Talk:d electron count

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

First letter case[edit]

I anyone knows how to change the upper-case "D" to a lower-case "d" in the title this should be done.--OMCV (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you can. You can however always link to the article as d electron count. It is how the rules for the first letter work. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I figured it out form the pi back bonding page. The markup goes {{lowercase|π backbonding}}.--OMCV (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For consistency I have changed D to d on this talk page also. Dirac66 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis or merger material?[edit]

The article is obviously well intentioned, but it comes close to WP:synthesis or original thought, seems slightly contrived, and it overlaps with many other related articles. Here are some related articles: 18 electron rule, effective atomic number, Electron configuration, atomic electron configuration table, Tanabe-Sugano diagram (which has the schemes for each d-electron configuration). So I wonder if we should not distribute the contents and convert this article into a redirect. It also receives few edits, not because it is stable, but because it is archane (in my opinion).--Smokefoot (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for "d electron count" (in quotes) gave 33 200 results. This suggests that the term is used to some extent in the chemical literature, which does justify a Wikipedia article. I do think however that more references should be provided, which would help to show what parts are based on sources and what parts are original synthesis and should be removed as you suggest. Dirac66 (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the phrase is used a lot, so the question is whether we seek an article corresponding to each phrase? My concern really stems the dilution of effort and the problems with internal consistency that result from several closely related articles. Thanks for the note. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)