Talk:Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals/Archive 1
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Name of this page
When I created this page I called it "A". On a good faith basis User:Wer900 then moved it to "B", since it does contain such tables. I've moved it back to A, for the time being, as the text accompanying the tables is currently focused on metalloids, rather than metals, metalloids and nonmetals. It could be moved back to B once the text accompanying the tables is adjusted to give a balanced commentary on all three types of element. Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
A = Metalloid (comparison of properties with those of metals and nonmetals)
B = Comparison between metals, metalloids, and nonmetals
- Just notice his ideas could be right. See Wp:TITLEFORMAT--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I'd change it to Metalloid properties compared with those of metals and nonmetals Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Sulfates of boron
The first binary boron sulfide is B2S2O9, a layer compound with linked BO4 and SO4 tetrahedra, was reported in 2013, the authors draw the analogy with phyllosilicates.(doi:10.1002/anie.201307056) (the 1940's formulation would probably be B2O (SO4)2 , an ionic basic sulfate. Simillarly the hydrogen sulfate of boron is not B3+ (HSO4-)3 but is covalent, "tri hydrogen sulfatoborane". This forms the superacid HB(HSO4)4 in anhydrous sulfuric. I think the simple "forms sulfates" criterion is meant to give some measure of the ability of an element to form sulfate salts, however in the case of boron there is no evidence of such salts, rather that boron is behaving as it usually does, a covalently bonding odd-ball. Axiosaurus (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Noble gases- are they in or are they out- its not clear
The lede suggests that the noble gases are included in the comparison the properties lists do not include them. Are they in or are they out? Axiosaurus (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- They're in but I haven't made this clear enough (yet). Thank you for noticing. Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Metalloids as nonmetals
The following sentence appears in the Chemical subsection of Comparative properties:
- However, some authors count metalloids as nonmetals or a sub-category of nonmetals. In this case most of the chemical properties of metalloids would be regarded as weakly nonmetallic.
It seems to me that this comment could also apply to physical properties, but maybe I'm missing something. YBG (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- When I reorganized and combined the narrative information, I put the two "some authors" statements together and removed the specific references to physical/chemical properties. Let me know if there are problems with this. YBG (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Shared and anomalous properties
These three sections are well-organized, but a bit dense. Only after reading them several times over a period of a couple of weeks did I finally recognize the parallel structure. Here's one way of dealing with this (using metals as an example):
- Metals appear lustrous (as is, or beneath any surface patina); form mixtures (alloys) when combined with other metals; tend to lose or share electrons when they react with other substances; and each forms at least one predominately basic oxide.
- Most metals are silvery looking, high density, relatively soft and easily deformed solids with good electrical and thermal conductivity, closely packed structures, low ionisation energies and electronegativities, and are found naturally in combined states.
- Metals with anomalous properties
- Some metals appear coloured (Cu, Cs, Au), have low densities (e.g. Be, Al) or very high melting points, are liquids at or near room temperature, are brittle (e.g. Os, Bi), not easily machined (e.g. Ti, Re), or are noble (hard to oxidise) or have nonmetallic structures (Mn and Ga map to, respectively, white P and I).
- Uniquely among metals, mercury has an ionisation energy that is higher than those of the nonmetals sulfur and selenium; plutonium increases its electrical conductivity when heated, in the temperature range of around –175 to +125 °C (metals normally reduce their electrical conductivity when heated).
Different ways to break the four sections up include (in order of increasing 'breakiness'):
- New sentence with no other marking (the status quo)
- New sentence with bold face for the first word(s)
- New line (as 'Most' and 'Uniquely among' above)
- New line with bold face for the first word(s)
- New line preceded by a semicolon header (as 'Metals with anomalous properties above)
I'm not sure what combination is the best. A few other ideas
- While trying to merge text from Periodic table (metals and nonmetals), it seemed easier to digest bulleted lists than paragraphs.
- I considered a table (metals/metalloids/nonmetals cols) x (All/Most/Some/Unique rows), but maybe too similar to comparative section?
Anyway, I'm still at a loss as to what is the best way to reorganize these paragraphs to make them easier to read and understand. Any other comments or suggestions would be much appreciated. YBG (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Formation of organometallics - is this a useful criterion?
Funny one this. If organometal means invovles a C-M bond then obviously it is a useless criterion, as metalloids and non-metals aren't metals. If it means forms a bond to carbon then some if not all non-metals (exclusing noble gases) do this quite well. C-O, bonds, C-S etc well known, as are C-X (halogens). So what is the point of this criterion? Axiosaurus (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I recall there is some fuzziness in the organometallic literature as to its scope i.e. as to whether it extends into the metalloids. Rochow (The metalloids, 1966) said, 'Hydrocarbon derivatives of the metals have played an important part in inorganic chemistry for over a century, and since the earliest days the metalloids have figured prominently in those developments...The term "organometallic' traditionally embraces both metals and metalloids, because in this area of chemistry the metalloids stand squarely with the metals.' (pp. 36-37) Sandbh (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- you are missing the point re non-metals. If organometal means bond to carbon then these are well known for non- metals. Therefore all categories of elemnts fporm organometals. Did Rochow really say this was a determining feature of metals and metalloids as mnon- metals did not form organometal compounds? Axiosaurus (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rochow didn't say anything about nonmetals because the concept and scope of organometallic chemistry was reasonably well understood, being essentially confined to metals and metalloids.
- you are missing the point re non-metals. If organometal means bond to carbon then these are well known for non- metals. Therefore all categories of elemnts fporm organometals. Did Rochow really say this was a determining feature of metals and metalloids as mnon- metals did not form organometal compounds? Axiosaurus (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Organmetal doesn't mean bond to carbon. This is an extract from the scope and editorial policy of the ACS journal, Organometallics:
- 'For the purposes of this journal, an "organometallic" compound will be defined as one in which there is a bonding interaction (ionic or covalent, localized or delocalized) between one or more carbon atoms of an organic group or molecule and a main group, transition, lanthanide, or actinide metal atom (or atoms). Following longstanding tradition, organic derivatives of the metalloids (boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, and tellurium) will be included in this definition. Furthermore, manuscripts dealing with metal-containing compounds that do not contain metal–carbon bonds will be considered if there is a close relationship between the subject matter and the principles and practice of organometallic chemistry. Such compounds may include, inter alia, representatives from the following classes: molecular metal hydrides; metal alkoxides, thiolates, amides, and phosphides; metal complexes containing organo-group 15 and 16 ligands; metal nitrosyls. Papers dealing with certain aspects of organophosphorus, organoselenium, and organosulfur chemistry also will be considered. In evaluating submissions that deal with subject matter that is peripheral to main stream organometallic chemistry, the primary consideration is whether the manuscript is of interest to our readers.'
