Talk:Lists of metalloids/Archive 1

Reorder columns in the big table?
Today added the #Overview section in top, with the table of citations. Just now ordered that table from alphabetical, by element name to # of citations. Now the colors make more sense (as an overview), IMO they are more self-explanatory this way.

Wouldn't it be better if we changed the big table too, in this way? That is, order the elements left-to-right by number of citations. (So the green ones are in the left &tc.). -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you DePiep; I think this would be worth trying. Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can be done, but not when we do the source check, changing the numbers (see next topic). -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Better because the holes stand out as you go from left to right. It's wilderness out thar in the east.Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK this then. Also the meaning of the colors, to me at least, are more obvious at first glance. Indeed one even sees the mentionings deminishing. (todo: make the years sort more accurate, by order of sources).-DePiep (talk)

Row shading
Originally the shading of the list rows alternated by decade. Now the shading appears to alternate back and forward down the rows. Does this add value? Is one better than the other? Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I made it this way on purpose. The "shade is per decade" was not clear, I myself got it when researched it. And I understood it is not a source-related division (the decade does not signify the publication). The per row alternating color visually helps the reader following a row, especially since this table is wide. I took the idea and the light greys from navbox. -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I also turned the four colors a notch lighter. I like background colors to be windows, not closed doors. See the template documentation. -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wandering authors
When I sort the list by author(s), I see that some authors have published more than once. And, interestingly, not always the same list. Or: a list twice in one year. Example 1:
 * Saunders[151] 	2007
 * Saunders[152] 	2007

Example 2:
 * Williams, Embree & DeBey[24] 	1968
 * Williams, Embree & DeBay[32] 	1970

Example 3:
 * Pauling & Pauling[51] 	1975
 * Pauling[2] 	1949


 * Maybe the base list needs a check somehow? (even Linus ;-) ?! ).
 * Also, there could be new sources since 2011.

