explanation of exclusion of p-orbitals in the orbital hybridisation article, where all transition metals with the ability to are sdx hybridised. I have no reference directly saying titanium tetrahydride is sd3 hybridised because there are hardly any specific analyses on molecules available. There are however, generalized hybridisation articles such as the one already mentioned.--Officer781 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, it's pretty hard to have much on TiH4 as it just barely exists.JSR (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
ok, no problem. Yeah sometimes it's difficult to find references for things such as those.--Officer781 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Officer781. You have new messages at Jasper Deng's talk page.
Message added 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd put this on the article talk page instead. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Orbital hybridisation[edit]

Hello. I saw your comment on PE spectra on my talk page, but you reverted it before I could reply so I will comment here. You have done a good job in finding recent references, and I want to read the papers by Weinhold et al before giving an opinion. Which I cannot do this week since I am travelling and using a hotel computer with no Adobe installed to read PDFs of journal articles. Probably it will be well into January before I am actually ready to give an informed opinion. Dirac66 (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't rationalise his reasoning, so I reverted the edits. I don't think hybridisation can be applied to PE spectra of molecules with more than one non-terminal atoms. If you want, you can find the link here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ed200491q. Also another link here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WSf3OW_MmGsJ:pagesperso.lcp.u-psud.fr/hiberty/Cours/VBTheory.pdf+&hl=en&gl=sg&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj15OnpxBEfREZvBtO0Jup9EsezGrPKIZ5Z0tUZwvCla6w-SGthIgi_GRKKneH38tH8EEAvQYkh8jvjxHIdsnHvD2QYltPkvcmdes4TdHFR5D9kcNoxz9WG8IhlsYiHaCMbB-7d&sig=AHIEtbTAEL5eraVKO0Qk6yHNJJy4BOSIZg

Valence Bond Theory[edit]

Greetings. I have been keeping an eye on many of your edits to articles that have some relation to Valence Bond Theory, but have been too busy to look in real detail. However, you have recently made an edit with the summary "all modern VBT techniques use the coulson-fischer or similar wave functions". This is simply not correct. There is a big difference of opinion between people like David Cooper, who favour the spin-coupled approach using what is often now called the "VB-delocal" approach, and people like Philippe Hiberty, who favour the "VB-local" approach arguing for what he calls strictly localised orbitals. In the former case, the ionic structures make little or often no contribution, while in the latter they are important. In the breathing orbital VB approach Hiberty argues that strictly localised orbitals are really required. Both approaches are described as "modern VB". We need to remain neutral in this argument on wikipedia, although I have strong views outside WP. That is why I preferred the wording "and possibly ionic structures" over your "with bond-polarities included in the calculation" as mine allows both approaches while yours favours the "VB-delocal" approach. I have reverted your edit. If you want to discuss this, do so here and I will join in here. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your recent edit to Resonance (chemistry). Your edit summary is "it appears spin-coupled theory can do away with almost all of the resonance structures, not just for benzene". For benzene, the spin-coupled method generates 5 structures, which are essentially the two Kekule and the three Dewar structures. None of the ionic structures are included yet the energy is very close to what would be obtained if they were. It does not do away with resonance structures. It interprets them in a new way. I think the spin-coupled method needs to be mentioned in the article. The paper in Nature by Cooper et al and the sort of guest editorial on it by Roy McWeeny are highly notable. I am not reverting it since I do not understand what you are getting at. Could I suggest that you engage more with other editors? You did not comment on my point above on 5 January and I have seen other examples where you do not engage but just carry on. You are doing a lot of good work, but you do not own the articles that you are constantly editing, and others need to be involved. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I apparently thought that SCVB interprets this "new way" only for benzene when it does so for every other compound, so I reverted my benzene-specific edits. I am only now getting to know about VB methods. About owning the articles, yes I relaxed the stance after realizing the mistakes there. --Officer781 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
On a side note I don't have sufficient knowledge about SCVB to know where to include it in the resonance article. I apologise about that.--Officer781 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Officer781. You have new messages at Bduke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bduke (Discussion) 01:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Officer781. You have new messages at Bduke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bduke (Discussion) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sulfur dioxide bonding[edit]

You may care to take a look at the sulfur dioxide talk page. Regards Axiosaurus (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

saw your comment- thanks Axiosaurus (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Glad to help.--Officer781 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

“hmm.”[edit]

Could you explain what did you mean with [12] that deviated from provisions of WP:CONTEXTLINK and damaged a grammar in yet another phrase? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

ok, I'm sorry. I wanted to make the bolded part reflect the article. I think the common term for it is orbital hybridization rather than hybridization, but that's a technicality that I don't normally care about. As for the grammar, someone changed "the" to "this" and I thought not having that sounded correct.--Officer781 (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vietnamese military ranks and insignia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/United Kingdom[edit]

I removed the reference in this template because it is undefined. It is not defined on the article pages (at least on Royal Navy officer rank insignia) it is used on either. An undefined reference in a template isn't a good idea. I do not understand what its purpose was. — JJJ (say hello) 03:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

template {{MolecularGeometry}}[edit]

Hi You've added the categories normal valent / hypervalent to both main group and transition metals. I find the use of hypervalent odd in regard to t metals is that hyper as in more than 8 electrons or more than 18 or more than 32? And what about lanthanides where do they fit in? Axiosaurus (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hypervalent for transition metals is more than 12 (ie more than what the s and d orbitals can normally hold). Refer to the Orbital Hybridisation page whereby the latest calculations indicate that transition metals only utilize s and d (analogous to p in main group) orbitals. Lanthanides are not included in the template as of now as their bonding is poorly understood. --Officer781 (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
OK! Interesting paper from Weinhold, new to me. Out of curiosity is there any one supporting/opposing Weinhold? And has O'Donnell published in a peer reviewed journal? However I think that wikipedia is on its own in classifying transition metals as hypervalent. This use of the term hypervalent isn't even in the hypervalent article which is where I was expecting to find it.
To broaden this a little bit, the template for me is a geometry template and categorising geometries by bonding type seems irrelevant. Geometry is an observable, whereas bonding type is just a theory, and lanthanides shouldn't be excluded just because the theorists haven't caught up! Axiosaurus (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)