- So, at least in the eyes of this journal, organometallics essentially = metals and metalloids. Many organometallic texts have similar scope and coverage statements in their introductory chapters. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I was trying to get from you, we aren't comparing chemistry just getting bamboozled by a definition. To avoid the silly entry "not applicable" to non metals I suggest the table row should be "bond to carbon" and note all groups form bonds.Axiosaurus (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I follow better what you're saying. I'll have a closer look at the wording in the table (will also follow up on your other comment re AsPO4). Sandbh (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The rationale for the organometallic compound row was that compounds having one or more metals or metalloids bonded to a carbon in an organic group have properties distinct from compounds having one or more nonmetals (only) bonded to a carbon in an organic group. Sufficiently different to form the basis of an entire subfield of chemistry ie organometallic chemistry. So, yes, while the chemistry of metalloids is predominately nonmetallic in nature, this is not so when they are bonded to carbon atoms in organic groups---in these cases the compounds involved behave more like their metal counterparts. How about this then (no access to a PC right now otherwise would've done at same time):
Combined with carbon
Metals: Most form carbides; when bonded to carbon in an organic group, form organometallic compounds
Metalloids: As per metals
Nonmetals: Form carbon-nonmetal compounds (e.g. CO2; CS)note or organic compounds (e.g. CH4; C6H12O6)
- Note: Phosphorus is known to form a carbide in thin films.
- Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Chemical properties
I changed "with hydrogen", "with oxygen" etc back to the terms "hydrides", "oxides" etc, mainly because (a) when comparing the properties of metals and nonmetals in the literature, it is usual to refer to the terms/list the properties of the "hydrides", "oxides" etc, rather than using the form "with [insert subject]" etc (see, for example, Kneen WR, Rogers MJW & Simpson P 1972, upon which columns 2 and 4 are based); and (b) the classical terminology makes the summaries of the properties easier to phrase. Sandbh (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Physical properties
Something doesn't seem quite right. A number of physical properties in the comparison table use the word 'metalic' or some variation of it. Something more descriptive would be helpful. It doesn't really say much to say that with regards to property 'X', metals have metalic X-ness and nonmetals have nonmetalic X-ness. Seems to mean the same thing as "Most metals are like metals, whereas most nonmetals are like nonmetals. However, metalloids, on the otherhand ...." Anyway, here are the things that I think could be improved:
Allotropy
- ✓ Allotropy -- What is 'metallic' and 'nonmetalic' allotropy? Isn't there a better way to describe this? A quick look at Allotropy didn't provide any answers.
- Right then. I had a go at this one. Sandbh (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I still don't understand 'metalic'/'nonmetalic' allotropes. They must mean something more than just 'allotopes that metals/nonmetals have'. Is there some significant difference between the two? If so, what is it? YBG (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. A metallic allotrope has the physical properties of a metal (looks like a metal; conducts electricity like a metal) and is considered to be a metal. A "well-behaved" non-metallic allotrope (e.g. ozone) has the physical properties of a nonmetal, and is regarded as such. Some nonmetals close to the dividing line between metals and nonmetals have allotropes that are conspicuously more "metallic" e.g. black phosphorus v white phosphorus. Better? Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's helpful. I'll ponder it and see if I can't improve the description YBG (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I've reworded it and I think it reads smoothly. Please check it for accuracty. YBG (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've reworded this again. I think the original approach, as amended, was double-counting properties mentioned elsewhere. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is still a problem. There are two things that need to be considered with allotropy: (1) whether the element has multiple allotropes and (2) the metallicity of the allotropes of an element. As far as (2) goes, it can be assumed that at least one allotrope of a metal has metallic properties and at least one allotrope of a nonmetal has nonmetalic properties. The interesting information is that a few metals near the metalloid border also have an allotrope with nonmetallic properties and a few nonmetals near the metalloid border also have an allotrope with metallic properties. The current wording conflates these two together:
- Metalllic: "about half have allotropes with metallic properties"
- Nonmetallic: "majority have allotropes with nonmetallic properties"
- For the present, I am removing all but the bare statement about the existance of allotropes. I think we still need to say something about the existance of anomalous allotropes, but my previous attempt to express this don't seem to have communicated clearly. YBG (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I saw this after my edits of a few minutes ago. Will have a look again. Sandbh (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- How does it look now? Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I saw this after my edits of a few minutes ago. Will have a look again. Sandbh (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is still a problem. There are two things that need to be considered with allotropy: (1) whether the element has multiple allotropes and (2) the metallicity of the allotropes of an element. As far as (2) goes, it can be assumed that at least one allotrope of a metal has metallic properties and at least one allotrope of a nonmetal has nonmetalic properties. The interesting information is that a few metals near the metalloid border also have an allotrope with nonmetallic properties and a few nonmetals near the metalloid border also have an allotrope with metallic properties. The current wording conflates these two together:
- I've reworded this again. I think the original approach, as amended, was double-counting properties mentioned elsewhere. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. A metallic allotrope has the physical properties of a metal (looks like a metal; conducts electricity like a metal) and is considered to be a metal. A "well-behaved" non-metallic allotrope (e.g. ozone) has the physical properties of a nonmetal, and is regarded as such. Some nonmetals close to the dividing line between metals and nonmetals have allotropes that are conspicuously more "metallic" e.g. black phosphorus v white phosphorus. Better? Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I still don't understand 'metalic'/'nonmetalic' allotropes. They must mean something more than just 'allotopes that metals/nonmetals have'. Is there some significant difference between the two? If so, what is it? YBG (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Right then. I had a go at this one. Sandbh (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:Still doesn't work well. Consider this statement "around half have allotropes with metallic properties". Suppose the breakdown is as follows (using patently false numbers which are intentionally powers of two)
- 31 elements in total being considered
- 16 exist in only one form, i.e., they "have no allotropes" or "exist in only one allotropic form"
- 8 exist in two or more allotropic forms, all of which have metalic properties
- 4 exist in two allotropic forms, one with metalic properties and one with nonmetalic properties
- 2 exist in three allotropic forms, two with metalic properties and one with nonmetalic properties
- 1 exists in three allopropic forms, one with metalic properties and two with nonmetlaic properties
- Now, how many of these elements "have allotropes with metalic properties"?
