I think it is quite hard to describe a molecular orbital without molecular orbital theory, since the former is a direct result of the latter. I would suggest making a synonym of since this has a more general meaning. Any opinions?

| |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with this, I don't see a necessity for there to be two tags. $\endgroup$ – ManishEarth May 12 '14 at 8:22
  • $\begingroup$ I agree as well. $\endgroup$ – tschoppi May 12 '14 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ I think merging those tags sounds reasonable. What about the orbitals tag? Should all the orbital-tags be unified or is a differentiation of general orbital matters and molecular orbital questions sensible? $\endgroup$ – Philipp May 12 '14 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ looking at the most popular question there, it is actually about orbitals in general, i.e. the AO function. Also orbitals can be conceptual involved in non-computational manner, so merging it onto MO theory might be overkill. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン May 12 '14 at 11:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Martin I was more thinking along the lines of having a general orbital-tag instead of fractionating the subject, like maybe merging molecular-orbital and molecular-orbital-theory into orbitals. But I understand that most questions about orbitals usually have a molecular-orbital-background, so I could see the good sense behind keeping the orbitals tag and the molecular-orbital-theory tag seperate. $\endgroup$ – Philipp May 12 '14 at 15:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .