![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
I finally believe I've nailed this, not for posting to Wikipedia, but to go into a journal:
Noble gases He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn |
|||||
Active metals Groups 1–3, Ln, An, (Al) |
Corrosive nonmetals O, F, Cl, Br, I | ||||
Transition metals Most of groups 4–11 |
Related nonmetals H, C, N, P, S, Se | ||||
Frontier metals (Al), Ga, Bi etc |
Metalloids B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te | ||||
Noble metals Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Os, Ir, Pt, Au |
The category name related nonmetals is analogous to older references to the transition metals as related metals, for example:
This category name also refers to the fact the related nonmetals tend to form covalent bonds with metals. Here the word "related" is associated to "covalent", as follows: covalent→shared→related.
The related nonmetals are related by, among other things, the H-C-P-N-S-Se thread.
It's a pleasing coincidence that the transition metals line up with the related nonmetals.
I'm eschewing the term post-transition metal so as to not have to deal with the question of Al, or perhaps I should move it into the active metals category?
Praise be that all category names are relatively short.
The balanced 6-6-5-6 distribution of the nonmetals is pleasing.
-- Sandbh ( talk) 12:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
This chart has blue and red bars spanning the lowest and highest electronegativity values for each of the eight classes of elements.
There seems to be two kinds of bifold symmetry:
Do I have this right? It wasn't something I was expecting. Sandbh ( talk) 12:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
From the 2.2 baseline, the noble metals and metalloids seem to be inversions relative to each other, and then the frontier metals versus the noble gases, if we just go by ranges over electronegativity.
1. Comparing the noble metals with the metalloids:
The noble metals begin to show some surprising nonmetallic behaviour e.g. Au sometimes behaves as if it were a halogen, and both Au and Pt are known to form anions e.g. in CsAu, and the Ba platinides (Ba2Pt and BaPt).
The metalloids, while they are chemically weak nonmetals, show the most metallic character among the nonmetals. For example, on the analogy between B and metals, Greenwood (2001, p. 2057) commented that:
The extent to which metallic elements mimic boron (in having fewer electrons than orbitals available for bonding) has been a fruitful cohering concept in the development of metalloborane chemistry…Indeed, metals have been referred to as "honorary boron atoms" or even as "flexiboron atoms. The converse of this relationship is clearly also valid…
Sb and even Ge are sometimes referred to as metals.
2. For the frontier metals and the noble gases:
The heavier (period 6) frontier metals border on nobility:
Because of the increase of nuclear charge across each of the transition series, the B metals are distinguished from the early A metals by their much weaker tendency to form ions or to form compounds with the non-metals…This feature is particularly marked in the final row of B metals, Au, Hg, Tl, Pb, Bi, and Po…where the nuclear charge has been built up across the lanthanide as well as the third transition series. In some respects these elements might almost be classed as super-B or C metals. (Phillips and Williams 1966, p. 459)
The noble gases become more metallic going down the group, so much so that Rn begins to some cationic behaviour (cf At).
Sandbh ( talk) 01:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
In {{ Periodic table (group names)}} (article Group (periodic table)), I have added footnote "n/a" because somewhere we better mention this PT habit. That blank group number looks strange to outsiders. - DePiep ( talk) 22:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
At the moment, we maintain the oxidation states in two places:
Unfortunately, the /datacheck shows that the two listings are not similar. Some 18 elements differ re non-zero valences, some 32 differ wrt mentioning a 0 valence, and half a dozen differ wrt bolding i.e. main/nonmain valence. The remaining 118−66 = ~52 elements are OK (= have same valence listing, though sources present may differ). I note that the List is meticulously maintained by Burzuchius, providing many to-the-point sources.
It would be good if we synchronise the lists. These are the pages:
Category:Isotope content page, which you was recently created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the
categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at
the category's entry on the
categories for discussion page. Thank you.
It is a category I created today to organise our isotope articles (for example, mainspace page Plutonium-243 is redirect or content?). - DePiep ( talk) 22:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute concerning the display of the name of elements/isotopes in {{ Infobox isotope}}/{{ Infobox element}}. Please comment at Template talk:Infobox isotope#Infobox title typograpy. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
About these Category:Isotope content page (65) pages, their first sentence.
I propose to make the opening starting with this pattern:
That is: list these three id's, in this format (brackets, bolding, punctuation). Linking to basic technetium can & should be done elsewhere in the sentence, good reading prevailing. (Though "... is an isotope of technetium" is a nice default candidate).
Comments? - DePiep ( talk) 21:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I conclude that writing "Tc-99", as an id-pattern, is OK in the first sentence (because it defines the isotope, unambiguously, and it is used in RL). Whether (en)wiki should use it in article body text (instead of other id's) I doubt but that is not the issue here. -
DePiep (
talk) 00:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)