- I can argue for a number of different answers, depending on how you disambiguate "have allotropes with metalic properties"
- 15 = 8+4+2+1, because they have multiple forms and at least one is metalic
- 10 = 8+2, because (4) and (1) only have a single allotrope (not allotropes) with metalic properties
- 31 since the 16 can be said to have an allotrope with metalic properties
- But two statements can be unambiguously made
- 15 have multiple allotropic forms
- 7 of these have one or more allotropic forms with anomalously nonmetalic properties
- Are you able to see that the statement "X elements have allotropes with metalic properties" can be understood in more than one way? That is what I was trying to get across. YBG (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Kind of, but not really. As per the article, around half the metals (with known structures) have metallic allotropes. A few metals, namely Sn and Bi, have one semi metallic and one semiconducting allotrope, respectively. And that is it. If there were any metals with other semimetallic, semiconducting or (as in your fictional example) nometallic allotropes, we would say so, but there aren't in RL (not that we know of) so no more needs to be said, does it? Sandbh (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tried using more specific phrasing. Does it read better now? (it looks that way to me) Sandbh (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, that is an improvement. I've made some more simplifications to the metal and nonmetal entries, so that they both have two statements
- about the portion of the category which have multiple allotropic forms. This statement is much simpler if we for the present we simply talk about the existance of allotropes and don't make any statement about the properties of they display.
- about the few which have an allotrope with anomalous properties. I simplified this statement also by removing the specifics about which properties are anomalous, that seems a bit too much detail for a table like this. If additional info is needed IMHO it should be in a note rather than in the body of the table.
- Notice I haven't said anything specifically about the metals whose allotropes all display metallic properties, nor about the nonmetals whose allotropes all display nonmetalic properties. This can be inferred easily from points 1 and 2.
- I haven't done anything about the metalloids, thinking it would be best to try to get the wording of the metals and nonmetals nailed down and then see how the metalloid description can be adjusted to make it more. YBG (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still am not satisfied with your wording "one or more allotropes". Let's for a minute consider tin. Which is the correct statement, "it has four allotropes" or "it has three allotropes". I can actually use both accurately.
- Tin is a chemical element with symbol Sn and atomic number 50. It has four allotropes. The most common form, β-tin or 'white tin', has metallic properties. The less common α-tin or 'grey tin' has nonmetallic properties. Two additional allotropes, γ-tin and σ-tin, exist at temperatures above 161 °C.
- Tin is a malleable, ductile and highly crystalline silvery-white metal. This form is known as β-tin or 'white tin'. It has three allotropes, α-tin or 'grey tin', which is stable below 13.2 °C; and γ-tin and σ-tin, which exist at temperatures above 161 °C.
- In the first case, I said "it has four allotropes" because the antecedent of "it" is "the element tin". In the second case, I said "it has three allotropes" because the antecedent of "it" is "the most common form, β-tin or 'white tin'". I am presuming that in our chart, the implied subject of each statement is the element itself, not its most common form. That is why I edited it to "multiple allotropic forms". In order to say "one or more", IMHO there needs to be a qualifier like the word 'alternate' or something, so it would read something like "one or more alternate allotropic forms" or "one or more alternate forms" or "one or more alternate allotropes". There are no doubt other ways of expressing this. YBG (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still am not satisfied with your wording "one or more allotropes". Let's for a minute consider tin. Which is the correct statement, "it has four allotropes" or "it has three allotropes". I can actually use both accurately.
- Head slap! Brilliant! Yes, it's the element itself (certainly in the case of allotropy). Have edited and trimmed once again to reflect this. BTW, and funnily enough, tin was what I had in mind when I made my edit introducing the phrase "one or more". γ- and σ-tin (if the latter exists; I can't find mention of it in the references I have at hand) are high pressure forms of tin. The table, and certainly allotropy, is for the elements at atmospheric pressure (see the note to "Allotropy"). Hence tin has two allotropes. And Bi is the same: semimetallic α-, and the semiconducting thin-film form. Sandbh (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I thought there was a mental block ... been there, done that. Next question: How many of the metalloids have allotropes at stp? And then, what should the 2nd bullet for metalloids say? YBG (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- If we treat the set of metalloids as being B, Si, Ge, As, Sb and Te, then all have allotropes. My original phrasing of "All or nearly all" was designed to accommodate some fuzziness as to precisely which elements were metalloids. Frex, if metalloids are regarded as being all of the elements adjacent to the metalloid line, then Al doesn't have any allotropes, hence "All or nearly all" works although the rest of that expression wouldn't work for polonium, which only has metallic allotropes, as far as is known. For the purposes of this table, let us presume Al is a metal and that Se (which is commonly recognized as a metalloid in the environmental chemistry literature), is a nonmetal, as the table currently shows. We already note that Se has an allotrope with some metalloid-like properties and I think that is enough of an accommodation.
- In light of how the first metalloid dot point reads now, I think the second dot point is fine. Your thoughts?
- Oh, I removed the "at stp" caveat and reinstated a simplified form of the note re "at atmospheric pressure for elements with known structures". Not making a reference to temperature allows us to more easily accommodate gray Sn (which requires colder temperatures to form); and to accommodate a significant number of metal allotropes formed at higher temperatures, the presence of which is generally recognized in metal working and metallurgy, including bizarro plutonium, the metal from hell, with its six troublesome allotropes (five formed at higher temperatures). I haven't been counting high pressure allotropes because these are mostly obscure and not encountered outside of a diamond anvil (and don't shed much light on the differences between metals, metalloids, and nonmetals, because all of the elements blur into metals at high enough pressures). Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the metalloid section of allotropy concentrates rather too much on band structure (insulator, semi-metal, semi-conducting) rather than general metal/metalloid/nonmetal characterization. But let's leave that aside for not.
- Looking at what we've got in the metal and nonmetal boxes in the allotropy row, I notice:
- The 1st bullet says something about the prevalence of allotropy in the category.
- For nonmetals (or for metals): most (about half) have allotropes
- For metalloids, that would be: all have allotropes (I think we can ignore the less commonly recognized metalloids)
- The 2nd bullet says something about anomalous allotropes, i.e., allotropes with properties that aren't characteristic of their category.
- For nonmetals (and for metals): a few (...) have one or two allotropes with some metalloid-like properties
- 1st, I'm wondering about the use of "metalloid-like". Is this the best way to characterize this? Or should we say "less metalic" and "less nonmetalic"? Or "more like nonmetals" and "more like nonmetals"? Or "more nonmetalic" and "more metalic"?
- 2nd, how do we make a similar statement about metaloids? Is it that some allotropes stray over the line into metallic properties and some stray over the line to nonmetallic? Or that some elements have a collection of allotropes with widely divergent characteristics in terms of metallicity?
- The 1st bullet says something about the prevalence of allotropy in the category.
- I'm not sure what to make of all of this, but I think I'd like to consider the following questions.
- Is there a better way to phrase the 2nd bullet for metals and nonmetals?
- Can we make the 1st metalloid bullet a bare statement about the existance of allotropy?
- What is the best 2nd bullet statement for metalloids?
- Anyway, that's my 2¢, which I'm hoping isn't completely worthless. YBG (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, that is an improvement. I've made some more simplifications to the metal and nonmetal entries, so that they both have two statements
- Tried using more specific phrasing. Does it read better now? (it looks that way to me) Sandbh (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Kind of, but not really. As per the article, around half the metals (with known structures) have metallic allotropes. A few metals, namely Sn and Bi, have one semi metallic and one semiconducting allotrope, respectively. And that is it. If there were any metals with other semimetallic, semiconducting or (as in your fictional example) nometallic allotropes, we would say so, but there aren't in RL (not that we know of) so no more needs to be said, does it? Sandbh (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- How about this then:
- Metals
- Around half have allotropes
- A few of these (Sn, Bi, most prominently) have some physical properties more characteristic of metalloids
- Metalloids
- All form allotropes, including some with physical properties more characteristic of nonmetals
- Nonmetals
- Majority form allotropes
- Some of these (C, P, Se, I) have some physical properties more characteristic of metalloids or metals
- For nonmetals, "majority" (11 of 17) is a little better than "most" IMO. Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Starting to look real close!
- IMO, 'majority' means 51% or more; 'most' seems considerably more than that (but there may be a dialect difference or it could be my subtle bias in favor of shorter words)
- It depends if you think 11 of 17 is high enough to warrant a 'most'. Because 'most' is shorter than 'majority' it seems more emphatic, whereas majority (longer, more syllables) is a milder, more nuanced word. I was just looking at thesaurus.com and the synonyms for most and majority confirm my impressions. 11 of 17 doesn't justify a most. Sandbh (talk)
- Yea, 'most' is over the top. If my 'over half' doesn't work, let's discuss below. YBG (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC) (Over half is very good -- Sandbh)
- It depends if you think 11 of 17 is high enough to warrant a 'most'. Because 'most' is shorter than 'majority' it seems more emphatic, whereas majority (longer, more syllables) is a milder, more nuanced word. I was just looking at thesaurus.com and the synonyms for most and majority confirm my impressions. 11 of 17 doesn't justify a most. Sandbh (talk)
- How critical is it to state 'most prominently'? Would "(e.g., Sn, Bi)" work as well? If not, "(most prominently Sn, Bi)" seems to flow a bit better.
- Fairly. I wanted to avoid having to refer to brittle metals such as Mn, since brittleness is a hallmark of metalloids, whereas only Sn and Bi have semimetallic or semiconducting allotropes. Only 2 of many metals and 1 of 17 nonmetals have semimetallic allotropes whereas 4 of 6 metalloids do. I kind of like your option 2; how about "(Sn, Bi especially)" ? Sandbh (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still puzzled by the prominence of band structure (semimetalic/semiconducting) in this discussion rather than thinking about general properties of matallicity, which includes band structure among other things. Let's discuss below. YBG (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fairly. I wanted to avoid having to refer to brittle metals such as Mn, since brittleness is a hallmark of metalloids, whereas only Sn and Bi have semimetallic or semiconducting allotropes. Only 2 of many metals and 1 of 17 nonmetals have semimetallic allotropes whereas 4 of 6 metalloids do. I kind of like your option 2; how about "(Sn, Bi especially)" ? Sandbh (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your wording seems to me to imply the following
- some allotropes of nonmetallic elements are rather more like metalloids and some rather more like metals
- some allotropes of metalloid elements are more like nonmetals, but none would go the other direction into metal territory
- some allotropes of metallic elements are more like metalloids, but none would stray into the nonmetal area
- (I'm not proposing these wordings, just verifying that my understanding is correct)
- I broadly agree, with some reservations as to the meaning of the expression ' "rather" more'.
- I'd prefer (ok, strongly prefer) having two bullets for
nonmetalsmetalloids -- split it at the comma
- Agree, on the basis you meant to say metalloids (Yup -- YBG)
- I'd like to avoid using 'some' twice under nonmetals -- is there a way to change the first one, say to 'A few of these' or 'Many of these' or 'Several of these'? How many of the 11 have an allotrope with metalloid or metallic properties?
- Let's make the second one 'a few' and see how that looks. Only 4 of the 11---those listed. Sandbh (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think 'four of these' works great. If not, let's discuss below. YBG (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let's make the second one 'a few' and see how that looks. Only 4 of the 11---those listed. Sandbh (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your patience in working through this. YBG (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Sandbh (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've tried to incorporate almost all of your ideas or my responses in the table below. If anything needs more discussion, let's continue it below rather than further cluttering the indenting structure above YBG (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Sandbh (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion continued
Property | Metals | Metalloids | Nonmetals |
---|---|---|---|
Current | Copied from article space 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
• around half have allotropes • a few (Sn, Bi) have one or two allotropes with some metalloid-like properties |
• all commonly recognised metalloids (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te) have semiconducting or nonmetallic (insulator) allotropes • Si, Ge, As and Sb also each have a semimetallic allotrope |
• most have allotropes[n 1] • some (C, P, Se, I) have one or two allotropes with some metalloid-like properties | |
Sandbh's suggestion | cut and pasted from above (presumably we'll add the wikilinks and the note later) | ||
• Around half have allotropes • A few of these (Sn, Bi, most prominently) have some physical properties more characteristic of metalloids |
All form allotropes, including some with physical properties more characteristic of nonmetals | • Majority form allotropes • Some of these (C, P, Se, I) have some physical properties more characteristic of metalloids or metals | |
YBG |
| ||
• around half form allotropes • a few of these (most prominently Sn, Bi) have some physical properties more characteristic of metalloids |
• all form allotropes • including some with physical properties more characteristic of nonmetals |
• over half form allotropes • four of these (C, P, Se, I) have some physical properties more characteristic of metalloids or metals | |
I think I've incorporated all of the suggestions, with some minor modifications. I'm very satisfied with the first bullets, but the 2nd one needs some work. First, let's clarify what the understood subject is of the 2nd bullet -- is it the elements, so we mean 'a few of these have allotropes with ...' or is it the allotropes, so we mean 'a few of these allotropes have ...'? The answer to that question influences quite a number of other things, e.g., whether the 1st bullet should say 'form allotropes' or 'have allotropes' and the 'most prominently' question. By the way, am I correct that Mn has only one allotropic form and that it is brittle? YBG (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
| |||
Sandbh | Revised form, more wordy Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
• around half form allotropes • a few of these allotropes (those of Sn, Bi, most notably) have some physical properties more characteristic of metalloids |
• all commonly recognised metalloids (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te) form allotropes • including some with physical properties more characteristic of nonmetals |
• over half form allotropes • one or two of each of the allotropes of C, P, Se, and iodine have some physical properties more characteristic of metalloids or metals | |
YBG | Added specific quantifier for 1st bullet; several options to make wording parallel for 2nd bullets.
| ||
• around half (??/??) form allotropes • a few (notably Sn, Bi) have allotropes physically more like metalloids • a few allotropes (notably of Sn, Bi) are physically more like metalloids • a few allotropes are physically more like metalloids (notably Sn, Bi) |
• all six (B,Si,Ge,As,Sb,Te) form allotropes • some (X,Y) have allotropes physically more like nonmetals • some allotropes (of X, Y) are physically more like nonmetals • some allotropes are physically more like nonmetals (X,Y) |
• over half (11/17) form allotropes • some (C,P,Se,I) have allotropes physically more like metalloids or metals • some allotropes (of C, P, Se, I) are physically more like metalloids or metals • some allotropes are physically more like metalloids or metals (C,P,Se,I) • some allotropes are physically more like metalloids (C,P,Se,I) or metals (P) | |
Sandbh | I don't want to add a specific quantifier to the first dot point. The jury is still out on whether a few metals have allotropes. As well, I want to retain some ambiguity at the margins re just which elements are metals or nonmetals, given there is no definitive "ruling" on this question. I've nuanced the "more like" phrase by saying some allotropes in each category have more ex categorical physical properties than others in the same category. Latest version is very parallel. Can it be made briefer while retaining accuracy? Sandbh (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
• around half form allotropes • a few of these (grey Sn, thin film Bi, most prominently) have more metalloidal or nonmetallic physical properties than others |
• all commonly recognised metalloids (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te) form allotropes • some of these (red B, yellow As, for example) have more nonmetallic physical properties than others |
• over half form allotropes • some of these (graphite, black P, grey Se, and I, most prominently) have more metalloidal or metallic physical properties than others | |
My thoughts:
YBG (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
(duplicated from above, ready to be modified for comparison purposes) so modified Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
• around half form allotropes • a few (e.g. grey Sn, thin-film Bi) are more metalloidal or nonmetallic than others |
• all or nearly all metalloids form allotropes • some (e.g. red B, yellow As) are more nonmetallic than others |
• over half form allotropes • some (e.g. graphite, black P, grey Se, and crystalline I) are more metalloidal or metallic than others | |
Looks good! I'll move it to the article. YBG (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Celebration time! Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Everything other than allotropy
- ✓ Appearance -- Metalloids have 'metallic lustre'. Is that different from 'characteristic lustre' that metals are said to have?
- I have changed metals and metalloids to 'lustrous' YBG (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- moved here to give allotropy its own section YBG (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- ✓ Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Enthalpy of fusion: Metalloids are 'often abnormally high compared to other close-packed metals'. What does the word 'other' mean in this context? That metalloids are metals? Somehow it doesn't seem quite right that metals 'may be high', metalloids 'often abnormally high' and metalloids are 'often low'. Is this weird progression correct?
