|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
"Where V is the number of valence electrons of the atom in isolation (atom in ground state);"
You can't start a paragraph with that non-statement. I remember reading this article about a year ago, and am pretty sure it was in a better state than now. What on Earth happened here? Some kind of disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I found out what happened: some vandal deleted the most important part of the introduction to the article. Strange that nobody noticed before me.
Is valence charge the same as formal charge?
Valence charge redirects here, but the article doesn't say that it is an alternate name, and from what I've found searching, they don't appear to be equivalent. However, I've been unable to find a good definition of valence charge. Does anybody know? Also, does Wikipedia have an article on the equivalent of electrostatic valency? -- Kjkolb 02:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
It's definitely subtract! Look at the examples that were given below, and even on other websites... Perhaps one might have remembered the equation as I did with "valence electrons minus the quantity of one half those electrons bonding plus the number nonbonding."
Merge with Lewis Structure?
Discussion of formal charge is almost useless outside of a discussion of Lewis structure... should this be merged? --ES2 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- This article should not be merged, formal charge deserves a separate article, just like the octet rule and resonance and lewis structure. When topics are related it should not mean they should merge. This reasoning will end up with octet rule, electron counting, resonance piled together in one big article which will look more like a chemistry text book than an encyclopedia. This merge must get undone and the lewis structure article should be improved. It barely contains internal links and contains duplicate information. V8rik 16:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Both articles formal charge and lewis structure have been expanded and serve their purpose V8rik 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"Half of Bonded Electrons" vs "Number of Covalent Bonds"?
"Invitation to Organic Chemistry" by A. William Johnson reports the formula to be "Formal Charge = number of valence electrons - number of unshared electrons - number of covalent bonds". It sure seems easier to count "3 covalent bonds" compared to "half of 6 bonded electrons", even though it's the same thing. Any objections to mentioning this in the article as another way to remember it? Seems like this would be far easier to use than the latter half of the article dealing with drawing circles. PS. I see the Valence Charge article uses this for the Formal Charge formula. JeramieHicks 22:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The alternative method is exactly the same as the regular method described except with some extra circle-drawing thrown in for no reason, and it takes up a ridiculous amount of space. Can someone justify, shorten, or delete this section please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)