I propose we take a lot of time (months) to edit. When everyone has been there, we can do the math again once. And while we are here, please consider using cite book templates. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No concerns on my part. 151 and 152 are different titles. 24 and 32 are different titles, different years, and different lists—authors sometimes change their minds. 2 and 51 are different titles and different authors (although one is the same), and different years. I would check 24 and 32, just to make sure the same set of authors did add Be to their list, compared to their 1968 list. Personally, I haven't done anything on new lists since 2011 apart from checking to see if there's been emerging trend of anything different happening; I haven't noticed anything like that.Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * These three are just examples, one should look at the list. And [151] and [152] have different titles, but are they different publications? Doesn't look convincing. -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol. These are 151, 152 by Saunders:
 * Saunders 2007: Saunders N 2007, Exploring atoms and molecules, The Rosen Publishing Group, New York, p. 9 ||B|| || ||Si|| || ||Ge||As|||| ||Sb||Te|| || ||Po||At|| || ||8
 * Saunders 2007: Saunders N 2007, Exploring chemical reactions, The Rosen Publishing Group, New York, p. ||B|| || ||Si|| || ||Ge||As|||| ||Sb||Te|| || ||Po||At|| || ||8
 * So, yes the titles are different. And both publication are on the very same page. -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is a coincidence as they are different publications from what I can see. Sandbh (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Took another look at the two Saunders titles: Both appear to be teaching material (so maybe both are not even sources of research at all; Saunders has used other sources themselves we can guess). But still: are they independent'conclusions for the metalloid list? I am not convinced. The same conclusion appears under two different titles in the same year. If Saunders hadd published a third totile, woud that cound as another source too? I don't think so. (Compared with other repeating authors in this list: years between publications and different coauthors might very well result in different arguments+conclusions). -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Exploring-atoms-and-molecules
 * Exploring-Chemical-Reactions
 * They're both teaching books. There are very few sources of research on the question of which elements are metalloids. Even those sources rely on author judgement as to which elements they count as metalloids since the concept of a metalloid is like trying to mark off where the colour gray is on a continuum of near black through near white. Everybody has to do the same thing---make a judgement as to which elements to count as metalloids. The list of metalloid lists is a semi-random sample of sources. "Semi-" in that I tried to avoid successive editions of the same work by the same author in order to capture more opinions. I don't think it matters if there are a few overlapping titles/authors. Sandbh (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple, my bottom line is that I won't go against your conclusion (I won't change the list). Still I do find it illustrating, for myself at least, to have look at dependency/independency between publications. Just as interesting is that a same author in a different year/publication/coauthorship can conclude a different set of metalloids. Science at work. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Average list size
The average number of elements identified as metalloids is missing. The article says that the frequency row shows counts as percentages, and that, "The end of this row shows the average number of elements per metalloid list." (And that, "Just above that cell is the total number of metalloid lists.") Sandbh (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done; added a sentence about this after the table. Sandbh (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I re-added this to the table, with abbr note (could have taken care earlier). I like the current textual form (no pointing into the table). -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Helmenstein
We all value Helmenstein's work, but since when can she arbitrarily determine what the definition of metalloid is? She, the encyclopedia, and other dubious sources should be removed. --Acewolf359 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Another datapoint
This chart shows when a given author includes a given element in a list of metalloids. Bu what about when one of these elements is not listed as a metalloid, then what? Is polonium universally considered a metal by those who do not classify it as a metalloid? Or do some consider it a nonmetal? And is tellurium universally considered a nonmetal by those who do not classify it as a metalloid? This would be an interesting addition to this article. YBG (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In general I would say that when any of the following are not listed as metalloids then they would be classified as shown, B nonmetal; Si nonmetal; Ge metal; As 50/50 metal/nonmetal; Sb metal; Te nonmetal; Po metal; At nonmetal. Sandbh (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I could see Po being called a nonmetal for its chalcogen-like behaviour; I could also see Ge given that. OTOH you will also find isolated mentions of At as a metal. But in general, Sandbh's list accords pretty well with what I vaguely remember seeing on average. Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What I intended when I started this thread is to suggest that for each source, we should not only indicate which elements are on their metalloid list, but also which ones (of those listed) are on their metal and nonmetal list, or whether the given source does not explicitly list metals and nonmetals. If an author has a solid diagonal of metalloids, perhaps it can be inferred that everything to the NE is a nonmetal and everything to the SW is a metal? But what I really would like to see is a (M) or (NM) in each cell that is currently blank, and then, in addition to the "Citations" row which shows the number of authors who call each element a metalloid, additional rows that show the similar data for metal citations and for nonmetal citations. YBG (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I rather strongly suspect the end result will be as I outlined above but I can do a sample check post wiki-pause. Sandbh (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, most likely. But I think it would be good to actually be able to make a positive statement. YBG (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the list
Please add the details here. I'll periodically transfer them to the main list at the same time as updating the citation and frequency counts, and the appearance frequency clusters. Citations for the 1940s or earlier would be a bonus, as would some more for 2011, and especially 2012 onwards. Sandbh (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

1863 As, Sb, Te, W, Bi
 * Ripley G & Dana CA (eds) 1863, The New American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, Vol. XI, MacGillivray–Moxa, D. Appleton and Company, New York, p. 405: "Tellurium, arsenic, antimony, and tungsten (to which group bismuth has recently been added) may be considered half metals, marking the transition between the two great classes of simple bodies."

1928 B, Si, Ge, As, Sb
 * Riesenfeld EH(?) 1928 Practical inorganic chemistry, 2nd ed., EH Riesenfeld Labor, Barcelona

1936 As, Sb, Ge, Te
 * Morgan GT & Burstall FH 1936, Inorganic chemistry: A survey of modern developments, W Heffer & Sons, Cambridge, p. 18

1973 Be, B, Al, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po
 * Embree HD & De Bey HJ 1973, Introduction to the chemistry of life, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA

1981 B, C, Si, P, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Bi Po
 * Luchinskii GP & Trifonov DN 1981, "Some problems of chemical elements classification and the structure of the periodic system," in Uchenie o periodichnosti. Istoriya i sovremennoct’. Nauka, Moscow. pp. 200–220 (205) (in Russian)

1984 B, Si, Ge, Sb, Te, Po
 * Kitaigorodsky AI 1984, Mixed Crystals, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-642-81674-1, p. 142

1999 B, Al, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po
 * McGlynn et al. (eds) 1999, Scientific American Science desk reference, John Wiley & Sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-35675-1, p. 67

2008 Al, Si, Ge, As, Se, Sb, Te, I, At
 * Boeyens JCA 2008, The periodic electronegativity table, Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung B , vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 199–209