- Will have to look this one up at the library. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The citation is to a transcript of a discussion so I gather the "other" was a conversational redundancy; that citation provided a citation to a journal paper, which confirmed the reference was to close-packed metals, not "other" close packed metals. I fixed it. It needs more work, but will do for now. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Which metals are 'close packed'? Is their enthalpy higher or lower than metals in general, of which we say "may be high"? Without this information, I'm having a hard time understanding what it means to say that metalloids' enthalpy is "often abnormally high compared to close packed metals". Looking at Heats of fusion of the elements (data page), it seems to mean that metalloids' enthalpy of fusion is "abnormally high even compared to metals". This is quite interesting -- often the metalloids are sort of half-way between metals and nonmetals, but in this case it seems that the relationship is metalloid > metal > nonmetal. YBG (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Metals with FCC, HCP, BCC or α-La are close-packed. You have the peculiar order about right, in terms of averages. Carbon is tricky because its enthalpy trumps the lot. For a nonmetal it's a real outlier. More to follow a bit later. Sandbh (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed this to be more explicit (will revisit citations when we are happy with contents of whole article). Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I made one minor tweak so that the wrap in nonmetal only occurs when absolutely necessary. I'm fine with the content, but if you really prefer to have the bullets, you can revert. And if the cites force it to two lines even on wide monitors, I'm fine even going back to the bullets with forced linebreaks, though a situation with bullets in only one column seems estheticly challenged. YBG (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is good. I think were done with this one, for now. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I made one minor tweak so that the wrap in nonmetal only occurs when absolutely necessary. I'm fine with the content, but if you really prefer to have the bullets, you can revert. And if the cites force it to two lines even on wide monitors, I'm fine even going back to the bullets with forced linebreaks, though a situation with bullets in only one column seems estheticly challenged. YBG (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed this to be more explicit (will revisit citations when we are happy with contents of whole article). Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Metals with FCC, HCP, BCC or α-La are close-packed. You have the peculiar order about right, in terms of averages. Carbon is tricky because its enthalpy trumps the lot. For a nonmetal it's a real outlier. More to follow a bit later. Sandbh (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Which metals are 'close packed'? Is their enthalpy higher or lower than metals in general, of which we say "may be high"? Without this information, I'm having a hard time understanding what it means to say that metalloids' enthalpy is "often abnormally high compared to close packed metals". Looking at Heats of fusion of the elements (data page), it seems to mean that metalloids' enthalpy of fusion is "abnormally high even compared to metals". This is quite interesting -- often the metalloids are sort of half-way between metals and nonmetals, but in this case it seems that the relationship is metalloid > metal > nonmetal. YBG (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- The citation is to a transcript of a discussion so I gather the "other" was a conversational redundancy; that citation provided a citation to a journal paper, which confirmed the reference was to close-packed metals, not "other" close packed metals. I fixed it. It needs more work, but will do for now. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Will have to look this one up at the library. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- ✓ YBG (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC) What is liquid electrical conductivity? Is it just the electrical conductivity of the liquid state? Seems like the values of this property should be high and low or maybe a measurement in mhos, but certainly 'metallic' and 'nonmetallic' aren't acceptable values for conductivity.
- Oh, it refers to electrical conductivity behaviour when liquid. When metals become liquid they continue to conduct electricity like metals i.e. conductivity falls gradually as temperature rises. Nonmetallic conductivity is the opposite: conductivity increases as temperature rises. There is a reference to this phenomenon in the metalloid article, here (second paragraph). Sandbh (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- ✓ Band structure: What does it mean to be 'metallic' or 'semimetallic' Isn't there a better description of this.
- Explanatory note attached. Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I'll see if I can incorporate it. Thanks so much for your help! YBG (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Explanatory note attached. Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
YBG (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ta, @Sandbh:. I've lost track of the number of times I've had my misspellings corrected, and I think it has always been you. (note to self: metallicity, metallic, metalloid, nonmetallic). YBG (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Band structure
I'd like to do some tweaking here before making changes in article space. Others are free to join in or wait until I settle on something.
Property | Metals | Metalloids | Nonmetals | |
---|---|---|---|---|
As of 06:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC) | ||||
As is | • mostly "metallic", with overlap between valence and conduction bands • Bi is "semimetallic", with slightly overlapping bands |
• generally "semiconductor" or "semimetallic" (As, Sb = semimetallic) | • mostly "semiconductor" or "insulator", with narrow or wide gap between valence and conduction bands • carbon, as graphite, is partly semimetallic | |
Note attached to 'Band structure' in first column:
| ||||
Here's my first attempt YBG (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC) | ||||
#1 | • overlappling valence, conduction bands • mostly wide overlap: metalic properties • slight overlap (Bi): semimetallic properties |
• slight overlap or slight gap • generally slight gap: semiconductor • slight overlap (As,Sb): semimetalic |
• gaps between valence, conduction bands • slight gap: semiconductor properties • wide gap: insulator properties • slight overlap (C as graphite): semimetallic | |
I'm generally happy with this, though I'd really like to leave the graphite exception unmentioned. YBG (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC) | ||||
#2 Same as above, ready for my next version in a few days, or for anyone else who wants to YBG (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC) #2a a few quick edits Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC) | ||||
#2 | • overlapping valence, conduction bands • substantial overlap: metallic properties • slight overlap (Bi): semimetallic properties |
• slight overlap or narrow gap • narrow gap: semiconductor • slight overlap (As,Sb): semimetallic |
• gaps between valence, conduction bands • narrow gap: semiconductor properties • wide gap: insulator properties • slight overlap (C as graphite): semimetallic | |
#3 copied from above YBG (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Then modified. Comments? YBG (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | ||||
#3 | overlapping valence, conduction bands • substantial: metallic properties • slight: semimetallic properties (e.g. Bi) |
slight overlap or narrow gap • narrow gap: semiconductor • slight overlap: semimetallic (e.g. As,Sb) |
gaps between valence, conduction bands • narrow: semiconductor properties • wide: insulator properties • slight overlap: semimetallic C (graphite) | |
| ||||
#4 copied from above YBG (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC) and modified YBG (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | ||||
Band structure | overlapping valence, conduction bands • substantial: metallic properties • slight: semimetallic properties (e.g. Bi) |
slight overlap or narrow gap • narrow gap: semiconductor • slight overlap: semimetallic (e.g. As,Sb) |
gaps between valence, conduction bands • narrow: semiconductor properties • wide: insulator properties • slight overlap: semimetallic C (graphite) | |
Some questions to consider
| ||||
#5 copied from above and modified Sandbh (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
| ||||
Band structure | • nearly all have substantially overlapping valence, conduction bands • in Bi, a semimetal, the bands overlap only slightly |
• majority have a narrow gap i.e. are semiconductors • some (As, Sb) are semimetals |
• most have wide gaps between valence, conduction bands i.e. are insulators • a few are semiconductors (black P, Se, I in the direction of its planes); C as graphite is a semimetal | |
#6: Merging ideas from Sandbh & YBG (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC) | ||||
Valence/conduction band structure |
• nearly all: substantial band overlap • one semimetal (slight overlap): Bi |
• mostly semiconductors (narrow gap) • some semimetals (slight overlap): As,Sb |
• mostly insulators (wide band gap) • a few semiconductors: black P, Se, I • one semimetal: C as graphite | |
I'm not completely satisfied with this, but its the best I can do right now.
