A user told me that my question, Hybridisation of coordination compounds, is not accepted on site.

On What topics can I ask about here? page, the types of question that are not allowed are :

  • Do-my-homework questions:

Not asking for homework, I am asking how to find hybridsation of coordination compounds.

  • Pitches for your own personal theories or work

If hybridsation was my theory I would not be asking this question.

  • Computational questions:


  • Personal medical questions are off-topic.


  • Legal questions relating to chemical substances and techniques are off-topic.


Ok, now the types of question that are allowed:

  • Questions asking for explanation of a chemistry concept

Yes, I am asking about the concept of hybridsation.

  • Questions relating to observed chemical phenomena


  • Questions about experimental techniques and technology


  • Questions about nomenclature, standards, et cetera pertaining to chemistry.

Yes hybridsation is something that pertains to chemistry.

So as you may see my question scores $0/5$ on question that are not allowed and scores $3/5$ on question that are allowed.

Now whether my question is duplicate or not,

Here is what I have asked : How can you know hybrisation of coordination compounds as predicted by hybridsation theory ?

Here is what the duplicate question answer : Why hybridsation is a not a good theory to predict properties of coordination compounds ?

Also from the accepted answer,

Let's consider, for example, a tetrahedral Ni(II) complex ($\mathrm{d^8}$), like $\ce{[NiCl4]^2-}$. According to hybridisation theory, the central nickel ion has $\mathrm{sp^3}$ hybridisation.


Moving on to Ni(II) octahedral complexes, like $\ce{[Ni(H2O)6]^2+}$, the typical explanation is that there is $\mathrm{sp^3d^2}$ hybridisation.

The author claims that nickel is hybridised to $\rm sp^3$ in first compound and $\rm sp^3d^2$ in second. How did he know that ? Somebody should know about it right ? What is the harm in spreading that knowledge ?

This is my question not why hybridsation is wrong.

Even if hybridsation is wrong, what is the harm in learning how chemists used it when it was still viable ? It is also not that I asking how Alchemy was done, hybridsation is relatively new theory.

I put up my case here, you decide whether my question is on-topic and duplicate or not.

Please be fair.

Thank you very much.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Please do note that duplicate questions are not off-topic. The very fact that a question similar to yours was found on the site suggests yours was as well. Duplication is not like closure, and might happen to anyone depending on how hard the question is to search. If the duplicate doesn't answer your question, please edit it and explain why your question is different. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Aug 26, 2017 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ @M.A.R. If you see my question, I did that. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2017 at 15:32
  • $\begingroup$ That wasn't my point, mostly a future reference. The point is that duplication doesn't mean your question is unacceptable, which is what you assumed in your slightly heated meta complaint. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Sep 2, 2017 at 19:39

1 Answer 1


I don't think the question is a good enough duplicate to be closed, but I also don't think it's a very good question either.

The case is pretty clear: hybridisation is wrong, therefore any explanation using this theory will be wrong. I'd be the first to down-vote any attempt invoking this concept. It's like brushing your teeth with a broom, you'll get a result, not necessarily the correct one.

From the comment thread below the question it is already clear that you won't accept this kind of answer. If you ask a question here, you need to accept that the answer might not be as simple as you want it to be.

In conclusion: it's not that your question is off-topic, it's just that beyond the answer that was linked, you won't get another answer.

But what's the harm?

Teaching and learning obsolete and wrong things is always harmful. There would never be progress and we would still live within the flat earth society.
It's better not knowing things than knowing the wrong things.

As for the last two points, you might dismiss them as petty semantics: atoms are never hybridised, orbitals are; hybridisation always follows geometry, never the other way around. (And for predicting the geometry you need a significantly better theory than hybridisation.)


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .