Template talk:Electronic structure methods

Physics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Chemistry Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Would this

Should Density matrix renormalization group be here? It seems rather specialised and not comparable to the others. --Bduke 07:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I second this, DMRG is not any of the standard electronic structure methods.--P.wormer 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree as well and have removed it; the DMRG article itself states that is still restricted to 1D and limited 2D systems --WilliamDParker 13:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be better as a footer? --WilliamDParker 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

k·p perturbation theory is incredibly widely used, although not particularly deep or profound or difficult. I think most people would call it an "electronic structure method", albeit not ab-initio. Does it belong on this template? Any thoughts? :-) --Steve (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly neutral on this proposal, but I would not want to make the template too large. I would prefer to see it restricted to methods that are applied to solids, molecules and atoms, while perhaps keeping methods that are applied largely or even only to molecules. --Bduke (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well with one neutral vote and no objections, I'm tentatively putting it in. It's certainly a solids-only technique (useless for molecules); but on the other hand, this is "Electronic structure methods", not "Molecular electronic structure methods", and this technique is very widely used on the solids front. I don't think the template is too large yet, but if it were, I think there are better ways to shorten it without loss of diversity or content--e.g., by replacing

Post-Hartree-Fock. Further thoughts? --Steve (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I woud favour the use of

Post-Hartree-Fock, as it would avoid people trying to add all the other P-HF methods. --Bduke (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Korringa–Kohn–Rostoker method (KKR) is also widely used for electronic band structure calculations. In the sense that many implementations exist. I am in favor of adding it to the template. Reason: It is listed in the category , but not in the corresponding template. This is more confusing than putting it in both, to my mind. --Johannes (talk) 12:11, 04 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this item from the template on these grounds:

1. The article about it has absolutely no detail and is only a sketch. 2. The method is not a general one, but limited to a few details of band structure in a few materials. Brews ohare (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the article to the template but I agree that it's probably not appropriate for the template - it's only relevant to 2D semiconductor heterostructures. However, it has been instrumental to breakthroughs within that field (QCLs, RTDs etc), so I'll look for an appropriate category for it. Papa November (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add some more? Augmented Plane Waves? Orthogonalized PW? Pseudopotential Methods? --83.34.214.48 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]