| ||||
#7: Riffing on #6 Sandbh (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | ||||
Electronic structure (valence and conduction bands) | • nearly all have substantial overlap • Bi has slight band overlap (semimetal) |
• majority have narrow gap (semiconductors) • As, Sb are semimetals |
• most have wide gap (insulators) • C as graphite is a semimetal, black P, Se, I are semiconductors | |
#8: A few tweaks: (a) col1 'and'→coma (b) 'band' before overlap/gap (c) '=' when semimetal/semiconductor/insulator defined (d) nonmetal exceptions in 2 parallel bullets I think each of these is an improvement, but I'm not tied to any of them. YBG (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | ||||
Electronic structure: (valence, conduction bands) | • nearly all have substantial band overlap • Bi has slight band overlap (= semimetal) |
• most have narrow band gap (= semiconductors) • As, Sb are semimetals |
• most have wide band gap (= insulators) • C (graphite) is a semimetal • P (black), Se, I are semiconductors | |
This one is good to go! (I adjusted the spacing) Sandbh (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Anomalous properties
These bullet lists are getting longer and longer; it seems to me there has been some scope creep. Once you start getting into the details, I'm not sure where to stop. I think we should restrict these lists to a very few points. The other points are indeed notable and very interesting, but I don't think they belong in an overview article comparing the properties of the three major categories of elements. Maybe they could find a home in metal, metalloid or nonmetal?
Incidentally, I note that there are no comparable bullets for metalloids ... I suppose that is a reflection of the fact that in virtually every way, each and every metalloid can be viewed as anomalous. On purely stylistic and layout grounds, I would like to keep these three sections as parallel as possible. Any chance of an anomaly bullet or two for metalloids? Ideally, I'd like to see roughly comparable lists for all three categories, but that's probably too much.
YBG (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Any thoughts re my suggestions above? YBG (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, scope creep is something I'd thought of, including whether to put the notable properties bullet points into the separate articles on metals, metalloids or nonmetals. I was sort of put off of this idea by the metal article, given the way that currently reads, which is more of the general overview nature rather than being illustrative of the diversity and quirks that can be encountered amongst the metals. The properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals was originally a comparison article but I changed it to the current title to allow it to be more illustrative.
- I haven't done metalloids yet because finding interesting, sometimes overlooked properties is hard, and hard to express in interesting ways, and the ones for metals and nonmetals happened to be towards front of mind. I'll get to metalloids. I don't really think I'd mind where the novelty content ends up. At the moment this article looks like a good place, while we keep working on it. RL commitments mean I currently have less time for concentrated analysis, research, writing and editing runs. Sandbh (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. Although I think the eventual home for these details should be someplace else, I'm quite happy that they are being gathered sooner rather than later. YBG (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I decided to BB and gathered all of the anomalies together. Then by judicious paragraph breaks, I made the structure obvious enough to eliminate the Format of descriptions section as it seemed pretty obvious. I was also able to distribute the Subcategories section into each of the three sections. Overall, I think it is an improvement, but I'm more than willing to BRD it.
- In the process, I discovered a nice little nugget hidden in the middle: Transition metals are the quintessential metals, and diatomic nonmetals are the quintessential nonmetals. Not particularly significant from the perspective of chemistry or physics, but quite interesting taxonomically. YBG (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- A glorious, breathtaking edit. 11/10. More to follow (puff, puff, struggling to keep with this, the Australian Open, the Asian Cup, and the Queensland state election, and astatine). Sandbh (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- In the process, I discovered a nice little nugget hidden in the middle: Transition metals are the quintessential metals, and diatomic nonmetals are the quintessential nonmetals. Not particularly significant from the perspective of chemistry or physics, but quite interesting taxonomically. YBG (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Initially I really liked having parallel metal/metalloid/nonmetal headings under both the Shared properties and Unique or notable properties. Then I edited one of the unique properties sub-sections and when I saved, the editor returned me to the corresponding sub-section of the Shared properties. Oops. Not a big deal, but it is a minor inconvenience that inclines me to think about whether these headers could be made slightly different somehow or other. YBG (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've made these sections Notable metals, Notable metalloids, and Notable nonmetals. Should have done this before I started tweaking the content to avoid scrolling down after saving. YBG (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to go back to the parallel metal/metalloid/nonmetal headings. Reasons: 1. I like parallelism better. 2. To see how the editing error you mentioned works; each section/subsection has its own unique html/wiki address, so I'm not sure how this error works. 3. Errors in the way the code works, which happen below the level of what the general reader sees, shouldn't trump the structure and presentation of article content. Sandbh (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Yea, I like parallelism also (3) Yea, editors' convenience should never trump what's best for readers. With regard to (2), it is true that Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals#Metals, ...#Metalloids and ...#Nonmetals point to §1.1, §1.2, and §1.3; and ...#Metals_2, ...#Metalloids_2, and ...#Nonmetals_2 point to §3.1, §3.2, and §3.3. However, apparently the editor isn't smart enough and it starts the edit summary for §3.1 with /* Metals */ instead of /* Metals_2 */. Some wikimedia programmer should be able to fix that, but as you say, that certainly shouldn't drive how we organize our article. YBG (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree with the rest of your edit, I still prefer 'notable' to 'anomalous'. YBG (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- But having now read your edit summary, I'm inclined to agree with 'anomalous'. YBG (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree with the rest of your edit, I still prefer 'notable' to 'anomalous'. YBG (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Yea, I like parallelism also (3) Yea, editors' convenience should never trump what's best for readers. With regard to (2), it is true that Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals#Metals, ...#Metalloids and ...#Nonmetals point to §1.1, §1.2, and §1.3; and ...#Metals_2, ...#Metalloids_2, and ...#Nonmetals_2 point to §3.1, §3.2, and §3.3. However, apparently the editor isn't smart enough and it starts the edit summary for §3.1 with /* Metals */ instead of /* Metals_2 */. Some wikimedia programmer should be able to fix that, but as you say, that certainly shouldn't drive how we organize our article. YBG (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to go back to the parallel metal/metalloid/nonmetal headings. Reasons: 1. I like parallelism better. 2. To see how the editing error you mentioned works; each section/subsection has its own unique html/wiki address, so I'm not sure how this error works. 3. Errors in the way the code works, which happen below the level of what the general reader sees, shouldn't trump the structure and presentation of article content. Sandbh (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've made these sections Notable metals, Notable metalloids, and Notable nonmetals. Should have done this before I started tweaking the content to avoid scrolling down after saving. YBG (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Another idea I have is that the bullets in the unique section be reworded so that the name of the element is always the first thing in the bullet and put in bold face. I think this would overall be a good improvement. There are a couple of stick wickets. First, for allotropes -- do we say "Black phosphorus" or "Phosphorus (in its black form)"? And second, when the bullet includes multiple elements, how to deal with that, especially when they come in two or three classes, as the magnetism bullet. YBG (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I like this one a lot. Made a start. Feel free to tinker. Sandbh (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've tweaked a few more. Still not satisfied with all of them -- I'll make a list later. YBG (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Here's my list
Done - Iron, cobalt, and nickel: Gadolinium & dysprosium are also mentioned, but not at the beginning.