B, C, Al, Si, Ge
 * Cardarelli F 2008, Materials handbook: A concise desktop reference, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, London, ISBN 978-1-84628-668-1, p. 1181

B, Si, Ge, As, Se, Sb, Te, Bi, [Po]
 * Daintith J (ed.), A dictionary of chemistry, 6th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford

2009 Si, Ge, Sb, Bi
 * Barke H-D, Hazari A, Yitbarek S 2009, Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 111

B, C, Si, P, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po, At
 * Bullinger H (ed.) 2009, Technology guide: Principles, applications, trends, Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, ISBN 978-3-540-88545-0, p. 8

2011

B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po, At, Lv, Ts
 * Chang R & Overby J 2011, General chemistry: The essential concepts, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, ISBN 978–0–07–337563–2, p. 38

Ge, Sb, Po
 * Reid D, Groves G, Price C & Tennant I 2011, Science for the New Zealand curriculum Year 11, Cambridge University, Cambridge, ISBN 978-0-521-18618-6, p. 306

2012 B, Si, Ge, As, [Se], Sb, Te, [Bi], Po
 * Cobb HM 2012, Dictionary of Metals, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, ISBN 9781615039784, p. 145

B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, I, At
 * Engel T 2013, Quantum chemistry & spectroscopy, Pearson Education, Boston, inside back cover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.87.150 (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po
 * Spellman FR & Stoudt ML 2013, Environmental science: Principles and practices, Scarecrow Press, Plymouth, ISBN 978-0-8108-8610-0, p. 98

B, Si, Ge, As, Se, Sb, Te, [Po]
 * Walker JD, Enache M & Newman MC 2013, Fundamental QSARS for metal ions, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, ISBN 978-1-4200-8433-7, p. 24

2014 Al, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te
 * Crowe J & Bradshaw T 2014, Chemistry for the biosciences: An applied approach, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, ISBN 978-0-19-966288-3, p. 50

2016 B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po, At
 * Oxtoby D, Gillis H & Butler L 2016, Principles of Modern Chemistry, 8th ed., Cengage Learning, Boston, ISBN 978-1-305-07911-3, p. p. 61
 * Thomas C 2016, Introduction to process technology, 4th ed., Cengage Learning, Boston, ISBN 978-1-305-25147-2, p. 414

Tally @ Z = 21

 * Front runners, 70−95%: B (15); Si (18); Ge (20); As (17); Sb (20); Te (17)
 * The B-team, 20−50%: Al (5); Bi (4½); Po (11); At (5)
 * On the bench, 5−20%: Be (1); C (3); P (2); Se (3½); I(2); W (1); Lv (1); Ts (1)

1981 B, C, Si, P, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Bi, Po
 * Luchinskii GP, Trifonov DN: Some problems of chemical elements classification and the structure of the periodic system. In: Uchenie o periodichnosti. Istoriya i sovremennoct. Nauka, Moscow pp 200–220 (1981) (in Russian) Sandbh (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

2001 Ge, As, Se, Sb, Te, Bi, Po
 * Chapman C, Musker R, Nicholson D & Sheehan M 2011, Eureka!: Success in Science, 3R Heinemann, Oxford, p. 46

2012 B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po, At
 * Jeseperson ND, Brady GE & Hyslop A 2010, The molecular nature of matter, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, p. 75

2020 B, Al, Ga, In, Si, Ge, Sb, Bi
 * Takaya J 2020, "Catalysis of transition metal complexes featuring main group metal and metalloid compounds as supporting ligands", RSC Chemical Science, accepted manuscript, https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/sc/d0sc04238b#!divAbstract

--- Sandbh (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Duplications
Without re-doing the discussion (done above), I maintain that the two Saunders 2007 publications [151] and [152] appear to be two from a single source. So one could be discarded. The fact that their publication's titles differ is not enough. -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I maintain that Saunders [151], [152] are the same by time, author and presumption. They could be different, but for that conclusion we must actually read and analyse the sources. For now, they are just a different publication. See also sections above. I will not re-discuss this, that is why sources are called 'source'. -DePiep (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

COSMIC
COSMIC = Census Of Semimetals and Metalloids In Chemistry.

That is how I formally refer to the list. Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)