Talk:Chemical bonding model
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Neologism edit
The issue of neologism was raised with this page's original title "molecular bonding model". Chemists often interchange the terms "chemical" and "molecular" as appropriate. In interest of staying with the encyclopedia motif I switched the title from "molecular bonding model" to "chemical bonding model" which is a more common term (and in the title of a number of books). I now worry that the way the page is written, to accommodate the new title, repeats too much of the same material as the "chemical bond" page. Should this information be incorporated into chemical bond? Is it possible to get an editor with an established chemistry background to offer an opinion?--OMCV (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Reconsideration edit
After spending some time on wikipedia I'm now pro-delete on this article. I started the article and argued to keep it. It was kind of people to let me have an opportunity to learn the system. This article is orphaned for a reason, if someone wanted to delete this I wouldn't oppose them.--OMCV (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- It could be merged to Chemical bond, which mostly talks about MO and VB. Summary of CFT and LFT (which the other article doesn't talk about) can be added as a new subsection. --D昌양 (Talk) 06:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
History of chemical bonding theory edit
I started a historical timeline today of the history of chemical bonding theories (after coming across a note in David Lindley's 2001 Boltzmann's Atom, which said that Josef Loschmidt innovated the double and triple line method of representing double and triple bonds), which might help to give this Wikipedia article direction:
If anyone knows who conceived of the 17th century “glued atom” bonding theory or the “stuck together by conspiring motion” theory, that Newton mentions, or other interesting bonding theories, please feel free to leave a note. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge and change to disambig edit
I have merged the content into covalent bond and changed this page to a disambiguation.--Officer781 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)