Done - Boron, antimony: Seems to be primarily about strong acids, these elements are only mentioned in passing toward the end.
Done - Hydrogen: Begins with element name as a fragment isolated from the first sentence.
Done - Helium: Begins with element name as a fragment isolated from the first sentence.
Done - Phosphorus: Begins with element name as a fragment isolated from the first sentence.
- YBG (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- All done I believe Sandbh (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I like this one a lot. Made a start. Feel free to tinker. Sandbh (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Initially I really liked having parallel metal/metalloid/nonmetal headings under both the Shared properties and Unique or notable properties. Then I edited one of the unique properties sub-sections and when I saved, the editor returned me to the corresponding sub-section of the Shared properties. Oops. Not a big deal, but it is a minor inconvenience that inclines me to think about whether these headers could be made slightly different somehow or other. YBG (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Noble gases - need more exception notes in table
I see that the exceptional properties of the properies of the noble gases are not covered in the section. Looking at the table I think something has to be added to prevent the speed reader grabbing a quick impression that say solid argon has low coordination number, readily forms anions, may form interstitials, forms hydrides etc etc. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Table shows bad in mobile view
About the table in #Comparison_of_properties (with the three bg colors). This table does not show well in mobile view: [1] (column widths are gone, no vertical alignment any more). The other tables below are OK. So I think the bad one needs to copy their structure? (Maybe later I can look at this). -DePiep (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is indeed very ugly. A quick glance at help:table doesn't seem to help. YBG (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are two things going on, both having to do with sub-tables contained within a table cell. (1) Extra padding is added above and below the sub-table, making rows in the main table to be taller than intended. (2) The sub-table does not comply with the width=100% property intended to make it stretch to consume all of the horizontal space available in the containing cell in the main table.
- Note that both problems are also visible in the large table below -- but they only affect the white category rows Presentation and structure and so forth. These rows use a containing table to allow the (top) link to be right justified. I can modify the wikimarkup to avoid using a sub-table in this case, but this is not possible in the main table.
- YBG (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed the mini-table now so it displays OK in mobile view. Basically, I abandoned using the sub-tables and width parameters and instead broke the colorbar portion of the table up into 100 columns and used
|colspan=n
in place of|width=n%
. To make it all work OK, I had to include a blank row where all 100+ columns have in them. The extra white space at the bottom just looks like a slightly too large margin around the table, which I don't think is too high a price to pay at all. And a side benefit, there are fewer lines in the table and the wikitext is a bit slimmed down. The net effect was an increase of 583 bytes, which isn't too bad considering the row of nbsp's added well over 700 bytes and I added quite a number of blanks to make things line up nicely in edit mode. YBG (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed the mini-table now so it displays OK in mobile view. Basically, I abandoned using the sub-tables and width parameters and instead broke the colorbar portion of the table up into 100 columns and used
Looking at the big picture
Here's a list of things I'd like to see fixed:
Final status: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
I've marked some of these
|
More about the comparison tables
Some things about the tables. The issue with uneven columns is pronounced on my ipad; if I switch to mobile view this becomes worse, since the middle column header rows become mangled. I also see that our current collapsed tables are in breach of MOS:COLLAPSE since they conceal article content. Upon further reflection I prefer uncollapsed tables. If this means we need to look again at the content and positioning of accompanying explanatory and analytical paragraphs so be it; there does not need to be a paragraph after the tables (as I originally preferred). Happy if we keep the three sub-groupings for each of the sets of physical and chemical properties. This may require some reconsideration as to how we incorporate the sub-groupings into each table. Sandbh (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Another read thru
Final status: ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
I read thru the whole article -- except for the comparison table and made a number of copy edits. Here are a few things I wasn't able to immediately fix:
This is still in the process of improvement, but I think it now seems to belong in the chemistry section. YBG (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(Original list) YBG (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
Yet another read through
Final status: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||
(spelled correctly this time) Another reading yielded a bunch of minor changes and the following items to think about:
Top
Comparison of properties
Anomalous properties
End matter
That's it for now. I haven't re-read the anomalous properties. Feel free to comment on these or add your own. YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC) |
Consolidating open items
These ideas are
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The 'Half done' are: (a) missing refs in lede, (b) missing noble gas exceptions in comparison table, and (c) missing refs in anomalies All are mentioned adequately in other 'to do' lists: (a) and (c) with the {{cn}} in the article; (b) below in § Noble gases - need more exception notes in table | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collecting what hasn't been dealt with above:
It's mostly been me interacting with myself, so if there are any disagreements with final disposition of anything above, add a new item here to re-initiate the discussion. YBG (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC) §§ Top, Shared properties, Metals, Metalloids, and Nonmetals
§§ Anomalous properties, Metals 2, Metalloids 2, and Nonmetals 2
§§ Notes, Citations, and References |
Cite error: There are <ref group=n>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}}
template (see the help page).