Talk:d electron count

First letter case

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?

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)

Not to mention that the first section is based on a misunderstanding in the first place: there is no reason why one should expect the configurations of free atoms to be the same as those in complexes, because transition metal atoms have multiple energetically close configurations and the chemical environment can make a difference as to which is the ground state. All this is well-understood (it's even in Feynman's lectures on physics), so there are no "serious conflicts with experimental observations" as the article would have it. Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Atomic versus molecular configurations

The final comment in the last section by Double Sharp is correct and suggests how to fix the article. The present sections "Standard electron configuration perspective" and "Ligand field perspective" are described as if they were two ways - the first incorrect and the second more correct - of describing electron configurations in molecules. In fact as pointed out by Double Sharp, the first "perspective" refers to the configurations of free atoms, and the configurations described are the correct experimental configurations - for atoms and not for molecules.

So I propose to change the first section title from "Standard electron configuration perspective" to "Electron configurations of transition metal atoms". I would replace the summary from general and inorganic chemistry textbooks which was deleted Dec.13, but clarify that it is only valid for free atoms, for which there are many references including the NIST tables of atomic energy levels.

The second section could then be renamed "Ligand field description of transition metal complexes", and start with a clear statement that the electron configurations of TM atoms in molecules usually differs from that of free TM atoms.

I will wait a few days for comments before proceeding to edit the article again. Dirac66 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Give it a couple of days and proceed. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I welcome Dirac66's plan to revise the article. Aagree that the section "Standard electron configuration perspective" comes across as almost a rant. Without having read the article closely, one issue that might be considered is that chemists talk about electron configuration for gas phase metals and their ions (the left hand side of the Tanabe Sugano diagrams) but such a situation is rar

My other more general comment is that maybe this article should be converted to a redirect, merging some content into one of the following: 18e rule, Crystal field theory, ligand field theory, Electron configuration, Valence electron, Periodic table (electron configurations), Electron configurations of the elements (data page), Tanabe–Sugano diagram. There is a lot of overlapping content and article maintenance is problematic (wack-a-mole situation). The issue is not just maintenance, but its confusing to readers, IMHO.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have now revised the part dealing with free neutral atoms. Still to come soon: ionized atoms. Dirac66 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Ionized atoms now done too. Dirac66 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Arrangements

"However, this explanation is not supported by the facts, as tungsten (W) has a Madelung-following d4 s2 configuration and not d5 s1, and niobium (Nb) has an anomalous d4 s1 configuration that does not give it a half-filled or completely filled subshell.[7]". It may be better to switch "this explanation is not supported by the facts" to something along the lines of "these phenomena are not consistent", as it seems the two examples given agree with the earlier statements. It shows that W and Cr, despite both being group 6 have different arrangements but initial statement still applies: "There are a few exceptions with only one electron (or zero for palladium) in the ns orbital in favor of completing a half or a whole d shell.". From what I understand Nb's electron configuration comes from unfavorable pairing energies. Just because these are phenomena don't always apply, does not mean that the "explanation is not supported by the facts". Groggler (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)